Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Edited by
Richard Patterson, Vassilis Karasmanis,
and Arnold Hermann
1-888-PARMENIDES
www.parmenides.com
Table of Contents
Forewordix
Richard Patterson
Preface: Thoughts for Delphi xiii
Charles Kahn
Charles Kahn: A Chronological Bibliography xix
I. The Presocratics
1. Heraclitus on the Sun 3
Enrique Hülsz Piccone
2. “The Light of Day by Night”: nukti phaos,
Said of the Moon in Parmenides B14 25
Alexander P. D. Mourelatos
3. Empedocles at Panopolis and Delphi 59
Diskin Clay
4. The Cosmogonic Moment in the Derveni Papyrus 79
Richard McKirahan
5. Will the Real Critias Please Stand Up? 111
John M. Dillon
6. Aristoxenus’ Account of Pythagoras 125
Carl A. Huffman
— ix —
Richard Patterson
—x—
Foreword
— xi —
Richard Patterson
— xii —
Preface:
Thoughts for Delphi
Charles Kahn
I want to take this occasion to share with you some thoughts on
how I came to Greek philosophy. But first a word on how happy I
am that we are meeting in Delphi. I first came to Delphi in 1951,
exactly 58 years ago this month (June 2009). It was a much simpler
place, in a simpler world. But the setting is still the same, the most
magnificent setting I know, both natural and supernatural.
I came to Greek philosophy much earlier. In high school I read
Breasted’s History of the Ancient World and Will Durant’s The Story
of Philosophy. So when I came to the University of Chicago at the age
of 16 I was ready to take on the Classics, which we read of course
in translation. My teacher was David Grene, the translator himself,
and I soon realized that I would have to learn Greek in order to
be able to argue with him about interpreting a text. Grene was by
nature dramatic, an amateur of the old Abbey Theater in Dublin.
He made Sophocles and Shakespeare come alive. He also warned
me that although Plato was a wonderful writer, his later dialogues
were not so much fun.
I was a graduate student in the Committee on Social Thought,
but before the days of Leo Strauss. My philosophy tutor was a French
Thomist, Yves Simon. I did not share his enthusiasm for Thomas
Aquinas, but I did learn from him to take philosophical issues and
arguments very seriously. Simon thought I should be trained both
in systematic philosophy and in history. For systematic philosophy I
was to begin with logic, that is, with Aristotle’s Organon. That was a
bit strange: I was reading Aristotle’s Categories and De Interpretatione
while Rudolph Carnap was teaching logic at the same time in the
same university. (Simon did not send me to Carnap.) For history
— xiii —
Charles Kahn
— xiv —
Preface: Thoughts for Delphi
— xv —
Charles Kahn
— xvi —
Preface: Thoughts for Delphi
— xvii —
Charles Kahn
— xviii —
Charles Kahn:
A Chronological Bibliography
1958
“Anaximander and the Arguments Concerning the Apeiron at Physics 203b4–15.”
In Festschrift Ernst Kapp: zum 70. Geburtstag am 21. Januar 1958 von Freunden
und Schülern überreicht, edited by Hans Diller, 19–29. Hamburg: Marion von
Schröder Verlag, 1958.
1960
Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology. New York: Columbia University
Press, 1960. Translation into Modern Greek, 1982. Reprinted by Hackett, 1994.
“Religion and Natural Philosophy in Empedocles’ Doctrine of the Soul.” Archiv
für Geschichte der Philosophie 42 (1960): 3–35. Reprinted in Essays in Ancient
Greek Philosophy, edited by John P. Anton, 3–38. Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press, 1971. Reprinted also in The Pre-Socratics: Critical Essays, edited
by Alexander P. D. Mourelatos, 426–456. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press, 1974.
1961
Review of Plato’s Cretan City, by G. R. Morrow. Journal of the History of Ideas
22 (1961): 418–424.
1963
“Plato’s Funeral Oration: The Motive of the Menexenus.” Classical Philology 58
(1963): 220–234.
1964
“A New Look at Heraclitus.” American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 1, no. 3
(1964): 189–203. Bobbs-Merrill reprint, 1964.
1966
“Sensation and Consciousness in Aristotle’s Psychology.” Archiv für Geschichte
der Philosophie 48 (1966): 41–81. Reprinted in Articles on Aristotle, Vol. 4:
— xix —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
1967
Articles “Anaximander” and “Empedocles” in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
edited by Paul Edwards. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company & The
Free Press, 1967.
1968
“The Greek Verb ‘to be’ and the Concept of Being.” Foundations of Language 2
(1966): 245–265. Bobbs-Merrill reprint, 1968.
Review of Parmenides. A text with translation, commentary, and critical essays, by
Leonardo Tarán. Gnomon, 40 (1968): 123–133.
Review of Plato’s Progress, by Gilbert Ryle. Journal of Philosophy 45 (1968):
364–375.
1969
“Stoic Logic and Stoic Logos.” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 51 (1969):
158–172.
Review of Empédocle, by Jean Bollack. Gnomon 41 (1969): 439–447.
“The Thesis of Parmenides.” Review of Metaphysics 22 (June, 1969): 700–724.
“More on Parmenides. A Response to Stein and Mourelatos.” Review of Metaphysics
23 (December, 1969): 333–340.
1970
“On Early Greek Astronomy.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 90 (1970): 99–116.
Review of Die Offenbarung des Parmenides, by J. Mansfeld. Gnomon 52 (1970):
113–119.
1972
“The Terminology for Copula and Existence.” In Islamic Philosophy and the
Classical Tradition: Essays presented by his friends and pupils to Richard Walzer on
his seventieth birthday, 141–158. London: Luzac (for Cassirer, Oxford), 1973.
“The Meaning of ‘Justice’ and the Theory of Forms.” Journal of Philosophy 49
(1972): 567–579.
1973
The Verb “Be” in Ancient Greek. Foundations of Language, Supplementary Series,
Vol. 16, edited by J. W. M. Verhaar: Philosophical and Grammatical Studies,
Part 6: The Verb “Be” and its Synonyms. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1973. Reprinted with
a new introductory essay by Hackett, 2003.
— xx —
Charles Kahn: A Chronological Bibliography
“On the Theory of the Verb ‘To Be’.” In Logic and Ontology, edited by Milton
K. Munitz, 1–20. New York: New York University Press, 1973.
“Pre-Platonic Conceptions of Human Nature.” Dictionary of the History of Ideas,
edited by Philip P. Wiener. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1973.
“Language and Ontology in the Cratylus.” In Exegesis and Argument: Studies in
Greek Philosophy presented to Gregory Vlastos. Phronesis Supplement Volume I,
edited by E. N. Lee, Alexander P. D. Mourelatos, and R. M. Rorty, 152–176.
Assen: Van Gorcum, 1973.
Review of Kleine Schriften, by F. Solmsen. Gnomon 45 (1973): 737–745.
1974
“Pythagorean Philosophy before Plato.” In The Pre-Socratics: Critical Essays, edited
by Alexander P. D. Mourelatos, 161–185. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press, 1974.
1975
Review of Hyle: Studien zum Aristotelischen Materie-Begriff, by H. Happ. Gnomon
47 (1975): 645–652.
1976
“Plato on the Unity of the Virtues.” In Facets of Plato’s Philosophy. Phronesis
Supplement Volume II, edited by W. H. Werkmeister, 21–39. Assen: Van Gorcum,
1976.
“Why Existence does not emerge as a distinct concept in Greek philosophy.”
Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 58 (1976): 323–334.
1978
“Linguistic Relativism and the Greek Project of Ontology.” In The Question
of Being, edited by Mervyn Sprung, 31–44. University Park and London:
Pennsylvania State University Press, 1978. Also published in Neue Hefte für
Philosophie (Göttingen) 15–16 (1978): 20–33.
1979
The Art and Thought of Heraclitus: An edition of the fragments with translation and
commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Paperback, 1981.
“Questions and Categories: Aristotle’s doctrine of categories in the light of modern
research.” In Questions, edited by H. Hiz, 227–278. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1978.
1981
“The Role of Nous in the Cognition of First Principles in Posterior Analytics
II.19.” In Aristotle on Science: The “Posterior Analytics,” edited by Enrico Berti,
385–414. Padova, Italy: Editrice Antenore, 1981. Italian translation published in
— xxi —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
1983
“Arius as a Doxographer.” In On Stoic and Peripatetic Ethics: the Work of Arius
Didymus, edited by W. Fortenbaugh, 3–13. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Books, 1983.
“Philosophy and the Written Word: Some thoughts on Heraclitus and the early
Greek uses of prose.” In Language and Thought in Early Greek Philosophy, edited
by Kevin Robb, 110–124. Monist Library of Philosophy, 1983.
“Drama and Dialectic in Plato’s Gorgias.” In Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy
1, edited by Julia Annas, 75–121. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983.
1984
“Democritus and the Origins of Moral Psychology.” American Journal of Philosophy
106 (1985): 1–31. An earlier, shorter version appeared in Proceedings of the 1st
International Congress on Democritus, published in Xanthi, Greece, 1984.
1985
“On the Intended Interpretation of Aristotle’s Metaphysics.” In Aristoteles, Werk
und Wirkung, Paul Moraux gewidmet, Vol. I, edited by J. Wiesner, 311–338.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co, 1985.
“The Beautiful and the Genuine: a discussion of Paul Woodruff, Plato Hippias
Major.” In Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 3, edited by Julia Annas, 261–287.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.
— xxii —
Charles Kahn: A Chronological Bibliography
“Plato and Heraclitus.” In The Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.
I, edited by John J. Cleary, 241–258. Lanham: University Press of America, 1985.
“The Place of the Prime Mover in Aristotle’s Teleology.” In Aristotle on Nature
and Living Things: Philosophical and Historical Studies Presented to David M.
Balme on His Seventieth Birthday, edited by A. Gotthelf, 183–205. Pittsburgh
& Bristol: Mathesis Publications, 1985.
1986
“Retrospect on the Verb ‘to be’ and the Concept of Being.” In The Logic of Being,
edited by S. Knuutila and J. Hintikka, 1–28. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1986.
“Plato’s Methodology in the Laches.” Revue Internationale de Philosophie 40
(1986): 7–21.
1987
“Plato’s Theory of Desire.” Review of Metaphysics 41.1 (1987): 77–103.
“Les mots et les formes dans le Cratyle de Platon.” In Cahiers de Philosophie
ancienne No. 5: Philosophie du langage et grammaire dans l’antiquité, edited by
Henri Joly, 99–103. Brussels: Editions Ousia, 1987.
1988
“Plato and Socrates in the Protagoras.” Méthexis (Buenos Aires) I (1988): 33–52.
“Plato’s Charmides and the Proleptic Reading of Socratic Dialogues.” Journal of
Philosophy 85 (1988): 541–549.
“Being in Parmenides and Plato.” La Parola del Passato (Naples), 43 (1988):
237–261.
“From Philosophy of Being to Philosophy of Human Beings.” In Metaphysik
nach Kant? Stuttgarter Hegel-Kongreß 1987. Edited by D. Henrich and R. P.
Horstmann, 528–540. Frankfurt am Main: Klett-Cotta Verlag, 1988.
“Discovering the Will: from Aristotle to Augustine.” In The Question of
“Eclecticism,” edited by John M. Dillon and A. A. Long, 234–259. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1988.
“Socrates and the Rule of Law.” In Philosophy of Law in the History of Human
Thought, Proceedings of 12th World Congress IVR, 11–16. Stuttgart: F. Steiner
Verlag, 1988.
“On the Relative Date of the Gorgias and Protagoras.” In Oxford Studies in
Ancient Philosophy 6, edited by Julia Annas, 69–102. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1988.
— xxiii —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
1989
Articles “Plato” and “Aristotle” in the International Encyclopedia of Communications,
edited by E. Barnouw. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
“The Historical Position of Anaxagoras.” In Ionian Philosophy, edited by K. J.
Boudouris, 203–210. Athens: Ionia Publications, 1989.
“Problems in the Argument of Plato’s Crito.” In Nature, Knowledge, and Virtue.
Essays in Memory of Joan Kung, edited by T. Penner and R. Kraut. Apeiron 22,
no. 4 (Edmonton: Academic Printing and Publishing, 1989): 29–43.
1990
“The Normative Structure of Aristotle’s Politics.” In Aristoteles’ “Politik,” edited
by G. Patzig, 369–384. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990.
“Comments on M. Schofield.” In Aristoteles’ “Politik,” edited by G. Patzig, 28–31.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990.
Review of Die Philosophie der Antike, Band 3, edited by Ueberweg-Flashar.
Gnomon 62 (1990): 397–404.
“Plato as a Socratic.” In Hommage à Henri Joly. Recherches sur la philosophie et
le language 12, edited by P. Bourdieu, et al., 287–301. Grenoble: CNRS, 1990.
Republished in Studi italiani di filologia classica, 3rd series 10 (1992): 580–595.
1991
“L’argumentation de Platon dans les dialogues socratiques.” In L’argumentation,
Colloque de Cérisy, edited by A. Lempereur, 1–10. Paris: Editions Mardaga, 1991.
“Some Remarks on the Origins of Greek Science and Philosophy.” In Science
and Philosophy in Classical Greece, edited by A. C. Bowen, 1–10. New York and
London: Garland Publishing, 1991.
“La Physique d’Aristote et la tradition grecque de la philosophie naturelle.” In
La physique d’Aristote et les conditions d’une science de la nature, edited by F. De
Gandt and P. Souffrin, 1–9. Paris: J. Vrin, 1991.
“In Response to Mark McPherran.” In Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 9,
edited by Julia Annas, 161–168. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
1992
“Presocratic Greek Ethics.” In Encyclopedia of Greek Ethics, Vol. I, edited by L. C.
Becker, 457–461. New York and London: Garland Publishing, 1992. Republished
in History of Western Ethics, edited by L. C. Becker, 1–8. New York and London:
Garland Publishing, 1992.
“Aristotle on Thinking.” In Essays on Aristotle’s “De Anima,” edited by M.
Nussbaum and A. O. Rorty, 359–379. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
— xxiv —
Charles Kahn: A Chronological Bibliography
1993
Pitagora e i pitagorici. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1993. Italian
translation of Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans.
“Plato’s Ion.” In Nomodeiktes. Greek Studies in Honor of Martin Ostwald, edited by
R. Rosen and J. Farrell, 369–378. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993.
Foreword to reprinting of G. R. Morrow, Plato’s Cretan City, xvii–xxviii.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.
“Proleptic composition in the Republic, or why Book I was never a separate
dialogue.” Classical Quarterly N. S. 43 (1993): 131–142.
1994
“Aeschines on Socratic Eros.” In The Socratic Movement, edited by P. Vander
Waerdt, 87–106. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1994.
1995
“The Place of the Statesman in Plato’s Later Work.” In Reading the Statesman.
Proceedings of the III Symposium Platonicum edited by C. J. Rowe, 49–60. Sankt
Augustin: Academia Verlag, 1995.
“A New Interpretation of Plato’s Socratic Dialogues.” Harvard Review of Philosophy
(1995): 26–35.
1996
Plato and the Socratic Dialogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
“George Grote’s Plato and the Companions of Socrates.” In George Grote Reconsidered:
A 200th Birthday Celebration with a First Edition of His Essay “Of the Athenian
Government,” edited by W. M. Calder, 43–58. Hildesheim: Weidman, 1996.
Short articles on “Anaximander,” “Anaximenes,” “Pythagoras,” “Thales,” and
“Xenophanes” in the 3rd edition of Oxford Classical Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1996.
— xxv —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
1997
“Was Euthyphro the Author of the Derveni Papyrus?” In Studies on the Derveni
Papyrus, edited by A. Laks and G. W. Most, 55–63. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1997.
“Critical Comment on Richard B. McKirahan, Jr. Philosophy Before Socrates.”
Ancient Philosophy 17 (1997): 159–164.
“Religion and Philosophy in the Sisyphus Fragment.” Phronesis 42 (1997):
247–262.
1998
“Pre-Platonic Ethics.” In Companions to Ancient Thought 4. Ethics, edited by S.
Everson, 27–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Articles on “Sophists,” “Protagoras,” “Gorgias,” “Hippias,” “Prodicus,” and
“Socratic Dialogue,” in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London and
New York: Routledge, 1998.
Article, “Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans.” In The Oxford Companion to
Classical Civilization, edited by S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1998.
1999
“Greek Philosophy from the Beginning to Plato: A Critical Notice of C. C. W.
Taylor (ed.), Routledge History of Philosophy, Vol. I.” In Oxford Studies in Ancient
Philosophy 17, edited by David Sedley, 325–341. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1999.
2000
“Some Puzzles in Plato’s Euthydemus.” In Plato: Euthydemus, Lysis, Charmides:
Proceedings of the V Symposium Platonicum, edited by Thomas Robinson and Luc
Brisson, 88–97. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 2000.
2001
Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans. A Brief History. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2001.
“La Philosophie de Socrate selon Platon et Aristote.” In Socrate et les Socratiques,
edited by G. Romeyer-Dherbey and J.-B. Gourinat, 207–220. Paris: J. Vrin, 2001.
2002
“Forms and Flux in Plato’s Timaeus.” In Le Style de la Pensée. Recueil de textes
en homage à Jacques Brunschwig, edited by M Canto-Sperber and P. Pellegrin,
113–131. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2002.
Review of Anaximander and the Architects, by R. Hahn. Ancient Philosophy, 22
(2002): 149–152.
— xxvi —
Charles Kahn: A Chronological Bibliography
2003
“On the Philosophical Autonomy of a Platonic Dialogue: The Case of
Recollection.” In Plato As Author: The Rhetoric of Philosophy, edited by Ann N.
Michelini. Cincinnati Classical Studies New Series, 299–312. Leiden/Boston:
Brill, 2003.
“Writing Philosophy. Prose and Poetry from Thales to Plato.” In Written Text
and the Rise of Literate Culture in Ancient Greece, edited by H. Yunis, 139–161.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
“Por qué la doctrina de la reminiscencia está ausente en los libros centrales de la
República?” In Los Similes de la República VI-VII de Platón, edited by R. Gutiérrez,
145–154. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, 2003. A French version
of this article was published as “Pourquoi la doctrine de la réminiscence est-elle
absente de la République?” In Études sur la République de Platon, Vol. 2, edited
by M. Dixsaut, 95–103. Paris: J. Vrin, 2005.
“Socrates and Hedonism.” In Plato’s Protagoras. Proceedings of the Third Symposium
Platonicum Pragense, edited by A. Havlicek and F. Karfik, 165–174. Prague:
OIKOYMENH, 2003. This article was also published in Socrates: 2400 Years
since his Death (399 B.C.—2001 A.D.), edited by V. Karasmanis, 111–115. Athens:
European Cultural Center of Delphi, 2004. And again in Remembering Socrates,
edited by L. Judson and V. Karasmanis, 50–58. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2006.
2004
“From the Republic to the Laws.” Review article of C. Bobonich, Plato’s Utopia
Recast, in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 26, edited by David Sedley,
337–362. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
“Plato on the Good.” In Was ist das für den Menschen Gute?, edited by J. Szaif,
1–17. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004.
“A Return to the Theory of the Verb be and the Concept of Being.” Ancient
Philosophy 24 (2004): 381–405.
2005
Review of The Way and the Word. Science and Medicine in Early China and Greece,
by G. Lloyd and N. Sivin. Classical Review 55 (2005): 183–186.
— xxvii —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
2006
Article “Plato” in Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition, edited by Donald M.
Borchert. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 2006.
“Plato on Recollection.” In A Companion to Plato, edited by Hugh H. Benson,
119–132. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.
2007
“Prolepsis in Gorgias and Meno?” In Gorgias–Menon. Selected Papers from the
Seventh Symposium Platonicum, edited by Michael Erler and Luc Brisson, 325–332.
Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag, 2007.
“Why is the Sophist a sequel to the Theaetetus?” Phronesis 52 (2007): 33–57.
2008
Jezyk I ontologia (“Language and Ontology”). Kety: Antyk Marek Derewiecki,
2008. Five essays on Being and to be, in Polish translation by B. Zukowski.
“Some Thoughts on Personification in Plato’s Psychology.” In In Pursuit of
Wissenschaft: Festschrift für William M. Calde III zum 75. Geburtstag. Spudasmata,
Bd. 119, edited by Stephan Heilen, 201–210. Hildesheim/New York: Georg
Olms Verlag, 2008.
“A New Interpretation of Plato’s Socratic Dialogues.” In The Space of Love and
Garbage: And Other Essays from the Harvard Review of Philosophy, edited by S.
P. Upham, 229–239. Chicago, IL: Open Court, 2008.
2009
Essays on Being. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
“The Myth of the Statesman.” In Plato’s Myths, edited by Catalin Partenie,
148–166. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
2010
“Dialectic, Cosmology and Ontology in the Philebus.” In Plato’s Philebus. Selected
Papers from the Eighth Symposium Platonicum, edited by John M. Dillon and Luc
Brisson, 56–67. Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag, 2010.
— xxviii —
Charles Kahn: A Chronological Bibliography
“The Place of Cosmology in Plato’s Late Dialogues.” In One Book, The Whole
Universe: Plato’s Timaeus Today, edited by Richard D. Mohr and Barbara M.
Sattler, 69–77. Las Vegas: Parmenides Publishing, 2010.
2012
Plato and the Post-Socratic Dialogue. Return to the Philosophy of Nature. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, forthcoming.
— xxix —
This page has been intentionally left blank.
PART I
THE PRESOCRATICS
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Heraclitus on the Sun
Enrique Hülsz Piccone
In the first part of this brief approach to the solar fragments, I will
propose a different reading of B6, recovering the truly Heraclitean
idea that the sun is “always new,” which I will interpret along
more Platonic than Aristotelian lines as having a metaphysical
import (rather than being merely a piece of physical doctrine). The
second part revisits briefly Column IV of the Derveni papyrus,
questions the unified version of B3 and B94, and, keeping closer
to Plutarch’s version of the latter, finally suggests a less physicalistic
scenario as a better-fitting context for the text of the solar fragments
themselves, bringing them together through B16’s cryptic reference
to an ever-shining analogue of the sun.
1
I am referring to modern editors and interpreters, at least since Ingram
Bywater, whose work is earlier than Hermann Diels’s (our fragment 6 corresponds
to number 32 in his edition Heracliti Ephesii Reliquiae (Oxford: 1877). It is
crucial to have in mind that all Heraclitus’ fragments have come to us only
through doxographical tradition, which is indirect by definition.
2
Cf. M. Marcovich’s classification, Heraclitus, Editio Maior (Mérida,
Venezuela: 1967, from now on referred to as HEM), which specifies the status
of each fragment according to its probable degree of accuracy by the variables
of quotation [“cita”] (C), paraphrase (P), and reminiscence (R). See also S.
Mouraviev, Heraclitea III.3.B/i, ii, iii (Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag, 2006),
whose version differs from Diels-Kranz (DK) only in word order, and who takes
notice of, and differs from, my own point of view (cf. below, note 13). It should
not be forgotten that in the ancient tradition, the difference between indirect
quotation and paraphrase is a matter of degree, not of nature; cf. Charles H.
—3—
Enrique Hülsz Piccone
—4—
Heraclitus on The Sun
6
Aristotle, Meteorology B 2, 354b33ff.
7
Harold Cherniss, Aristotle’s Criticism of Presocratic Philosophy [ACPP], (Balti-
more: The John Hopkins University Press, 1935), 134 with n541), maintained
that Aristotle’s reference to Heraclitus and his followers is exclusive (a thesis
that seems excessive). Marcovich (HEM, 312–318) accepts that an allusion to
Heraclitus is intended (315), as do Kirk (HCF, 265–266), and R. Mondolfo,
Eraclito. Testimonianze e Imitazioni (Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1972, 119–123
with n156), but they all leave other possibilities open. Inclusion of Anaximander,
Anaximenes, Xenophanes, Antiphon, and perhaps Alcmaeon does not preclude
this notion from being a common belief, “in the air,” so to speak, in pre-Aristote-
lian times. Hippocratic treatises also provide evidence for the view that the moist
“feeds” the hot. Now, whether Heraclitus held a similar view or not is, of course,
arguable. There is a case to be made for the negative possibility.
—5—
Enrique Hülsz Piccone
8
Republic 497e9–498b1.
—6—
Heraclitus on The Sun
9
Ἡράκλειτος ὁ Ἐφέσιος, φυσικὸς ὤν, ἔλεγεν ὅτι ὁ ἥλιος ἐν τῇ δυτικῇ
θαλάσσῃ ἐλθὼν καὶ καταδὺς ἐν αὐτῇ σβέννυται, εἶτα διελθὼν τὸ ὑπὸ γῆν
καὶ εἰς ἀνατολὴν φθάσας ἐξάπτει πάλιν, καὶ τοῦτο αἰεὶ γίγνεται.
10
It is not often remarked that the verbs Plato playfully uses here, ἅπτω and
ἐξάπτω, in the double sense of “touching,” “being in contact with,” “set fire to,”
and “inflame,” recall the language of Heraclitus B26, and not only B30.
—7—
Enrique Hülsz Piccone
—8—
Heraclitus on The Sun
15
DK 21A32, DK 21A33, DK 21A38.
16
DK 21A41a.
—9—
Enrique Hülsz Piccone
than simply take for granted that the details of just that sort of
account have not reached us. That he stated nothing clear17 about
these matters represents a more credible possibility.
We know from the fragments themselves that Heraclitus was
extremely critical of the reputedly wise men from the distant past and
from his own time, and that he explicitly denied that Xenophanes
understood anything, even if he qualified as a polymath (B40).18
That Heraclitus held a similar belief in infinite suns (parallel to the
sequence of days) is an unlikely hypothesis, not just because of his
manifest disdain of Xenophanes, but also in virtue of something that
is implied in his criticism of Hesiod, who, according to B57, did not
even know Night and Day, “for they are one.”19 In B106, Hesiod’s
ignorance concerns not only the unity of Night and Day, but also
the single nature (φύσις) common to all days.20 This suggests that
the Heraclitean sun (recognized as the cause of daylight, B99),21 too,
is one and the same every day, and it has a distinctive φύσις of its
own. The upshot is that Heraclitus thought of the sun as a single and
persistent being which retains its selfhood through its change, just
as he thought of the same river as a flux of ever different waters.22
The Aristotelian passage implicitly suggests several possible
Heracleitean theses. The most basic assumption I label
17
Cf. e.g., DL 9.8: σαφῶς δ’ οὐδὲν ἐκτίθεται (“he doesn’t set forth anything
clear”); ibid. 9, 11: περὶ δὲ τῆς γῆς οὐδὲν ἀποφαίνεται ποία τίς ἐστιν, ἀλλ’
οὐδὲ περὶ τῶν σκαφῶν (“he doesn’t show anything clear about what sort of
thing is the earth, nor about the bowls”).
18
DK 22B40: πολυμαθίη νόον οὐ διδάσκει· Ἡσίοδον γὰρ ἂν ἐδίδαξε καὶ
Πυθαγόρην αὖτίς τε Ξενοφάνεά τε καὶ Ἑκαταῖον (“Much learning doesn’t
teach intelligence. For it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras and, again,
Xenophanes and Hecataeus”).
19
DK 22B57: διδάσκαλος δὲ πλείστων Ἡσίοδος· τοῦτον ἐπίστανται
πλεῖστα εἰδέναι, ὅστις ἡμέρην καὶ εὐφρόνην οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν· ἔστι γὰρ ἕν
(“Teacher of most men is Hesiod. They think he knew plenty, he who didn’t
recognize day and night: for they are one”).
20
DK 22B106: ἀγνοοῦντι φύσιν ἡμέρας ἁπάσης μίαν οὖσαν (“[Hesiod] ig-
nored that the nature of any day is one”).
21
DK 22B99: εἰ μὴ ἥλιος ἦν, ἕνεκα τῶν ἄλλων ἄστρων εὐφρόνη ἂν ἦν (“If
there were no sun, for the sake of the other stars it would be night”).
22
DK 22B12: ποταμοῖσι τοῖσιν αὐτοῖσιν ἐμβαίνουσιν ἕτερα καὶ ἕτερα
ὕδατα ἐπιρρεῖ (“On those who step into the same rivers other and other waters
flow”).
— 10 —
Heraclitus on The Sun
— 11 —
Enrique Hülsz Piccone
of birth and death of soul (ψυχή), and the nurturing of all human
laws (νόμοι) on the single divine one, common to all (the Logos as
lex naturae). The unity-in-opposition theory, construed as a narrow
physicalistic explanation, is also in play, although only obscurely
hinted at in Aristotle’s interpretation. The grounding of this in
Heraclitus seems very vague, but it might further reflect B60 and
B126. A somewhat slighter anomaly would seem to be that the
moist requires as contrary the dry (not the sun). Insistence on the
exclusive relationship between contraries (each thing has only one
contrary) is reminiscent of Plato, but not of Heraclitus.
Secondly, as to solstices being explained in this way (that is, solely
on the view that the sun is nurtured by moisture), by Heraclitus
in particular, this point seems especially far-fetched. Perhaps the
closest we can get to solstices in Heraclitus is B94 (“The Sun will
not overstep its measures [ μέτρα]”) and B100.23
In the third place, 3a and 3b seem to be entirely due to Aristotle’s
own conjecture. Perhaps there is a fusion here of other sources—
Heraclitus’ B16 and B54 immediately come to mind—not exclud-
ing views in other authors. The “theory” implied in 3b could be a
historical antecedent of Aristotle’s own exhalation doctrine, but it
is more likely than not that there was no such thing in Heraclitus’
view—in spite of the commonplace physicalistic interpretation of
the way up and down (ὁδὸς ἄνω κάτω) of B60. Heraclitus’ own
approach to such meteorological phenomena (in B31, B36) seems
hardly usable for restoring Aristotle’s credibility. Some form of vapor
(ἀτμίς), however, is quite possible in Xenophanes.
And last, with all this in mind, we may appreciate that Aristotle’s
final move (charging Heraclitus with not being radical enough) can
do without the assumptions just listed as 1–3. The only premise really
needed is that the sun is fiery. Aristotle’s dissent from Heraclitus,
which is the immediate basis for actually mentioning him by name
and quoting him, need not be interpreted within a meteorological
framework, and makes perfect sense when limited to the very basic
notion of the sun as fiery. Besides the well-known metaphysical
23
DK 22B100 (Plutarch, Quaestiones Platonicae 8. 4,1007d) “ὥρας αἳ πάντα
φέρουσι” (“the seasons, bringers of all things”).
— 12 —
Heraclitus on The Sun
note 26. For Aristotle’s theory of a πρῶτον σῶμα, cf. De caelo 269bff.
— 13 —
Enrique Hülsz Piccone
25
Symposium 207d3: . . . ἀεὶ καταλείπει ἕτερον νέον ἀντὶ τοῦ παλαιοῦ
(. . . always leaves behind a different new creature instead of the old one”; 207d7:
ὁ αὐτὸς καλεῖται, ἀλλὰ νέος ἀεὶ γιγνόμενος (“It’s called the same, but it be-
comes always new”). Cf. also Cratylus 409b5–8: Νέον δέ που καὶ ἕνον ἀεί ἐστι
περὶ τὴν σελήνην τοῦτο τὸ φῶς [. . .] κύκλῳ γάρ που ἀεὶ αὐτὴν περιιὼν νέον
ἀεὶ ἐπιβάλλει (“The light about the moon is always new and old [. . .] for in its
course around it, the sun always sheds on an ever new light”).
26
Ennead II, 1, 2, 10–13: Συγχωρῶν καὶ ἐπὶ τούτων δηλονότι τῷ
Ἡρακλείτῳ, ὃς ἔφη ἀεὶ καὶ τὸν ἥλιον γίνεσθαι. Ἀριστοτέλει μὲν γὰρ οὐδὲν
ἂν πρᾶγμα εἴη, εἴ τις αὐτοῦ τὰς ὑποθέσεις τοῦ πέμπτου παραδέξαιτο
σώματος (“He [sc. Plato] evidently agrees with Heraclitus, who also said that the
sun is always coming into being. For Aristotle there would be no problem, if one
admits the theories of the fifth body”).
27
De natura rerum, V, 662: (semina . . . ardoris) . . . quae faciunt solis nova
semper lumina gigni.
28
W. Burkert, “Eraclito nel Papiro di Derveni: due nuove testimonianze,” Atti
del Symposium Heracliteum, vol. I (Rome: Edizioni dell’ Ateneo, 1983), 31–42.
— 14 —
Heraclitus on The Sun
29
Cf. D. Sider (1997), “Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus,” who refers
to a paragraph at the beginning of line 7, indicating a quotation (“at least in
intention”), reinforced by the apparent lack of space for ἥλιος in lines 8 and
9, and suggesting that “B3+B94 formed a connected thought in H.’s original
text” (131); but see G. Betegh, The Derveni Papyrus. Cosmology, Theology and
Interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 326n3. A.
Lebedev did overstate his case when he wrote: “Any serious edition of Heraclitus
to come will cite B3 and B94 only as testimonia under the most complete and
authentic verbatim quotation of PDerv.” (“Heraclitus in P. Derveni,” Zeitschrift
für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 79 (1989): 42.) S. Mouraviev (2006), and A.
Bernabé, De Tales a Demócrito. Fragmentos Presocráticos, 2nd ed. (Madrid: Alianza,
2001) have followed this general line of interpretation in their editions of
Heraclitus, treating B3 and B94 as a single continuous fragment.
30
Gábor Betegh, The Derveni Papyrus, 10–11.
— 15 —
Enrique Hülsz Piccone
Janko’s version:
ἥλι ̣[ος ἑωυ]τ̣οῦ κατὰ φύσιν ἀν̣θρω[πείου] ε ̣ὖρος ποδός [ἐστι,] 7
τοὺ ̣[ς οὔρου]ς ̣ οὐχ ὑπε ρ̣ βάλλων· εἰ γ[ὰρ τι εὔ]ρους ἐ[ωυτοῦ 8
[ἐ]κ ̣[βήσετα]ι ̣, Ἐρινύε[ς] νιν ἐξευρήσου ̣[σι, Δίκης ἐπίκουροι.] 9
The sun, in accord with its own nature, is in breadth the size 7
of a human foot,
and does not surpass its limits; for, if it surpasses its own 8
breadth at all,
(the) Erinyes, (the) allies of Justice, will discover it.32 9
L. Schönbeck’s proposal:
ἥλι ̣[ος νέο]ς ̣ ̣οὐ κατὰ φύσιν ἀν̣θρω[πείου] ε ̣ὖρος ποδός [ἐστι,] 7
το ̣ῦ ̣[σκότου], οὐχ ὑπε ̣ρβάλλων εἰκ ̣[ότας ὅ]ρους ἐ[φ̕ ἡμέρῃ (ἀεὶ)] 8
[φ]α ̣[εῖ, εἰ μ]ή ̣ Ἐρινύε[ς] νιν ἐξευρήσου ̣[σι, Δίκης ἐπίκουροι] 9
31
Theokritos Kouremenos, George M. Parássoglou, Kyriakos Tsantsanoglou,
The Derveni Papyrus. Edited with Introduction and Commentary [TDP] (Florence:
Leo S. Olschki, 2006), (Greek text of lines 7–9 apud Laks’s review in Rhizai
2007, vol. IV, 1: 153–162, at 155).
32
Richard Janko, “The Derveni Papyrus: an interim text,” ZPE 141 (2002):
1–62, and “The Derveni Papyrus (‘Diagoras of Melos, Apopyrgizontes Logoi’?):
A New Translation,” Classical Philology, Vol. 96, No. 1 (Jan. 2001), 1–32. Greek
text of col. IV apud Mouraviev (2006). This is also Bernabé’s reading (Poetae epici
graeci: testimonia et fragmenta (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007); Pap. Derv. col.
IV: 188–192).
— 16 —
Heraclitus on The Sun
33
Loek Schönbeck, “Heraclitus Revisited. Pap. Derveni col. I, lines 7–11,”
ZPE 95, 1993: 20.
34
Serge Mouraviev, Heraclitea, II.A.1 (Sankt Augustin: Academia, 1999; con-
tained also in Supplementum Electronicum n. 1 [CD, 2001]), ch. 12, 56–59.
35
My translation: “This sun here, whose size by nature is of a human foot,
<shines/moves (?)> not overstepping its limits, for if he <went beyond his> size
(?), the Erinyes, Justice’s servants,> would catch him.”
36
For instance, R. Janko wrote: “The Derveni papyrus is the most important
text relating to early Greek literature, science, religion and philosophy to have
come to light since the Renaissance” (BMCR 2006.10.29, Review of TDP).
37
The papyrus itself has been dated about the middle of the fourth century
BCE, but the actual writing could have taken place decades earlier, or even in
— 17 —
Enrique Hülsz Piccone
the last years of the fifth century. Several hypotheses have been put forward
about the identity of the Derveni commentator. C. H. Kahn proposed someone
like Euthyphro (“Was Euthyphro the Author of the Derveni Papyrus?,” SDP,
55–63). D. Sider suggested someone in the circle of Metrodoros of Lampsacus
(“Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus,” SDP, 137–138.); R. Janko (“The Derveni
Papyrus (‘Diagoras of Melos, Apopyrgizontes Logoi’?): A New Translation,”
Classical Philology, Vol. 96, No. 1 (Jan. 2001): 1–32) defended the authorship of
Diagoras the atheist; Gábor Betegh thinks he may have been a religious expert
and an Orphic (The Derveni Papyrus, 87). W. Burkert considered Stesimbrotos
(“Der Autor von Derveni: Stesimbrotos Περὶ Τελετῶν?,” ZPE 62 (1986): 1–5).
38
This feature has been interpreted both as a reason for doubting its authentic-
ity and as a good basis for attributing it to Heraclitus.
39
A dogmatic interpretation already implied in Diogenes Laertius IX,1,42: ὁ
ἥλιός ἐστι τὸ μέγεθος οἷος φαίνεται (“The sun is the size it appears to be”).
— 18 —
Heraclitus on The Sun
40
A possibility emphatically denied by Lebedev: “the reading οὐ κατὰ φύσιν
is out of the question” (“Heraclitus in P. Derveni,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
Epigraphik 79 [1989], 46).
41
L. Schönbeck, “Heraclitus Revisited (Pap. Derveni, col. I, lines 7–11),”
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 95 (1993): 7–22, at 17–20.
42
Cf. DK 13A7 (Hippol. Ref. I, 7): ἐποχεῖσθαι τῶι ἀέρι. DK 13A15 (Aet. II
20, 2); (Aet., 22, 1): Ἀ. πλατὺν ‘ὡς πέταλον’ τὸν ἥλιον (= DK 13B2a).
43
In his reconstruction of the Heraclitean context of the solar fragments, D.
Sider (1997) abandons this non-literal line of interpretation and takes B3’s state-
ment as equivalent to the idea of the sun being of a fixed size; he then connects
B94 to B43 (about quenching ὕβρις), interpreting that the sun’s transgression is
the so-called “moon illusion,” which was then punished by the coming of night,
and followed by B6. To this it may be objected, (1) that what B94 actually states
is that the sun “shall not” overstep or surpass its limits, and (2) that the “moon
illusion” would apply also to dawn, not only to sunset (cf. Betegh, The Derveni
Papyrus, 328n4: “the Erinyes should quench the sun already at dawn”).
— 19 —
Enrique Hülsz Piccone
44
DK 22B94 comes from Plutarch, De exilio. 11, 604a. There is a different ver-
sion in De Iside et Osiride 370D3–10, in oratio obliqua, with two variants, ὅρους
(“boundaries”) instead of μέτρα (“measures”), and Κλῶθάς (“Spinners”) instead
of Ἐρινύες: Ἡράκλειτος [. . .] φησί [. . .] ἥλιον δὲ μὴ ὑπερβήσεσθαι τοὺς
προσήκοντας ὅρους· εἰ δὲ μή, Κλῶθάς μιν Δίκης ἐπικούρους ἐξευρήσειν
(“Heraclitus says the sun will not go beyond its proper boundaries; if not, the
Spinners, servants of Justice, will find him out”). Κλῶθάς is an emendation of
the manuscripts’ presumably corrupt γλώττας (“tongues”). For other possibili-
ties, see D. Sider, “Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus,” 143n42.
— 20 —
Heraclitus on The Sun
size of the circle of the sun itself (the so-called “moon illusion,”
which happens when the sun is nearer the horizon), rather than to
the extreme southern and northern points marking the solstices. But
the main idea is common to both Plutarch and the Derveni author,
and clear enough: illustrated here by the sun’s constant abiding of
the orderings of Justice, Heraclitus’ cosmos is “governed by law.”45
In spite of Lebedev’s vehement assertion, it is quite unlikely that,
for Heraclitus, the sun, even if viewed as a god, is the ruler of the
κόσμος.46 He may be the cause of day and night, as B99 implies,
but as B94 itself makes clear, he is presented not as a king, but as
an obedient subject in a realm where Justice (Δίκη, who is identi-
fied with ἔρις in B80) reigns supreme. The bold personifications
of Δίκη, the Furies (Ἐρινύες) and the sun (Ἥλιος), which have
other parallels in the authentic fragments,47 look somewhat paler
and diluted in the Derveni version.
So, to conclude this brief approach: the evidence provided by
the Derveni papyrus on Heraclitus’ text is very problematic, to say
the least. It does not seem to add much to what we already knew
from other later sources, but merely serves as confirmation of the
authenticity of the same old solar fragments. In particular, the
contention that B3 and B94 formed a single continuous passage
remains possible, but even the most authoritative versions of the
reconstructed text of the papyrus do not seem to make good sense
of the passage as a unity.
45
I borrow this phrase from Kahn’s treatment of Anaximander’s fragment.
46
A. Lebedev, “Heraclitus in P. Derveni,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
Epigraphik 79 (1989): 39–47, at 43ff. The notion of the sun as supreme ruler
of the cosmos may be perhaps attributed to the Derveni commentator, but as
Lebedev himself acknowledges: “The initial words [ἄρχει] ἥλι̣[ος κόσ]μ̣ου
κατὰ φύσιν are not attested elsewhere in a verbatim quotation” (43). The alleged
“evidence” in the “Heraclitean tradition” is not always focused on the sun, but
on fire, and it has little weight against the fragments themselves, in which we
find that it is Πόλεμος who is called “the king of all” (πάντων βασιλεύς, B53),
though Αἰών is also depicted as such (B52), which might suggest they are the
same.
47
The classic instances include (besides the two just referred to in the previous
note) Πόλεμος, Ἔρις and Δίκη in B80, and Κεραυνός in B64, all of them
consistently characterized by their governing functions.
— 21 —
Enrique Hülsz Piccone
48
Lebedev, “Heraclitus in P. Derveni,” 44.
— 22 —
Heraclitus on The Sun
49
DK 22B16: τὸ μὴ δῦνόν ποτε πῶς ἄν τις λάθοι if there is some ambiguity
in the sense of λανθάνω, one could alternately translate: “How could anyone ever
be hidden from that which doesn’t set?” Cf. Hesiod, Erga 267–268: πάντα ἰδὼν
Διὸς ὀφθαλμὸς καὶ πάντα νοήσας /καί νυ τάδ, αἴ κ’ ἐθέλῃσ, ἐπιδέρκεται,
οὐδέ ἑ λήθει (“The eye of Zeus, seeing all things and understanding all / looks
upon these things too, if he wants to, and fails not to notice”). Cf. Homer, Il.,
III.277.
50
In the Cratylus, Socrates voices a humorous and anonymous objection to the
contention that justice (δίκαιον) is in fact ἥλιος (413b4); for then, there would
be nothing just among men after the sun has set (οὐδὲν δίκαιον [. . .] ἐν τοῖς
ἀνθρώποις ἐπειδὰν ὁ ἥλιος δύῃ, 413c1). This looks like an echo of B16 and
implies a connection between ἥλιος and justice. This objection is embedded in
a longer passage (412e–413d), which focuses on a seemingly Heraclitean collec-
tion of ideas (featuring cosmic change effected by a single and constant agent,
qualified as λεπτότατόν and τάχιστον (“lightest” and “swiftest,” 412d5) and
described as passing through all things, διὰ τοῦ ὄντος ἰέναι παντός, 412d6),
and concludes, after explicit identification of justice and fire, that “this is hard to
understand” (τοῦτο δὲ οὐ ῥᾴδιόν ἐστιν εἰδέναι, 413c2).
51
On the face of B94 together with B43, it is clear that Helios (unlike human
beings) is not prone to ὕβρις.
— 23 —
Enrique Hülsz Piccone
52
This very connection has been suggested on a different basis and with dif-
ferent implications by A. Lebedev (“Heraclitus in P. Derveni,” 44), for whom
Heraclitus’ sun “is rather comparable with the Sun metaphor of Plato’s Politeia
(the humorous remark about Ἡρακλειτείος ἥλιος in Respublica 498b seems to
be a masked recognition of Plato’s debt).”
53
I wish to express my gratitude to Charles Kahn and all participants at the
Delphi Symposium for their observations, comments and objections. I am
especially indebted to Richard Patterson and an anonymous reader, whose
suggestions have helped to clarify the final version of the text.
— 24 —
“The Light of Day by Night”:
nukti phaos, Said of the Moon
in Parmenides B14*
Alexander P. D. Mourelatos
The earliest securely attested record of the discovery that the moon
gets its light from the sun is in the second part of Parmenides’ poem,
the “Doxa”: in the one-line fragments B14 and B15.1 In an earlier
study, I have used the term “heliophotism” as a succinct reference
* The essay is dedicated to Charles H. Kahn with deep admiration for his work,
with decades-long personal affection, and in gratitude for his friendship. We
sometimes speak of “Academic Father” in reference to one’s supervisor in grad-
uate study. I cannot claim Charles in that role; but he has certainly been to me
in many ways the wise Academic Older Brother. At the early stages of my pro-
fessional career, Charles strongly encouraged me in my post-doctoral project of
a book on Parmenides; and he gave me detailed and helpful comments on drafts
of what ultimately became that book. In those early years, Charles’ Anaximander
and the Origins of Greek Cosmology was my prized model; and in my later studies,
Charles’ The Art and Thought of Heraclitus was again and likewise the model. I
have learned enormously much from studying his monumental The Verb “Be”
in Ancient Greek. Indeed, through all stages of my career to the present day,
reading his work on any of the many subjects of his scholarship and engaging
in discussion with him has been cherished paideia and a sheer joy. And—what
may surprise many readers of this note—it was Charles who introduced me to
the academic community of my country of origin. Last but not least, I owe him
a big debt for the strong and generous support he has given over the years to my
own students and to the Joint Classics-Philosophy Graduate Program in Ancient
Philosophy at my university. Εἰς πλέονά τε καὶ εὐτυχῆ ἔτη ἀδελφὲ Κάρολε.
1
See Daniel W. Graham, “La Lumière de la lune dans la pensée grecque
archaïque,” in Qu’est-ce que la Philosophie Présocratique, eds. André Laks and
Claire Louguet (Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, 2002),
351–380, esp. 363–378; see also Graham’s Explaining the Cosmos: The Ionian
Tradition of Scientific Philosophy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006),
179–182.
— 25 —
Alexander P. D. Mourelatos
— 26 —
“The Light of Day by Night”: nukti phaos, Said of the Moon in Parmenides B14
6
To allow access to this essay by readers who do not have facility with Greek, I
use Greek font for translated extended citations, or for long sequences of Greek
words, and in three other cases: to represent accurately the reading in the MSS;
to represent Greek stems in word searches (when this appears helpful); and in
connection with the two distinct words φῶς, “light,” and φώς, “man, fellow,”
both of which would otherwise be misleadingly represented by phôs.
7
I give an analysis of B15 in my “Xenophanes’ Contribution,” 52–53; and also
in “Parmenides, Early Greek Astronomy, and Modern Scientific Realism,” in
Parmenides, Venerable and Awesome: Proceedings of the International Symposium,
ed. Néstor-Luis Cordero (Las Vegas: Parmenides Publishing, 2011), 175–177.
I should have pointed out, and I am happy to correct this oversight here, that
Conche had previously emphasized the importance and the significance of the
adverb aiei in B15: “Qu’il s’agisse de la pleine lune, de la lune ovale, de l’un des
quartiers ou du croissant, la partie lumineuse est toujours tournée vers le soleil.
En particulier, la convexité du croissant est tournée toujours du coté des rayons
solaires . . . Parménide savait ce que beaucoup de peintres, qui ont orienté le
croissant à l’envers, ont, semble-t-il, ignoré” (Poème, 238, adding my emphasis
on “toujours”).
— 27 —
Alexander P. D. Mourelatos
the sky, the illuminated portion of the lunar disk is always oriented
toward the sun. Moreover, ( β), B14 implies the modest inductive
inference that the moon maintains its fixed gazing on the sun at
Waxing Crescent even after the sun has set; and B14 also implies
the likewise modest inductive anticipation that the moon, late in
Waning Crescent, has its gaze fixed on the sun even before the sun
rises—the “horns” of the lunar meniscus, either waxing or waning,
are at both these phases turned away from the sun. Finally, (γ), the
adverb aiei, “always,” of B14 serves to project a bolder theoretical
extrapolation: the moon still keeps its gaze fixed on the sun at night,
when only the moon is visible, and even—in defiance of common
belief concerning the “death” or “darkness” of the luminary at New
Moon—when neither sun nor moon is visible in the sky.8
8
Conche fails to distinguish the stages (α), (β), and (γ) implied in B15. Ac-
cordingly, he needlessly concedes an “exception” to the aiei: “[L]a lune . . . ‘re-
garde’ nécessairement vers le soleil, et cela toujours, aiei, c’est à dire quelle que
soit la phase considérée, à l’exception de la ‘nouvelle lune’ ” (Poème, 238–239).
For another curious and unwarranted restriction stated in Conche’s account, see
below at note 63.
— 28 —
“The Light of Day by Night”: nukti phaos, Said of the Moon in Parmenides B14
from its home and origin,”9 and also to contrast with the alternative
that the moon might be thought to possess ἴδιον φῶς, “its own
light.”10 The full context in Plutarch is as follows:
— 29 —
Alexander P. D. Mourelatos
12
Einarson and De Lacey translate mot-à-mot: “the reality or use or perception
of men.” But this is difficult to understand, and perhaps misleading. How does
the “use of men” come into the argument? Are men “being used,” or are they
“making use” of something not specified? It is rather likely that the three nouns,
phusin, chrêsin, aisthêsin, flag three aspects of the argument: metaphysical-onto-
logical; linguistic-semantic; and epistemological. Plutarch collapses three differ-
ent construes of the genitive anthrôpôn: the nature of men; language use by men;
the faculty of perception possessed by men. The second aspect, that of language
use, is strongly represented in the cited text by the series legôn, prosagoreuontes,
chrêsin, legôn, legoi; then it remains prominent in the immediate sequel of the
passage (1116b, not cited above) with prosagoreuein, tois onomasi, prosêgorias.
— 30 —
“The Light of Day by Night”: nukti phaos, Said of the Moon in Parmenides B14
Examples drawn from the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG; see below,
13
note 27): Odyssey 15.34 νυκτὶ δ’ ὁμῶς πλείειν; Sophocles Electra 644 ἃ γὰρ
προσεῖδον νυκτὶ τῇδε φάσματα; Xenophon Cyropaedia Bk. 1 ch. 5, 12.2
ὑμεῖς δὲ νυκτὶ μὲν δήπου ὅσαπερ οἱ ἄλλοι ἡμέρᾳ δύναισθ’ ἂν χρῆσθαι.
— 31 —
Alexander P. D. Mourelatos
appears prima facie to support the reading of the MSS. How, then,
did it happen that the emendation gained universal acceptance?
14
The manuscript reading has now been adopted (albeit with a translation
that seems closer to nuktiphaes rather than to nukti phaos) by Fernando Santoro,
who has stated to me that he was persuaded by my presentation at the second
meeting of the International Association for Presocratic Studies. See his Filósofos
Épicos I, Xenófanes e Parmênides, fragmentos (Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Biblioteca
Nacional/Hexis, 2011), 112–113.
15
Though it is sparsely found even at major world libraries, a good copy of
this rare book is at the Harry Ransom Center Book Collection, The University
of Texas at Austin.
16
Similar notes by Scaliger were included by Estienne for other parts of the
book (Poesis, 216–219).
17
See Denis O’Brien with Jean Frère, Le Poème de Parménide, texte, traduction,
essai critique [=Études sur Parménide (sous la direction de Pierre Aubenque, I]
(Paris: Vrin, 1987), 69, 100 (at Méziriac), 98 (at Hutten).
18
See Néstor-Luis Cordero, “La Version de Joseph Scaliger du poème de Par-
ménide,” Hermes, 110 (1982), 392–398, especially 392.
— 32 —
“The Light of Day by Night”: nukti phaos, Said of the Moon in Parmenides B14
19
Cordero, “Scaliger,” 392, 395–396.
20
M. Laura Gemelli Marciano conveyed to me in correspondence a cautionary
comment concerning the frequency of errors in the MSS of Adversus Colotem.
21
A search of the TLG (see below at note 27) yields eight distinct occurrences
of the commonplace, plus another five in metaphorical contexts.
22
In Aristotelis topicorum, 387, lines 16 and 18; 442, line 15. On the difference
between -phaês, -es compounds and -phanês (with nu), -es compounds, see below
under nuktiphaes as neologism.
— 33 —
Alexander P. D. Mourelatos
23
Pérez de Tudéla (in Bernabé et al., Poema, 215) appears to be alone in allud-
ing to “otros lugares,” but he gives no citations.
24
The Orphic Poems (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), 28–29.
25
Poema, 274: “riti splendenti nella note . . . illuminati dalle torce.”
26
See Werner Jaeger, “Ein verkanntes Fragment des Parmenides,” Rheinisches
Museum, 100 (1957), 42–48. Jaeger’s thesis is criticized by Coxon, Fragments,
246(1986) = 376(2009).
— 34 —
“The Light of Day by Night”: nukti phaos, Said of the Moon in Parmenides B14
27
The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae is hereby acknowledged as the source and
base for the results of searches of the corpus of Greek literature that are reported
throughout this paper. It is also the source for the quotation of the five texts
which, below in this section and in later sections, I have numbered (i)–(v). TLG
material is copyrighted by TLG and the Regents of the University of California.
28
I use the masculine-feminine form nuktiphaês in speaking broadly of the
use of the adjective (including uses of the neuter). And I also use the masculine-
feminine form more narrowly of uses in which the adjective modifies either a
masculine noun (e.g., hêlios, “the sun”) or a feminine noun (e.g., selênê, “the
moon”). In connection with Parmenides B14, however, I use the form in the
neuter, since it applies to the neuter noun φῶς, as in Scaliger’s emendation.
29
Even though the TLG was already widely available in the early 1990s,
Conche, whose edition of Parmenides was first published in 1996, states “on
ne connait qu’une seule autre occurrence du mot nuktiphaês, in Orphei Hymni,
54.10” (Poème, 234–235). Cf. Cerri, Poema (1999/2000): “L’aggetivo ricorre
solo qui e in Orph. Hymn. 54.10” (274).
30
I speak of “distinct occurrences” inasmuch as I do not count more than once
cases in which a later author B copies from earlier author A, or perhaps A and B
draw on the same source that is older than either.
— 35 —
Alexander P. D. Mourelatos
As in the case of the Silenus-hymn and of the five new texts in which
forms of nuktiphaês are found to occur, these astronomical uses of
-phaês adjectives are from authors and contexts of later antiquity. Still,
the semantic pattern that is articulated by these uses in reference to
lunar phases is of obvious relevance and of high potential signifi-
cance in interpreting nuktiphaes in its possible use by Parmenides.
On the whole, then, given poor readings elsewhere in the
Plutarch MSS, and given this now amply enriched fund of actual
or virtual parallels, might it not be said that the case for Scaliger’s
emendation is clinched?
— 36 —
“The Light of Day by Night”: nukti phaos, Said of the Moon in Parmenides B14
31
I was myself impressed by this consideration when I first analyzed B14. See
Route, 224: “Parmenides wants to tell us that there is some kind of unreality,
inauthenticity, or falsehood about the moon. He prepares us by characterizing
the moon by an adjective that combines the predicates of darkness and light.
This mild oxymoron . . . .” Cf. Mario Untersteiner, Parmenide: testimonianze e
frammenti, introduzione, traduzione e commento (Florence: Nuova Italia, 1958),
64 ad loc.: “ossimoro, che per altro presenta una profonda significazione nell’am-
bito della Δόξα.” More recently, Jean Bollack, Parménide, de l’étant au monde
(Lagrasse: Verdier, 2006), 269: “Grammaticalement et sémantiquement, voire
symboliquement, la portée de cette double nature de l’astre . . . s’approfondit. La
Lune est déchirée et contradictoire, représantative de la mortalité et de l’existence
des hommes ‘mortels’.”
32
Cf. Untersteiner, Parmenide, cxcii.
— 37 —
Alexander P. D. Mourelatos
33
I am not sure that anyone has framed the observation in just this way. But
consideration (2) is certainly implicit in Cerri’s appreciative analysis of the “lexi-
cal, syntactic, and rhythmic” structure of the line (Poema, 274), and also in Jean
Beaufret’s frequently and aptly quoted characterization of the line as “un des plus
beaux vers de la langue grecque”: Le Poème de Parménide (Paris: Presses Universi-
taires de France, 1955), 8. Cf. my own appreciative analysis in Route, 224–225,
which includes mention of the admiration for the line expressed to me by the
American poet George Oppen.
34
Both this consideration and the one which immediately follows here, (4),
were conveyed to me in correspondence by M. Laura Gemelli Marciano.
35
See previous note.
36
Cf. Cerri, Poema, 274–275: “La tradizione manoscritta . . . inaccettabile per
la ripetizione grossolana che viene a creare tra inizio e fine di verso.”
— 38 —
“The Light of Day by Night”: nukti phaos, Said of the Moon in Parmenides B14
— 39 —
Alexander P. D. Mourelatos
39
Leaving aside, of course, also extremely common formations, viz., α-negative
compounds, their correspondingly antithetical eu-, pan-, and poly- compounds,
as well as compounds with prepositions (e.g., empleon, epideues).
40
Coxon, Fragments, 247(1986) = 376(2009): “For the trenchant neologism
[of hudatorizon], cf. nuktiphaes, fr. 14.” Two other recent Parmenides editors
accept B15a as a one-word fragment: Giovanni Reale and Luigi Ruggiu,
Parmenide, poema sulla natura (Milan: Rusconi, 1991), 116–117 and 352–253;
also Conche, Poème, 239–242.
— 40 —
“The Light of Day by Night”: nukti phaos, Said of the Moon in Parmenides B14
41
Coxon, Fragments, 245(1986) = 375(2009).
42
Coxon, Fragments, 246(1986) = 376(2009).
43
The criticism and the typology of word-formation in what follows is based
on my examination of all occurrences of -phaês compounds in the TLG (with
separate searches for the strings φαε, φαη, and φαο).
— 41 —
Alexander P. D. Mourelatos
had used nuktiphaes, the default reading for the compound adjective
would undoubtedly have to be adverbial.44
To be sure, there are -phaês, -es compounds which, because of
inherent ambiguity, can appear under either the attributive or the
adverbial type. Thus euphaês can mean either “brightly appearing
as excellent”; but it could also mean “shining strongly.” But of the
two adjectives that have major relevance in the present discus-
sion, it is only hêmerophaês that admits of this ambiguity. It can
mean “having the bright appearance of the light of day”; and it
can also mean “appearing bright by day.” By contrast, in the case
of nuktiphaês, “having the bright appearance of night” goes beyond
poignant philosophical paradox; it lapses into blatant and perplexing
contradiction. Assuming that Parmenides had used the compound
adjective, the only morphologically and semantically coherent sense
for it is: “brightly shining by (or ‘at,’ or ‘in the’) night.”45
There is yet another ambiguity that needs to be sorted out
before we are firmly in position to assess the thematic appropriate-
ness of nuktiphaes. Earlier I cited Aristotle’s criticism of the use of
hêmerophanês as the differentia (with astron, “luminary,” as genus)
in a definition of the sun. I also pointed out that Alexander (if we
go by the readings in the Alexander MSS), in his comment ad loc.,
reproduces the term at issue as hêmerophaes (without the nu). There is
little doubt that in the medieval MSS for ancient texts (and doubtless
even in the ancient originals or archetypes) there is occasional
confusion of -phaês, -es compounds and -phanês, -es compounds
(referred to henceforth as *pha- and *phan- compounds, respectively).
After all, the two groups have common etymological ancestry.46
44
Cf. Cerri, Poema, 274: “In tutti composti del tipo nukti-, il primo elemento
significa ‘di notte’ (complemento di tempo).” Not surprisingly, nuktophaes (with
omicron infix) is a hapax legomenon. It occurs only in Origen, Contra Celsum
VI.31.21, used as an epithet for someone otherwise described as “chief of hidden
mysteries” and “lord of death.”
45
Bollack was rather too diffident in preferring the adverbial interpretation
merely as an alternative to Coxon’s “shining like night”: “Les formations par-
allèlles qu’il [Coxon] cite ne sont peut-être pas concluantes et ne permettent pas
de rejeter une valeur locative . . .” (L’Étant, 270). Graham too allows Coxon’s
translation as an acceptable alternative: “Lumière,” 363n35; Cosmos, 179n86.
46
See Pierre Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: histoire
des mots, 4 vols. (Paris: Klincksieck, 1968–1980), vol. IV–2, s. vv. φάε/φάος/
φῶς and φαίνω.
— 42 —
“The Light of Day by Night”: nukti phaos, Said of the Moon in Parmenides B14
— 43 —
Alexander P. D. Mourelatos
would have forced the choice, by virtue of favoring the *pha- variant
of the compound. But the same can be said for the *phan- variant,
which is pointedly represented at B9.3 by nuktos aphantou, “invisible
Night.” So, then, going along with the assumption that Parmenides
had the motivation to use a compound adjective, he would have
been choosing between two neologisms: the *pha- word nuktiphaes,
which conveys the vividly descriptive strong sense “resplendent”; and
the *phan-word nuktiphanes, which conveys the blander, generic,
or formulaic, sense of “appearing by night” or “visible by night.”
Which, if either of these, is right for Parmenides will emerge after
we investigate some more issues implied by argument (4).
note 28.
— 44 —
“The Light of Day by Night”: nukti phaos, Said of the Moon in Parmenides B14
— 45 —
Alexander P. D. Mourelatos
The botanical and astrometeorological text (ii) is the one which uses
nuktiphaês as one of three determinants: (D1) in the summer; (D2 )
when the moon is waxing (plêthousa); (D3) when it is “shining bright
among the stars,” i.e., not when its period of nocturnal visibility is
relatively short and its light relatively weak. Putting the three Dns
together, the astrometeorological advice is: in the summer, in the
Waxing Gibbous phase.
— 46 —
“The Light of Day by Night”: nukti phaos, Said of the Moon in Parmenides B14
— 47 —
Alexander P. D. Mourelatos
— 48 —
“The Light of Day by Night”: nukti phaos, Said of the Moon in Parmenides B14
In the case of the sun, the two epithets apply with the force of
universal quantification: assuming no blockage by- clouds or a solar
eclipse, the sun is visible only by day, it is always hiding at night, is
never visible by night, is visible always by day. The two epithets, of
course, apply to the sun “analytically,” with logical necessity, precisely
because of the circularity Aristotle detected—since “day”/“night” are
defined by the presence/absence of sunlight. The moon, by contrast,
is visible nearly as long by day—on average over the year—as it is
by night. Over its phases it can be visible both by day and by night,
or it is visible only by night, or it hides both by day and by night.
So, in contrast to the strong universal quantification tautologously
built into hêmerophanes/nuktikruphes when these epithets are applied
to the sun, either of the two corresponding epithets for the moon
would apply to it in a weak circumstantial sense. The moon is
Realism,” 175–177.
— 49 —
Alexander P. D. Mourelatos
Ruggiu, in Reale and Ruggiu, Poema, 351: “Luna e Sole . . . sono considerati
52
— 50 —
“The Light of Day by Night”: nukti phaos, Said of the Moon in Parmenides B14
— 51 —
Alexander P. D. Mourelatos
— 52 —
“The Light of Day by Night”: nukti phaos, Said of the Moon in Parmenides B14
φῶς. There is an occurrence of φῶς ἠελίοιο in Theognis Elegiae I.1143; but the
dates of poems in the Theognid corpus are uncertain.
— 53 —
Alexander P. D. Mourelatos
57
Cf. Conche, Le Poème, 237.
58
My uncritical adoption of nuktiphaes in Route (225) prompted me to cite
these associations as a poetically relevant subtext to B14.
59
See Graham, “Lumière,” 368, Cosmos, 180.
— 54 —
“The Light of Day by Night”: nukti phaos, Said of the Moon in Parmenides B14
60
Cf. meg’ araion, “very lax, expansive,” said of “fire” in metonymy for φάος at
B8.57. For a good defense of retaining ἀραιόν rather than ἤπιον (in what would
otherwise be an unmetrical line), see Maia Todoua, “Sur l’improbable Douceur
du feu dans la cosmologie de Parménide (v. 57 du Fr. 8 DK),” Revue des Études
Grecques, 120 (2007), 395–341.
61
In parallel to meg’ araion said of “fire”at B8.57 (see previous note), we have at
B8.59 pukinon demas, “dense, compact body,” said of Night.
62
I am happy and grateful to borrow this formulation from written comments
sent to me by André Laks on an earlier draft of this essay.
— 55 —
Alexander P. D. Mourelatos
— 56 —
“The Light of Day by Night”: nukti phaos, Said of the Moon in Parmenides B14
63
But there are occasional lapses, as in the case of Ruggiu’s attributing to
Parmenides the view that sun and moon do not ever appear in the sky together
(above, note 52). Surprisingly, even Conche, who otherwise comments very
perceptively about the relevance of lunar phases apropos B14 and B15,
incautiously at one point explicates nuktiphaes by stating that the moon “brille
‘pendant la nuit’ . . . ou, tout simplement, ‘la nuit,’ . . . c’est à dire seulement
[his emphasis] la nuit” (Le Poème, 235). The comment by Pérez de Tudela
(in Bernabé et al., Poema, 215), if not intended to refer to the commonplace
superior luminosity of the moon in comparison to the stars, likewise comes close
to attributing an astronomically uninformed belief to Parmenides: “Esta luz
«robada» [stolen by the moon off the sun], sin embargo, no habrá de brillar en
cualquier momento, sino justamente en la Noche.”
— 57 —
Alexander P. D. Mourelatos
64
Arthur Huffmann, “Art’s Observational Astronomy Pages,” UCLA De-
partment of Physics and Astronomy, http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~huffman/
daymn.html.—Yet another of the many corrections by scientists and educators
of the common misconception is at the Madison Metropolitan School District
Planetarium Web site, “Day-time Moon Observations,” https://planetariumweb.
madison.k12.wi.us/mooncal/daymoon.htm: “Almost everybody has seen the
moon at night, but most people have never noticed that the moon is often [my
emphasis] visible in the daytime sky.”
65
On the occasion of the Charles Kahn celebration at Delphi in June 2009, I
made a different presentation, on the theme “The Eleaticism of the Eleatics.” An
earlier draft of the present essay was read and discussed at the second conference
of the International Association for Presocratic Studies, held at the University of
Edinburgh in July 2010, and in October 2010 at a Classics colloquium at The
University of Texas at Austin. I thank the participants in the discussion on these
two occasions for helpful comments. For written comments on working drafts,
I thank Dan Graham, André Laks, M. Laura Gemelli Marciano, and especially
Richard McKirahan. For sharp-eyed assistance with proofreading, my thanks to
Sally Jackman.—See also above, note 27, for acknowledgment of the use of ma-
terial drawn from the TLG.
— 58 —
Empedocles at Panopolis and Delphi
Diskin Clay
— 59 —
Diskin Clay
— 60 —
Empedocles at Panopolis and Delphi
— 61 —
Diskin Clay
1998), 8–10. John Tzetzes (twelfth century) speaks of B134 as coming from
Book 3 of On Nature, which is taken since Karsten to be a description of the
Katharmoi. (He also refers to Empedocles in his commentary to the Iliad, A66
and is our ambiguous source for B50). What one can conjecture about these
citations is that a text of Empedocles circulating in late antiquity divided his
poem into the two poems now familiar, the On Nature and Purifications. These
references are symptomatic of the problems we confront today in understanding
Empedocles. Four years before the publication of the Strasbourg Empedocles,
Peter Kingsley made a vigorous case for the separation of the “esoteric” On
Nature addressed to Pausanias, and the “exoteric” Purifications addressed to the
citizens of Akragas, in Ancient Philosophy, Mystery, and Magic: Empedocles and
the Pythagorean Tradition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 363–366, but that
was before B139 with Ensemble d migrated from the Purifications to On Nature.
6
Martin and Primavesi, L’Empédocle de Strasbourg, 27–32, 331–333, 339 and
Documents 1–3.
7
I add “her” not out of any scruple over correctness and inclusiveness but to
register the fact that many of the gold tablets were found in the graves of women,
according to a survey of the tablets by Fritz Graf and Sarah Iles Johnston, in
Ritual Texts for the Afterlife: Orpheus and the Orphic Gold Tablets (London:
Routledge, 2007). A striking example is their text 1 (from Hippinion) where
a woman speaks in the underworld, yet she identifies herself as “a son of the
Earth and starry Heaven” and refers to herself as being thirsty in the masculine
gender (lines 10–11), meaning that the language of the text was not originally
designed for the woman’s grave. We will return to this text in what follows. Fritz
Graf gives a table showing the gender (where known) of those buried with gold
— 62 —
Empedocles at Panopolis and Delphi
answer I will propose is that the content of this papyrus text explains
why it was converted into a funerary wreath. Indeed, the Greek
from Egyptian Panopolis (the Greek city of Zosimos and Nonnus)
was buried in imitation of the living and reincarnate Empedocles,
who described himself in what has counted in the beginning of
the Purifications as “wreathed with fillets and flowering wreaths”
(τα ̣ίναις τε περί ̣στεπτος στέφεσί ̣ν τε θαλεί ̣οις, DK 31B112.6).
The text of the “new Empedocles” is not entirely new. To give
the reader some orientation, I will reproduce the English translation
of the old and new texts provided by Martin and Primavesi. Their
supplements are not indicated. The first passage represents the
continuation for perhaps 41 lines of the 35 lines long familiar as
Diels-Kranz 31B17; then we have lines that connect with fragments
20 and 139 in Diels-Kranz. B139 (from Porphyry) Diels placed in
the Purifications. Martin and Primavesi assign it to Περὶ ̣ Φύσεως Β.
Richard Janko has argued persuasively, I think, that the ensemble
Martin and Primavesi assign to the second book of On Nature is in
fact the immediate continuation of the lines that partially reproduce
and continue B17.8 The language I put in italics catches my eye. We
begin with what is new (lines 267–300):
a(i) 6–b6.
But under Love we unite together to form a single
ordered whole, whereas under Hatred, in turn it
(i.e., the ordered whole) grew apart, so as to be many
out of one, out of which (i.e., many things) come
all beings that were and that are and that will be
hereafter: trees sprang forth and men and women,
— 63 —
Diskin Clay
— 64 —
Empedocles at Panopolis and Delphi
Here the scribe has entered the letter Γ, meaning that he has
transcribed 300 lines and expected to be paid for his work.
We move on to b + B76 only to note that three of its six lines
come in a different order than as cited by Plutarch and must come
much closer to the beginning of the poem than has been thought.
Possibly they are lines 324–330 of the papyrus.
b + B76.
On the one hand in mussels, dwelling in the sea,
with heavy backs and in the . . . who live in the
rocks: there you will see earth lying on the surface of
the flesh— on the other hand the cuirass of strong-
backed . . . and above all of sea-snails with stony
hides and of tortoises . . . the spears of horned stags
. . .—but I would not come to an end if I were to
enumerate all.
c + B20.
To devise works of change, on the one hand in the
case of the glorious bulk of human limbs; at one
time, through Love, we all come together into one as
limbs which have acquired a body at the height of
their flourishing life; while at another time, again,
torn asunder by baneful contentions they (i.e., the
human limbs) wander each one apart on the brink
of life. In the same way, on the other hand, for
shrubs and water-dwelling fishes, and for beasts
whose bodies are in the mountains and for birds
moving with their wings.
— 65 —
Diskin Clay
d + B139.
To fall apart from one another and then to meet
their fate, as they (i.e., the limbs), much against
their will, are made to rot away by bitter necessity.
And whereas we now have Love and Goodwill,
the Harpies with the lots of death will be with
us (hereafter). Alas that the merciless day did not
destroy me sooner, before I devised with my claws
terrible deeds for the sake of food. But now in
this storm I have in vain drenched my cheeks; for
we are approaching the very deep Whirl, I perceive,
and, though they do not wish it, countless griefs
will be present to men in their minds—but we
shall make you enter once more into the former
account; when an inextinguishable flame occurred
. . . bringing upwards a mixture of much woe . . .
beings capable of reproduction were engendered
. . . even now daylight beholds their remains. . . .
I went to the uttermost place . . . with a scream and a
cry . . . attaining the meadow of Doom . . . again,
the earth around.
— 66 —
Empedocles at Panopolis and Delphi
the poet addresses the citizens of his native Akragas and speaks
to them as a god and, strangely, it seems, as if he were a stranger
(B112). He also invokes the Muse Calliope (B131). He seems to
lament his own fate (B118 and 119) and addresses a wretched human
audience (B124, 136, and it would seem 141). The new texts make
this neat distinction between the two poems problematic even as
they weaken the barriers that have hermetically sealed Empedocles
the philosopher of nature, from Empedocles the initiate, who in
his other lives had experienced metempsychosis (or metensomatosis).
The first entirely new line of the “New Empedocles” continues
at B17.35 in Diels-Kranz. It comes in Ensemble a(i) 6. It has only
fifteen letters. The first three preserve ]μεθ’—the first person
plural. “But under Love we unite together to form a single ordered
whole.” Here we confront the now notorious problem of “the three
thetas.”9 The correction of the Panopolis papyrus’ editor or reader
of theta by nu seems reasonable, since the neuter plural participle
with the final alpha elided before a vowel seems natural in a poem
describing the effect of Love and Strife on the four elements of
Empedocles’ world. We find an obvious parallel for the neuter
participle in ἄλλοτε μὲν Φιλότητι συνερχόμεν’ ε ̣ἰς ἕνα κόσμον
(B20.2; cf. B26.5 and B35.5). But we find another first person plural
in what counts as fragment B109 of On Nature in Diels-Kranz; we
perceive like by like (γαί ̣ηι μὲν γὰρ γαῖ ̣αν ὀπώ ̣παμεν). This must
mean that Empedocles is enunciating the principle of perception
that “we” human beings recognize like by like. In another case, the
editors of the Strasbourg papyri print the clear first person plural
in their c 3 where we find the neuter participle in the citation of
Simplicius (B20.2, and in the correction of the papyrus by a second
hand). We find the accusative of the first person singular in their d
5 (B139.1), as we do in Porphyry. The passage had belonged to the
Purifications. Martin and Primavesi assign it to Book 2 of On Nature.
9
Other than the reasonable skepticism of some of the reviewers of the “new
Empedocles,” the most vigorous attempt to justify the correction of theta by
mu is that of Simon Trépanier, “Empedocles on the Ultimate Symmetry of the
World,” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 24 (2002), 1–57. I would note that
the editors of the Strasbourg papyri accept the other corrections to their text by
a second hand. These corrections are recorded in their transcription of the text
on pp. 155–157.
— 67 —
Diskin Clay
10
First in his review of the new Empedocles, “Voir la Haine,” Methodos 1
(2001), 173–185, Bollack publishes the text as the long familiar fragment 139
in his long awaited edition of the Purifications, Empédocle Les Purifications: Un
projet de paix universelle (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 2003) as his fr. 139.
11
L’Empédocle de Strasbourg, 347.
— 68 —
Empedocles at Panopolis and Delphi
12
An invocation usually assigned to the Purifications as B133. The imitation
and transformation of Empedocles’ language comes as Lucretius evokes the
Roman conception of the world as divided into three masses: earth, water, and
air and evokes the language of B133 in order to apply Empedocles’ statement
of how difficult it is to attain a notion of divinity to the difficulty of his Roman
reader, Memmius, as Lucretius confronts him with the possibility of a collapse of
his world (5.91–104).
— 69 —
Diskin Clay
13
David Sedley first treated the relation between Empedocles and Lucretius in
his essay, “The Proems of Empedocles and Lucretius,” Greek Roman and Byzantine
Studies 30 (1989), 269–296, and then a year before the Strasbourg papyri were
published in Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom, ch. 1. He was
then already aware of the texts Martin and Primavesi were soon to publish. The
fact that the Muse Empedocles invoked in B3 is called the “virgin” who will send
him a chariot (3–8; cf. Lucretius 6.92–94) and that in his invocation he begins
by addressing the gods, makes it unlikely that his poem began with an invocation
to Aphrodite, and that Lucretius’ invocation to Roman Venus (1.1–49) can help
us reconstitute the beginning of his poem.
14
The Poem of Empedocles: A Text and Translation with an Introduction (rev. ed.,
Toronto: Toronto University Press, 2001).
15
As for the Strasbourg papyrus, there is a novelty. Martin and Primavesi
recognized that Lucretius 2.1091–93 is a direct translation of a (ii) 26–28,
L’Empédocle de Strasbourg in their apparatus and on p. 232. There are three
other passages in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura that acknowledge and at the
same time transform the language in what has been counted as the words of the
Purifications: the description of the sacrifice of Iphigeneia in 1.84–101 is inspired
by Empedocles’ B137.1–4 (on the slaughter of one’s kin), and the praise of the
Graius homo in 1.62–79 by Empedocles’ unmistakable praise of Pythagoras
in B129. They were all sighted by David Furley, “Variations on Themes from
Empedocles in Lucretius’ Proem,” London Institute of Classical Studies 17 (1970),
55–64. The single line in 5.226 (in context) clearly reflects Empedocles B118.
— 70 —
Empedocles at Panopolis and Delphi
16
Herakleides Pontikos, Die Schule des Aristoteles, ed. Fritz Wehrli (Basel: Benno
Schwabe & Co, 1958), frs. 76–89. The tradition is reflected in DL 8.60. For
the necrology Empedocles seems to have written for himself, see Ava Chitwood,
Death by Philosophy: The Biographical Tradition in the Life and Death of Archaic
Philosophers (Empedocles, Heraclitus, and Democritus), (Ann Arbor, MI: The
University of Michigan Press, 2004), ch. 1.
17
Pythagoras is said to have recalled only a number of human lives: first as
Aithalides, the son of Hermes, then he was Homer’s Euphorbos who (with Apollo)
killed Patroclus and was wounded by Menelaos, and after other reincarnations
he became Pythagoras of Samos. He also migrated into plants and animals and
recalled his sufferings in Hades (DL 8.4–6). The passage from Xenophanes that
has him forbid a man from beating a puppy because he recognized in his yelp the
soul of a friend (DK 21B7) would seem to indicate this possibility. Christoph
Riedweg has made an argument for an “Orphic” element in Empedocles,
“Orphisches bei Empedocles,” Antike und Abendland, 41 (1994), 34–59.
18
It is shown on the cover of Bollack’s Émpedocle: Les purifications (note 6
above), without explanation but, I think, with justification.
— 71 —
Diskin Clay
but also the “Hell scrolls” of imperial China and the tenth Gate
to the afterlife: after drinking the tea of Forgetfulness the dead
follow one of the six streams of rebirth to become in sequence—an
insect, bird, human, noble, animal, or fish. All these future states
are marvelously illustrated.
I think it is possible to catch sight of the “new Empedocles”
in another Platonic dialogue: this is the Republic and its conclud-
ing Myth of Er. At the end of the Republic we are presented with
Socrates’ amazing doctrine of the immortality of the soul as it is
illustrated by the experience of Er, the son of Armenios of Pamphylia
(Republic 10.614b–621d). For ten days after his death in battle, Er
witnessed the afterlife and the fates of those who are rewarded for
their virtue or punished for their crimes. Er was assigned by the
higher powers of death to be the messenger to the living and report
all he had observed in the afterlife. One of the crimes not provided
for in Plato’s “myth of judgment” is that of eating meat, but there
are some echoes of the “old Empedocles” audible in this Platonic
“myth of judgment.” One that comes first to mind is the choice
Ajax makes as he picks the lot of a lion rather than a human for his
next life. In a quotation that comes from Aelian, Empedocles states
that the best form of the transmigration of the soul from a human
to an animal or plant is to become a lion among animals and a
laurel among plants (B127). In Er’s report, Ajax—in his loathing
for human kind—chooses the life of a lion (Republic 10.620a–b).19
There is much more to comment on. In the dramatic passage I
have given in translation, Empedocles speaks of the emergence under
the rule of Philia of “trees and males and females, beasts and birds
and fish and the long-lived gods” and the disruption of these unions
by Strife: “Under her they never cease from continuously shooting
19
Martin and Primavesi restore the “Meadow of Disaster” in their Ensemble d
17 + B139. If they are right, this Meadow might be the Meadow in the afterlife
that we find in Gorgias 524a and Republic 10.614d–e. It is significant, I think,
that Proclus in his commentary on the meadow of the myth of Er, quotes two
lines of Empedocles (B139) to illustrate the symbolism he finds in otherworldly
meadows, and preserves the phrase “the Meadow of Disaster” (In Platonis Rem
Publicam Commentarii II 157 Kroll). This meadow would be the opposite of the
“the meadows and groves of Persephone” that we find on a lamella from Thurii
(3.6–7), Graf and Johnston, Ritual Texts, 8–9.
— 72 —
Empedocles at Panopolis and Delphi
— 73 —
Diskin Clay
23
This tradition, which Diogenes Laertius takes back to Apollodorus’ Chronicles
(8.52), seems inspired by the language of B112.1–4.
24
The evidence is presented by Roger Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 103; also in a fuller context in
Panopolis: An Egyptian Town from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquests, eds.
A. Egberts, B. P. Muhs, and Jan van der Vliet (Leiden: Brill, 2002).
25
The significance of this context is well stated by Gábor Betegh, The Derveni
Papyrus: Cosmology, Theology and Interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2004), 56–59 and 65–73.
— 74 —
Empedocles at Panopolis and Delphi
26
They are cited as the immediate and most obvious parallels for the
posthumous use of the Panopolis papyri by Martin and Primavesi, L’Empédocle
de Strasbourg, 36–38. The Lake of Memory is perhaps best explained by Circe’s
description of the mental state of Teiresias who Persephone allowed to keep his
wits while the souls of the dead flit incessantly about him (Odyssey 10.487–495,
note 20 above).
27
These have now been edited, illustrated, and commented on in the collection
of Graf and Johnston, Ritual Texts, 2007.
28
I put the golden leaves from Pella in their larger context in Archilochos Heros:
The Cult of Poets in the Greek Polis (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
2004), 84–86.
29
Conveniently but partially reproduced in Kirk, Raven, & Schofield, The
Presocratic Philosophers, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983),
29, and now in Graf and Johnston, Ritual Texts 1, 4–5.
— 75 —
Diskin Clay
30
His dialect is not Doric but Ionic and Homeric, as is proper for a “Presocratic”
writing in the tradition of Xenophanes (who migrated from Colophon to Zankle
[Messana] and Catana in Sicily), and Heraclitus and he provides his readers with
strange morsels such as καμαοῆ̣νες, meaning fish (in B72 and 74). The novelties
of his poetic diction are set out by Andreas Willi, Sikelismos: Sprache, Literatur,
und Gesellschaft im griechischen Sizilien (8.–5. Jh. v. Chr.), (Basel: Schwabe Verlag,
2008), 202–212.
31
This is how Lucretius represented him (and others who believed in a world
made up of four elements), De Rerum Natura 1.726–740.
32
DL 8.71 and 63.
— 76 —
Empedocles at Panopolis and Delphi
Favorinus has him shod with bronze sandals and wearing a Delphic
wreath as he “moves majestically in the company of boys.”33 The
laurel was the shrub that Empedocles most revered (B127) and, as
did Apollo, he wore a wreath of it about his head. Empedocles also
carried a staff wreathed in Apollo’s wool and wore the headband
of a priest.34
33
VA 8.7 = A18 and DL 8.73. The use of wool and the purple yielded by the
murex shell would have offended Pythagoras and Apollonius himself.
34
The Delphic part of the title of this essay honors both the conference
assembled and organized by the HYELE Institute at the European Cultural
Centre at Delphi, 3–7 June 2009, and my long friendship with its honoré,
Charles H. Kahn. We first became friends on a trip of the American School
of Classical Studies at Athens to Delphi in the fall of 1963, and we stopped to
discuss the Homeric Hymn to Demeter in the striking ruins of the precinct of
Athena Pronaia below the crags of Parnassos. This written version of my talk in
Delphi preserves some memory of the setting where it was delivered.
— 77 —
This page has been intentionally left blank.
The Cosmogonic Moment
in the Derveni Papyrus
Richard McKirahan
1. INTRODUCTION
— 79 —
Richard McKirahan
it was the first in the causal chain of events that produced our
cosmos. In this paper I will explore a number of questions that arise
in connection with this primary event, with the hope of contrib-
uting to the understanding of the event itself and its significance
in cosmic history, and also to the understanding of some puzzling
passages in the text contained in the Derveni papyrus, which I shall
call the Derveni text.
I will refer to a number of presocratic cosmologies for purposes
of reference and possible clarification, but I will not have much to
contribute to the debate on DA’s sources and intellectual affilia-
tions. My intention is to discuss DA’s cosmogony, not the Orphic
poem DA is interpreting, or DA’s interpretive methods, or even the
consistency of DA’s cosmogony and cosmology with the contents of
DP. This is not to say that I regard these matters as unimportant for
understanding the Derveni text or indeed for understanding DA’s
cosmogony. I have simply restricted the scope of my project in an
attempt to keep it to a manageable size.
My discussion is based on the text established by Tsantsanoglou
and Parassoglou,1 although I do not always follow their proposals
about filling lacunae. The translations are my own. I am in general
less willing than Kouremenos2 seems to be to base my interpreta-
tion on highly conjectural restorations. The starting points for my
interpretation are the pioneering discussions in Betegh3 and KPT.
This paper is an attempt to treat DA’s (not DP’s) cosmogony in
a way frequently employed with the fragments of presocratic philos-
ophers. My goal is to understand the cosmogony and make sense of
it, applying the kinds of criteria and standards used in attempting
to piece together the systems of, say, Empedocles or Anaxagoras.
This typically involves identifying questions that are invited by the
surviving text, but whose answers are not given there, and attempt-
ing to find answers that make sense in terms of the information
provided by the surviving text and by the wider context in which
1
Kouremenos, T., Tsantsanoglou, K. and Parassoglou, G. M., The Derveni
Papyrus (Florence, Italy: Casa Editrice Leo S. Olschki, 2006). Hereinafter KPT.
2
In his commentary on the papyrus in KPT.
3
Betegh, G., The Derveni Papyrus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2004).
— 80 —
The Cosmogonic Moment in the Derveni Papyrus
the text was written. But however appropriate this approach may be
to the fragments of a presocratic cosmological work, it is not clear
how appropriate it is for a text like the one found in the Derveni
papyrus. Anaxagoras appears to have aimed to set out his views in a
consistent and systematic fashion and to have done so in a cultural
and intellectual context in which theories were debated on rational
grounds, objections were raised, and rival theories needed to be kept
in mind. On the other hand, since the Derveni text purports to be an
allegorical interpretation of an Orphic poem, and since it is unique
of its kind and for its date, it is unclear what standards of intellectual
rigor we can expect of DA. Obviously there is much more that can
be said on this matter. My point here is simply to acknowledge some
of the presuppositons of the approach I adopt in this paper and in
consequence some of the limitations of its conclusions.
An opportunity I was recently afforded to visit the Archaeological
Museum of Thessalonica and study the Derveni papyrus at first
hand has made it clear to me how terribly tentative any interpre-
tation of the text it contains must be, not only because the text is
incomplete but also because of the uncertainties connected with
restoring missing letters and words, because of the difficulties
involved in reading and restoring incomplete letters and sometimes
even in deciding whether or not a trace of a letter exists, and above
all because of the difficulties of reconstructing the text of the 26
partially surviving columns from almost 300 papyrus fragments
(some containing no more than a letter or two) that are preserved
between pairs of sheets of glass, where they are divided into groups
without reference to their original order.
— 81 —
Richard McKirahan
two kinds of entities mentioned above. The key claim that things-
that-are existed always and the things-that-are-now come to be
from things-that-exist (XVI.2, 8) shows that what DA refers to as
“things-that-are” are things that always exist and “things-that-are-
now” and “things-that-come-to-be” are things that do not always
exist. “Things-that-will-be” is most easily taken as a description of
entities in the latter category: they are “things-that-come-to-be” that
have not come to be yet. Finally, in its two occurrences the expres-
sion “things-that-exist” seems to be used as a synonym (perhaps for
stylistic reasons, to avoid repetition) of “things-that-are.”
The distinction between things-that-are and things-that-come-
to-be is the basis of an argument that goes as follows:
— 82 —
The Cosmogonic Moment in the Derveni Papyrus
— 83 —
Richard McKirahan
— 84 —
The Cosmogonic Moment in the Derveni Papyrus
— 85 —
Richard McKirahan
— 86 —
The Cosmogonic Moment in the Derveni Papyrus
kinds is no basis for an orderly cosmos; aside from the fact that fire is
dominant throughout, there is no order or organization of any kind.
In one sense there is a history of the period of fire’s domination,
but in another sense it has no history. Since during that period all we
have is minute particles in motion, we can conceive of its history as
the sum of the histories of all the minute particles, a record of their
positions at different times. There cannot be motion without time,
and the period in question is marked by an abundance of motion.
But from the viewpoint of a hypothetical observer, it always appears
the same: a huge mass that appears to be pure fire since the other
components are overwhelmed by the dominant fire. The particles
are invisible, no discernible events occur, and so a perhaps crude
application of the principle of the identity of indiscernibles will lead
to the conclusion that there was no change; therefore there were no
discernibly different states, and hence no discernibly different times
either. Clearly enough, this condition, left to its own devices, could
have continued ad infinitum. And clearly enough, it did not. The
pre-cosmic stage came to an end and the cosmogony began in what
I call the cosmogonic moment.
— 87 —
Richard McKirahan
This last claim must hold not only for fire (or any other
thing-that-is) in general (that is, there must always be some fire
in existence) but also for the total amount of fire as well as every
individual particle of fire, as is the case for Empedocles’ four roots
(for example). DA holds that when a certain amount of a thing-that-is
is an ingredient of a thing-that-is-now, it continues to exist qua the
thing-that-is in question while it is a component of the thing-that-
is-now (XV.8–10). But if he insists on this point in a case where
one might reasonably hold that the amount of a given thing-that-is
that is an ingredient of a certain thing-that-is-now ceases to be such
when it joins to form that thing-that-is-now (in the way that it would
be reasonable to say that when water is formed out of hydrogen
and oxygen, first there are hydrogen and oxygen and no water and
afterwards there is water but no hydrogen or oxygen: the hydrogen
and oxygen have ceased to be)—in other words, in a case where one
might reasonably suppose that the certain amount of the thing-that-is
perishes at least temporarily—it is hard to imagine him supposing
that any amount of a thing-that-is could perish in any other way.
The post-Parmenidean atmosphere that pervades the Derveni text
also strongly discourages this possibility.
Since fire dominated in the primal state by being mixed with
the other things-that-are, an obvious way to remove the obstacle that
fire presents to cosmogony is to remove the excess fire. And this is
what DA tells us happened. I suppose that the sun is DA’s allegorical
interpretation of the “glorious divinity” which the Orphic poem says
Zeus took from his father (VIII.4–5). DA further understands the
genital organ which Zeus swallows in the Orphic poem to be the
sun (XVI.1). Taken together, these two passages indicate that Zeus/
air/Mind removed (what became) the sun from the fiery state of
affairs that obtained in the pre-cosmic magma. The removal of the
fire to a distant (but not too distant) place is specifically mentioned
in the following passages:
— 88 —
The Cosmogonic Moment in the Derveni Papyrus
The first of these passages says that the fire is removed to an appropri-
ate distance, and the second points out that it was “separated” (that
is, extracted from the primal mixture), specifies where it is located
(“in the middle”), and reassures us that it is confined there by Mind,
so we need not fear a return to the primal state. (I shall have more
to say about Mind below.)
By putting the sun “in the middle,” Mind made it possible for
things-that-are-now to be compounded. But the sun is not only set at
an appropriate distance, it is also set in motion. The sun’s motion is
the cause of the alternation of day and night, a phenomenon which
DA mentions in the following passage:
— 89 —
Richard McKirahan
— 90 —
The Cosmogonic Moment in the Derveni Papyrus
Further, if, as seems certain, DA believed that the sun plays its
role in generation through its heat, and if, as seems equally certain,
DA supposed the amount of heat with which it affects something
has some kind of inverse relation to its distance from that thing
(hence the need to remove the sun a certain distance), then having
the sun “in the middle” in some vague sense of that expression
is a way to ensure that the right amount of heat for generation is
distributed widely in the cosmos. I think that it is unprofitable to
press the topography, the geometry or the thermodynamics of the
situation further than this.
A question that immediately arises is just how fire was separated
from the primal mixture and removed to the middle. What was
the agency and what was the mechanism? The Derveni text gives
little specific information aside from the crucial fact that the state in
which fire dominated came to an end that marked the beginning of
the period in which air dominates. Previously in the violent random
motion that characterized the rule of fire, which did not permit any
thing-that-is to aggregate, air (like the other things-that-are) did not
exist in a way that would have been discernible by a hypothetical
observer. After the rule of fire ended, air was discernible. However,
DA insists that air (qua thing-that-is) existed prior to the cosmos;
but because at one time it came to be discernible, it was wrongly
thought to have come to be and not to have existed previously.
This information is given in the following passage in which DA
rationalizes the myth of Zeus’ birth:
— 91 —
Richard McKirahan
So Zeus is identified not simply with air, but as air that is dominant
in the present cosmic phase. In this way DA preserves Zeus’ primacy.
Even though air has not always ruled, Zeus took command as soon
as he was born; air became predominant as soon as enough of it had
aggregated, as soon as it had become Zeus.
DP’s graphic description of Zeus’ seizure of power from
Kronos by swallowing Ouranos’ genital organ, which Kronos had
severed when seizing power for himself, is hard to cash out in sober
cosmological terms. But DA interprets the violent transfer of power
mentioned in the verses quoted in VIII.4–5 as the change from
the dominance of fire to the dominance of air. In fact, air masters
(dominates) the fire that had prevailed before by separating some
of it and removing it from where it had been, isolating it, limiting it
in size and establishing it in a particular location and preventing it
from leaving that place. The event that constituted the cosmogonic
moment is the very act by which air established its dominance over
fire and thereby over the totality of things-that-are. That not all
the fire in the pre-cosmic magma was separated out and removed
is a further indication of air’s dominance; the intelligent air, which
“dominates all things as much as it wishes” (XIX.3–4) evidently
did not wish to place all the fire in the sun. Some fire is found on
earth, while other bits of fire constitute the stars, which the air
prevents from joining together or with the sun, as the following
passage describes:
Air wished things to come to be and perish as they do; for this
to happen it needed to cause a certain amount of fire (no more and
no less) to separate, remove it to a certain distance, keep it there,
and ensure that it was not increased by the accretion of additional
fire and that no other sizeable fiery mass arose elsewhere in the
heavens. It is likely that fire during its dominance had nothing to
— 92 —
The Cosmogonic Moment in the Derveni Papyrus
This seems to describe the state of affairs after the sun had been
formed and put into its right place. The dominance of fire in the
pre-cosmic mix had overwhelmed this tendency, but upon the
removal of most of the fire and heat, the tiny particles of things-that-
are that had been in random motion in the fiery magma continued
to move in the now-dominant air, but since the air did not impede
this tendency they were able to aggregate each to its like. This
seems to indicate a period of aggregation prior to the formation of
compounds.
The text does not make clear whether all the particles of each of
the kinds of things-that-are came together, so that all the microscopic
particles of water, say, were aggregated in one place and all the
particles of earth in another, or whether there came to be a plurality
of aggregations of particles of each kind of thing-that-is, perhaps a
large number of small macroscopic collections. The former possibility
would resemble the state of the dominance of Strife in Empedocles’
cosmic cycle, where the totality of each element is gathered together
in one separate mass. But in Empedocles this is an extreme state (not
an intermediary one), and it occurs under the dominance of one of
— 93 —
Richard McKirahan
the two opposing motive entities in the system. In fact, the cosmos
as we know it exists neither in the period of Strife’s total dominance
nor in that of Love’s. Our cosmos is a temporary (although recurring)
by-product of the movement of the four elements under the influence
of Love and Strife as they reciprocally wax and wane in power. By
contrast, DA’s cosmology has only one dominant motive entity—
air—and it is this that brings the cosmos into being and maintains
it. There is not the same motivation for an extreme state of separation
as we find in Empedocles. I find these considerations against the
first possibility powerful if not conclusive.
On the second possibility, if we suppose that DA is saying that
the totality of each of the things-that-are was aggregated into a
plurality of homogeneous macroscopic bundles, then it is possible
further to suppose that DA held that those bundles contained the
amount of aggregation needed to form compounds. (The idea
here would be that the microscopic particles of a thing-that-is are
individually unable to enter into compounds.) Such uncompounded
bundles might be said to “float” (αἰωρεῖν) in the dominant air, as
DA describes the stars:
— 94 —
The Cosmogonic Moment in the Derveni Papyrus
— 95 —
Richard McKirahan
— 96 —
The Cosmogonic Moment in the Derveni Papyrus
— 97 —
Richard McKirahan
— 98 —
The Cosmogonic Moment in the Derveni Papyrus
4
KPT, 215.
— 99 —
Richard McKirahan
But whatever the Orphic poem may have said about the state
of things prior to Zeus’ rule, it is clear that DA leaves no room for a
pre-cosmic cosmos. The primal phase had no gods, goddesses, rivers,
springs, or anything else, except a lot of fire and the other “things-
that-are,” in a condition that cannot be described as a cosmos at
all. So although it seems likely that DA is paraphrasing the poem’s
statement about Zeus being solitary, the interpretation he gives to
the statement is quite different. At no stage in the cosmogony is air
the only existing thing, and at no stage does air take fire’s place as
the thing that presides over a chaotic motion of the things-that-are.
Because of the excessive heat, the things-that-are will continue to be
dominated by fire until a lot of fire is removed, and only when it is
removed can the things-that-are be brought to unite into discern-
ible-sized entities (XXI.2–5). I suppose, then, that when DA speaks
of the Mind as “being alone” he is referring to the dominance of
intelligent air, which is alone in that (as he explains at XVI.10–12)
it has no rivals and controls all things, but certainly not alone in
that there are no other things-that-are.
However, there is an aspect to the control that air exercises
over all things that needs to be stressed. Whereas fire’s domina-
tion consisted in overwhelming everything else, air’s domination
functions differently. Here the basic text is:
Clearly not all things are called air. For example, what we call water
is characterized by the domination of water. There may be some air
in it, and perhaps some or many or even all other things-that-are
as well, but the dominant element is water, not air, and this is why
it appears as water. In other words, air is not a micro-manager: its
dominance does not consist in its being dominant in all places at
all times. But air is very much in control. It dominates all things,
but does not wish to dominate them all entirely. Thus, since it
does not wish all the fire to join together, it keeps some particles of
fire “floating far from one another” (XXV.3–4); it even allows the
— 100 —
The Cosmogonic Moment in the Derveni Papyrus
bright fire of the sun to dominate these particles during the daytime,
making them invisible (XXV.4–6). I will avoid the temptation to
talk about management style, but clearly the reign of Zeus makes
possible a kind of organized system (in which each member is always
subservient to the wishes of the wise ruler) that was unthinkable
under the rule of Kronos.
6. SIMULTANEOUS EVENTS
The transfer of dominance from fire to air is embodied,
displayed, and established by the separation of fire from the primal
mixture and the formation of the sun. Something the Derveni text
does not emphasize is that this change entailed other changes which
should be regarded not as effects of this event, but as aspects of the
same event.
I start with an account of the beginning of the Pythagorean
cosmogony that is probably due to Philolaus. In this cosmogony,
Time, breath, and void are mentioned here, all at the beginning
of the cosmogony. They seem to be necessary conditions for other
entities to be created. Time, since in the cosmos things have temporal
existence; breath as the material principle (as in Anaximenes or
Diogenes of Apollonia); and void as a principle of individuation (as
in fifth-century atomism): void is in between things and thus makes
it possible for things to be distinct, occupying different locations
and not coinciding with one another. I think that all these three
aspects of existence are found in DA’s cosmogony, brought into
being at the cosmogonic moment.
First, the material principles. DA does not claim that all things
are forms of air (as Anaximenes and as Diogenes of Apollonia do) or
that at the beginning of the cosmos there was only air and that other
kinds of entities were formed out of it. For DA the things-that-are
had no beginning and will have no end. They were in the primal
— 101 —
Richard McKirahan
— 102 —
The Cosmogonic Moment in the Derveni Papyrus
— 103 —
Richard McKirahan
How, then did night come into being? I propose that the same
event that generated the sun generated night as well. DA describes
this event as an act of separation and removal. Most of the bright
hot fire was separated and removed from the primal magma. What
was left? Since none of the things-that-are can perish, what was left
was everything that was in the primal magma, minus most of the
fire. But that means that the remainder, having lost most of its light
and heat, was predominantly dark and cold, which are the principal
characteristics of night. Thus sun and night are twins; not identical
twins of course, but coeval opposite twins.
This proposal immediately faces a powerful objection: that in
the Orphic theology implicit in DP, Night is a primeval goddess, the
mother of Ouranos the first king, who has the matronymic, “son
of Evening” ( Εὐφρονίδης, XIV.6), where evening (Εὐφροσύνη) is
another name for night ( Νύξ). It is the goddess Night, the “nurse”
of Zeus (X.11) who so prominently assists Zeus in his rise to power,
proclaiming encouraging oracles (XI–XII). Since Night pre-exists
Zeus, who created the sun, Zeus could not have created night
together with the sun.
— 104 —
The Cosmogonic Moment in the Derveni Papyrus
— 105 —
Richard McKirahan
This passage states that after some point, air will no longer be called
Zeus, which must mean that air will cease to rule. Zeus is only air’s
name for the time being; the cosmos will eventually (for unspecified
reasons) come to an end. In that state “the things-that-are-now are
formed into the same state in which they were previously floating
as things-that-are”; there are no aggregates of particles of things-
that-are and no compounds. (The other occurrences of the word
— 106 —
The Cosmogonic Moment in the Derveni Papyrus
5
KPT, 223.
— 107 —
Richard McKirahan
water, some of earth, etc. (assuming that water and earth are among
the things-that-are) (XXI.1–5). The third possibility is that the prior
state referred to in XVII.8–9 is the state in which the minute particles
were jumping in air, and the fourth possibility is that it is the state
in which the particles are aggregated into pieces of things-that-are.
DA may have intended either of these interpretations, but there are
difficulties either way. The problem for the third interpretation is that
DA describes the motion of the things-that-are in the post-cosmic
state as “floating,” whereas floating seems to be a different kind of
motion from the “jumping” motion of the individual particles called
for on the interpretation in question. The problem for the fourth
interpretation is that the other occurrences of the word “floating”
refer to the motion of the particles of fire which are the stars, where
the floating objects are better taken as individual particles rather
than aggregations, since the intelligent air keeps them floating “far
from one another” (XXV.3–4) precisely in order to prevent them
from aggregating (XXV.7–8).
Finally, the fifth possibility is that the post-cosmic state referred
to is a return to the state that obtained before the dominance of fire,
and that this condition was not (as in Betegh’s account) identical
with the present state. I argued above that this period corresponds
to the rule of Ouranos. We are told disappointingly little about
Ouranos aside that he “was the first of all to reign” (XIV.6) and
that Kronos “did a great deed” to him and “deprived him of the
kingship” (XIV.8–9). Another passage (heavily restored) says more:
— 108 —
The Cosmogonic Moment in the Derveni Papyrus
most likely to have been different from the violent motion under
Kronos. A more gentle motion, then, or even no motion at all.
Ouranos’ work of defining nature may have consisted in defining
the nature of the things-that-are. Not generating them, of course,
but somehow organizing them, perhaps determining what things
the things-that-are are, giving each particle its identity as a particle
of a particular kind of thing-that-is. No particular kind of motion
would be needed in this state, but, as physical entities, they would
need to be somewhere, and as distinct physical entities they would
need to be in different locations from one another. “Floating” is a
word that DA might have used for that condition. In that case there
would be little or no motion under Ouranos, violent random motion
under Kronos, and orderly motion under Zeus. As with Betegh’s
interpretation, the return to the state under Ouranos suggests the
possibility of cyclicity, but there is no proof.
However, we need to wonder whether “floating” is appropriate
here. A raft floats on water, the stars float in air (XXV.3–4) or in
necessity (XXV.7), where “necessity” is plausibly interpreted as
referring to air, which dominates and controls all things. What will
the particles be floating in when air is not dominant? Is Ouranos an
allegory for any particular kind of substance in which they could
float, as Zeus is for air? Could the particles be said to float “in
necessity” under Ouranos (who defined their natures) in that they
are dominated and controlled by him? Could they float in Ouranos
even if he is not identified with any substance? These questions and
the possibilities they raise are intriguing, but since the evidence in
the Derveni papyrus hardly provides answers to them (particularly
in view of the amount of supplementation needed to arrive at the
text translated above), I content myself with having posed them
and leave it to others to pursue the quest further.
In the end it is apparent that the decision on DA’s eschatological
views depends heavily on the interpretation we adopt of his cosmog-
ony and on the allegorical identifications he makes with the myth
of the DP. If I am right in thinking that Ouranos, Kronos, and
Zeus represent three different phases in the history of the universe,
and that Kronos and Zeus represent respectively the phase in which
fire dominates and that in which air dominates, and that the three
— 109 —
Richard McKirahan
— 110 —
Will the Real Critias Please Stand Up?
John M. Dillon
The character and true purposes of Plato’s wicked cousin Critias
have long been a subject of interest and dispute. The second century
ce sophist Philostratus, for instance, in his Lives of the Sophists
(I 16: 501–3), begins his evaluation thus:
— 111 —
John M. Dillon
That is not, however, quite the whole story, even for Philostratus.
There also survived, in rhetorical and literary circles, a tradition
of Critias, the master of Attic prose (as well as of Critias, the
accomplished and witty versifier), which is more or less indepen-
dent of his noxious political reputation. Philostratus himself, once
he has got the denunciation of Critias the politician off his chest,
has this to say:
— 112 —
Will the Real Critias Please Stand Up?
2
Critias is reported to have been a pupil of Antiphon’s in rhetoric, Pseudo-
Plutarch, Life of Antiphon, 832D–E. This may have some consequences for his
philosophical outlook (see below).
3
These are presumably specimen exordia for speakers proposing to address
public assemblies, though it is not clear who Critias was proposing to instruct.
— 113 —
John M. Dillon
4
Hippon has just been reported as declaring it to be water.
5
Philoponus, it must be said, is not even certain that “Critias the Sophist,”
to whom he would attribute this doctrine, is the same as Critias the Tyrant, but
there is no need to follow him in this uncertainty.
— 114 —
Will the Real Critias Please Stand Up?
6
In his commentary on Hippocrates’ The Doctor’s Workshop, (XVIII B656
Kühn = Frs. B39–40 DK).
7
Who “they” are is not clear (the genitive could be of any gender); perhaps just
one’s opponents in a law case.
— 115 —
John M. Dillon
8
Sextus in fact ties Critias in with such notorious “atheists” as Diagoras of
Melos and Prodicus of Ceos. We must bear in mind, of course, that in the myth,
and presumably in the play, Sisyphus is in fact punished by a very real Zeus,
so that Critias allows these utterances to be undercut in an amusingly ironic
manner. I am conscious, by the way, that there is currently a preponderance of
scholarly opinion in favor of crediting this play rather to Euripides, following
the testimony of Aelian VH II 8, who reports Euripides as having presented a
satyr-play Sisyphus in 415. But then how would Sextus ever have got it into his
head that Critias was the author of this passage? I would prefer to assume that
Euripides also composed a Sisyphus.
— 116 —
Will the Real Critias Please Stand Up?
9
There is also a connotation of “minding one’s own business,” but that is
perhaps secondary.
10
The connotation “sophist” is not far to seek.
— 117 —
John M. Dillon
11
See Charles Kahn, “Was Euthyphro the Author of the Derveni Papyrus?,”
in Studies in the Derveni Papyrus, eds. André Laks and Glenn W. Most (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1997).
— 118 —
Will the Real Critias Please Stand Up?
12
This, I must specify, is by no means a new idea. See, most recently, Andrea
Rotstein, “Critias’ invective against Archilochus,” Classical Philology 102 (2007),
139–154, esp. 147–151 and the further references in n41. However, I hope here
to be adding some further weight to the arguments in favor of the identification.
I am most grateful to David Whitehead (via Cynthia Patterson) for this reference.
13
τὴν δὲ ἰδέαν τοῦ λόγου δογματίας ὁ Κριτίας καὶ πολυγνώμων
σεμνολογῆσαί τε ἱκανώτατος οὐ τὴν διθυραμβώδη σεμνολογίαν . . .
— 119 —
John M. Dillon
The de with which the work begins has come in for adverse comment, but we
14
may note that Heraclitus also began his treatise with a de: tou de logou toutou . . .
— 120 —
Will the Real Critias Please Stand Up?
15
Isêgoria can mean political equality in general, but here it is something less
than that, as neither slaves nor metics enjoyed anything like political equality
with citizens. In the context, it must mean something more restricted, like a
right of address.
16
It might be said here that the slaves seem to get brushed out of the picture
rather oddly; it may be that the text is defective, and that they should be
included—they are also necessary, after all, both for trades and for the operation
of a merchant fleet, at least.
— 121 —
John M. Dillon
17
J. L. Marr & P. J. Rhodes, “The Old Oligarch”: The Constitution of the
Athenians attributed to Xenophon (Oxford: Aris & Phillips, 2008).
18
I leave aside the author’s use of gnômê for nous or dianoia—noted as a pe-
culiarity of Critias by Galen (Fr. B39 DK)—which occurs twice, at 1. 11 and
at 3. 10, in both cases as part of the phrase γνώμῃ τι ποιεῖν, “to do something
deliberately,” or “shrewdly,” as this usage would actually be fairly normal in the
mid-fifth century, though I think it is a straw in the wind.
— 122 —
Will the Real Critias Please Stand Up?
— 123 —
John M. Dillon
— 124 —
Aristoxenus’ Account of Pythagoras
Carl A. Huffman
Both as a student and as an older scholar, it has often seemed to
me that, whenever I turn to a new topic in ancient philosophy, one
of my best guides turns out to be an invaluable article or book by
Charles Kahn. His published works have surely made him one
of the most influential teachers of ancient philosophy. This of
course applies to his books on Anaximander, Heraclitus and Plato,
to which I have turned again and again, but also to articles that
are, perhaps, less well known, such as his account of the Sisyphus
fragment and his chapter on Arius Didymus.1 In recent years, follow-
ing Burkert’s work, he has been one of the few scholars willing to
tackle the thorny problems of Pythagoreanism, and his Pythagoras
and the Pythagoreans, A Brief History, is the best brief overview of
Pythagoreanism that we have, manifesting his masterful ability to
make difficult topics both accessible and exciting. As he comments,
“the historical figure of Pythagoras has almost vanished behind the
cloud of legend gathered around his name,” yet he uses what clues
we have to reconstruct a picture of what Pythagoras may have been
like that both takes into account and critiques Burkert’s view.2 I do
not agree with every aspect of his account, but it is one of the few
successful attempts to develop a coherent view of Pythagoras since
Burkert dismantled the old view of him as a master mathematician,
scientist and metaphysician, which had been in vogue since the
1
Charles Kahn, “Arius as a Doxographer,” in On Stoic and Peripatetic Ethics,
ed. W. Fortenbaugh (New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1983), 3–13. Charles
Kahn, “Greek Religion and Philosophy in the ‘Sisyphus’ Fragment,” Phronesis
42.3 (1997), 247–262.
2
Charles Kahn, Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans: A Brief History (Indianapolis:
Hackett, 2001), 5.
— 125 —
Carl Huffman
3
Walter Burkert, Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism, trans. Edwin L.
Minar, Jr. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972), 107n54.
4
See F. Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles, Volume 2: Aristoxenus, 2nd ed. (Basel:
Benno Schwabe, 1967), Fr. 1. This is the entry in the Suda under Ἀριστόξενος.
The standard edition of the Suda is Suidae Lexicon, ed. A. Adler (Leipzig:
Teubner, 1928–1935).
— 126 —
Aristoxenus’ Account of Pythagoras
— 127 —
Carl Huffman
7
See e.g., Andrew Barker, The Science of Harmonics in Classical Greece
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 166–168.
8
See note 4.
9
Wehrli, Die Schule, Fragments 11–68.
— 128 —
Aristoxenus’ Account of Pythagoras
10
Wehrli, Die Schule, 58–59. See also Hermann Täger, De Aristoxeni libro
Pythagorico (dissertation, Göttingen, 1922).
11
C. A. Huffman, “The Pythagorean Precepts of Aristoxenus: Crucial Evidence
for Pythagorean Moral Philosophy,” Classical Quarterly 58.1 (2008), 104–119.
12
See Carl A. Huffman, “Aristoxenus’ Life of Socrates,” in Aristoxenus of
Tarentum: Discussion, ed. Carl A. Huffman (New Brunswick: Transaction Books,
2012), 251–281 and Stefan Schorn, “Aristoxenus’ Biographical Method,” in the
same volume, 177–221.
— 129 —
Carl Huffman
13
Wehrli, Die Schule, 55.
14
Levy, Recherches, 44.
15
Burkert, Lore, 200.
16
Kahn, Pythagoras, 70.
17
See now Leonid Zhmud, “Aristoxenus and the Pythagoreans,” in Huffman,
Aristoxenus, 223–249, who agrees with the traditional interpretation that
Aristoxenus did present a rationalized and polemical account but argues that such
an account is still “preferable to the legendary tradition that he disputes” (228).
18
All fragments of Aristoxenus are cited from Wehrli, Die Schule.
— 130 —
Aristoxenus’ Account of Pythagoras
— 131 —
Carl Huffman
a risky use of the argument from silence, but it is not in fact true
that Aristoxenus makes no mention of reincarnation. In Fragment
12, Aristoxenus is the earliest of five sources cited for the report
that Pythagoras’ rebirths occurred at intervals of 216 years. The
testimonium is complex, and how much should be assigned to
Aristoxenus is not clear. Nonetheless it is prima facie for the 216-year
cycle of rebirths that Aristoxenus is cited. Wehrli assumes what is
to be proven, when he concludes that only the synchronicity of
Pythagoras and Polycrates mentioned later in the report goes back
to Aristoxenus, on the grounds that the mention of reincarnation
harmonizes badly with Aristoxenus’ supposed attempt to protect
Pythagorean teaching from the ridicule of the enlightened.24 So
far then, Aristoxenus’ Pythagoras is an expert in religious mysteries
who believes in reincarnation.
Three reports by Aristoxenus about Pythagoras’ teachers also
emphasize his expertise in religious ritual and his connection with
mythical rather than rational accounts of the cosmos. Thus, in
Fragment 13, Aristoxenus reports that Pythagoras went to study with
Zaratas (i.e., Zoroaster) the Chaldaean. There are several historical
problems here, which I do not have the space to discuss.25 The
following report of what Zoroaster supposedly taught Pythagoras,
however, mentions a male and a female principle that make up the
cosmos and raises concerns about the pollution of the soul. These
elements suggest that the connection to Zoroaster was once again
an indication of Pythagoras’ expertise in the fate of the soul and
mythic accounts of the cosmos. Such expertise also appears to be the
point of Aristoxenus’ report in Fragment 14, that Pythagoras buried
Pherecydes on Delos after his death from an illness. Pherecydes is
famous for a theogony combined with a cosmogony, which shows
points of contact with Hesiod, Orphic theogonies, and Near-eastern
cosmogonies. Certain aspects of Pherecydes’ thought point the way
toward the more rational cosmogonies of the Presocratics26, but, in
24
Wehrli, Die Schule, 50.
25
Burkert, Lore, 112n16.
26
On Pherecydes see Herbert Granger, “The Theologian Pherecydes of Syros
and the Early Days of Natural Philosophy,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology
103 (2007), 135–163.
— 132 —
Aristoxenus’ Account of Pythagoras
— 133 —
Carl Huffman
— 134 —
Aristoxenus’ Account of Pythagoras
30
Frank, Sogenannten, 223.
— 135 —
Carl Huffman
hunters and butchers (Porphyry, The Life of Pythagoras, 7). Yet, the
best evidence suggests that he forbade eating only certain types
and certain parts of animals. Thus, a fragment from Aristotle’s lost
treatise on the Pythagoreans reports that “the Pythagoreans abstained
from the womb and heart and from the sea nettle and some other
such things but ate the other animals.”31 Aristotle is our source for
many of the akousmata, the oral maxims usually supposed to go
back to the time of Pythagoras, and, as Burkert saw, the statement
in Fr. 194 just quoted indicates that “the akousmata did not contain
any simple prohibition of the eating of meat, but various specific
precepts . . .” so that “it is taken for granted that other kinds of
meat will be eaten.”32 Thus, Aristoxenus’ report that Pythagoras ate
certain sorts of meat is not only supported by Aristotle but is also
consistent with the akousmata.
It is true that the Pythagorists portrayed in Greek comedy in
the middle of the fourth century are regularly said to eat no meat.
Thus Antiphanes describes someone as “eating nothing animate, as
if Pythagorizing”33 and Alexis describes the Pythagorean sacrificial
feast as vegetarian, including dried figs, cheese and olive cakes. He
also reports that the Pythagorean life entailed “scanty food, filth,
cold, silence, sullenness and no baths” as well as drinking water rather
than wine.34 These descriptions of the Pythagorists, including their
vegetarianism, also fit Diodorus of Aspendus in Pamphylia, who was
active in the first part of the fourth century and dressed in a way
that would later be typical of the Cynics, with long hair and beard, a
shabby cloak, a staff and a beggar’s rucksack (Diogenes Laertius, The
Lives of the Philosophers, VI. 13). The historian Timaeus (330–260
bce) reports, however, that Diodorus, and thus by implication the
Pythagorists, was not a true Pythagorean but “pretended to have
associated with the Pythagoreans,” and Sosicrates, a historian of the
31
V. Rose, Aristotelis fragmenta (Leipzig: Teubner, 1886), Fr. 194 = Aulus
Gellius, Attic Nights, IV. 12–13.
32
Burkert, Lore, 181.
33
Rudolf Kassel and Colin Austin, Poetae Comici Graeci (Berlin: De Gruyter,
1983), Fr. 133 = Athenaeus, The Sophists at Dinner, IV 161a.
34
Kassel and Austin, Poetae, Frs. 201–202 = Athenaeus, The Sophists at Dinner,
IV 161c and III 122f.
— 136 —
Aristoxenus’ Account of Pythagoras
second century, says that Diodorus’ outlandish dress was his own
invention, since before this the Pythagoreans had always worn white
clothing, bathed, and worn their hair according to the style of the
day.35 Burkert argues that Diodorus and the Pythagorists represent
the akousmatic branch of Pythagoreanism and that Aristoxenus
and other rationalizing Pythagoreans were responsible for labeling
them as not real Pythagoreans. Yet, as Burkert himself recognized,
the akousmata call for no ban on eating meat, so that the evidence
rather supports the opposite conclusion, that Diodorus and the
Pythagorists were indeed radical ascetics whose practices went
beyond anything in the earlier Pythagorean tradition and who were
thus rightly disowned by Pythagoreans such as Xenophilus.
Thus, Aristoxenus’ report that Pythagoras ate certain sorts of
meat should not be dismissed out of hand and is in fact in accord with
the best evidence we have for early Pythagorean practices, Aristotle
and the akousmata. But what about the apparently tendentious claim
that Pythagoras particularly liked to eat very small piglets and tender
kids? Modern readers not familiar with the ancient context have
misunderstood this claim. It should be noted, first, that Aristoxenus
may also have included cocks among the animals that Pythagoras
habitually ate, since Diogenes Laertius in one passage mentions them
along with kids and piglets (The Lives of the Philosophers, VIII. 20).
It appears, however, that these particular animals are singled out
not to flout the ban on meat and concern for animal welfare but for
specific religious reasons. The recommendation to eat young pigs
and goats is not culinary but sacral. Burkert points out that “in the
mysteries of Demeter and Dionysus the most important sacrificial
animals are sucking pigs, cocks, and kids, the very animals of whose
meat, according to Aristoxenus, Pythagoras was especially fond.”36
That the Pythagoreans cited a specifically religious reason for eating
lambs and kids is suggested by a passage in Ovid that was pointed
out long ago by Boyance.37 Ovid’s Pythagoras, in his long speech in
35
Both Timaeus and Sosicrates are cited in Athenaeus, The Sophists at Dinner,
IV 163e.
36
Burkert, Lore, 182.
37
Pierre Boyance, “Sur la vie pythagoricienne,” REG 52 (1939), 36–50, at
41–42.
— 137 —
Carl Huffman
— 138 —
Aristoxenus’ Account of Pythagoras
38
Wehrli, Die Schule, 56. Ovid’s Pythagoras again is closely connected to
— 139 —
Carl Huffman
field with its owner and the ram is the head of its owner’s flocks. It
may thus be that, while all animals other than plow oxen and rams
can in principle be sacrificed and eaten, only animals into which
human souls do not enter are to be offered up for sacrifice, as is
suggested by one of the akousmata (Iamblichus, On the Pythagorean
Life, 85). Thus metempsychosis was reconciled with meat eating and
the killing of animals on the understanding that human souls are
only reborn in animals that are not sacrificed, such as the famous
puppy of Xenophanes. Pythagoras’ attitude toward animal sacrifice
and meat eating was thus significantly different from the horror
expressed by Empedocles (Fr. 137).39
What about the prohibition on eating beans? The rationalizing
case is strongest here, since Pythagoras is said not just to eat them
but to eat them more than any other type of pulse (i.e., more than
any other type of pea or bean), and this practice is supported by
the claim that beans smooth the bowels and allow things to pass
through them, which sounds like an appeal to rational medicine.
Moreover, Aristoxenus is usually presented as the sole authority to
deny the otherwise universal consensus that Pythagoras enjoined
abstinence from beans. Yet, if we consider the early evidence alone,
it is far from clear that there was any such consensus. In the case
of Empedocles we have the explicit command of Fragment 141:
“Wretches, utter wretches, keep your hands away from beans,” but
there is no such unambiguous evidence for Pythagoras. Burkert cites
Aristotle Fragment 195 and Fragment 41 of Heraclides of Pontus
as fourth century evidence attesting to the prohibition on beans,40
but the case is weaker than it appears on first sight. Fragment 41
Aristoxenus in expressing horror at killing the ox that has worked alongside the
farmer (15. 122; See Boyance, Vie, 42).
39
Fragments of Empedocles are cited below according to the numbering of
Hermann Diels and Walther Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 6th ed.
(Berlin: Weidmann, 1952).
40
Burkert, Lore, 183. Heraclides Fr. 41 is cited by Burkert from F. Wehrli, Die
Schule des Aristoteles, Volume 7: Heraclides, 2nd ed. (Basel: Benno Schwabe, 1967).
The most recent edition is Eckart Schütrumpf, Heraclides of Pontus: Texts and
Translation (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2008), Fr. 129. Burkert
cites Fr. 195 of Aristotle from V. Rose, Aristotelis fragmenta (Leipzig: Teubner,
1886).
— 140 —
Aristoxenus’ Account of Pythagoras
— 141 —
Carl Huffman
41
Rudolf Pfeifer, Callimachus (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1949), Fr. 553 =
Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights, XI. 2.
42
Burkert, Lore, 184–185.
— 142 —
Aristoxenus’ Account of Pythagoras
— 143 —
This page has been intentionally left blank.
PART II
PLATO: STUDIES IN
INDIVIDUAL DIALOGUES
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Plato’s Theory of Change
at Phaedo 70–71
David Sedley
The Phaedo is Plato’s most prolonged and systematic defense of
the soul’s immortality. Set on the day of Socrates’ execution, the
dialogue dramatically interprets his calm acceptance of death as
flowing from his conviction that the soul is immortal, and that a
soul which has lived a good embodied life will be rewarded with an
improved existence once it leaves behind the encumbrance of the
body. To this end, Plato puts into Socrates’ mouth a whole series of
arguments in favor of the soul’s immortality. All have had a rough
ride from critics, and none more so than the first in the sequence,
widely known as the Cyclical Argument. My own aim is not to prove
Plato’s argument sound. Nevertheless, I do not go along with those
interpreters who hold that Plato is, both here and even, according
to many, in the later stages of the dialogue, offering arguments
which he himself considers weak. Hence I must start with a word
in defense of the Cyclical Argument’s strategy.
The Cyclical Argument has the relatively modest aim of showing
that human souls survive the death of the body, without yet arguing
for their ultimate immortality. It starts out by asserting the Hades
mythology, and closes by reasserting it. In fact each of its three
sub-arguments concludes with a variant reaffirmation of the reality
of Hades. The first ends at 71e2 with the words, “Then our souls
exist in Hades.” The second ends at 72a7–8, “It is necessary that the
souls of the dead exist somewhere, from whence they are reborn.”
And the third and final sub-argument concludes at 72d10 as follows:
“the souls of the dead exist, and it is better for the good ones, worse
for the bad ones.” These last words are yet another way of affirming
the tradition about Hades, this time by referring to its function as
— 147 —
David Sedley
1
Cf. its introduction at Meno 81a10–c4 as what is said by “priests and priest-
esses” with the backing of the poets.
2
I have argued a similar point about the Phaedo’s Last Argument in “Three
kinds of Platonic immortality,” in Body and Soul in Ancient Philosophy, eds.
D. Frede and B. Reis (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 145–161. Richard Patterson
has helpfully pointed out to me that the argument of Laws X takes much the
same form.
— 148 —
Plato’s Theory of Change at Phaedo 70–71
3
The restriction to properties that have opposites is made explicit at 70e2
and 5. Suitably punctuated and construed, 71a9–10, πάντα οὕτω γίγνεται
ἐξ ἐναντίων τὰ ἐναντία πράγματα, does not contradict this. Editors place
a comma after γίγνεται, and translators have regularly rendered it “all things
come to be in this way, opposite things from opposites”; but the context requires
rather “all opposite things come to be in this way, from opposites.” (For an
alternative way of obtaining the required restriction, cf. C. Rowe, Plato: Phaedo
[Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993], 157.)
— 149 —
David Sedley
— 150 —
Plato’s Theory of Change at Phaedo 70–71
— 151 —
David Sedley
Will any of these fit Plato’s account? We can quickly rule out
mere contraries. No doubt anything that changes does move between
some pair of contraries, for example from blue to green, or from hot
to lukewarm. But it is a feature of contraries in this sense that there
may be many more than two of them on one and the same scale,
and indeed a single continuous change of color or temperature may
even be deemed to pass through an indefinitely large number of
contraries. If changes were analyzed as being between contraries,
there would not be, as Plato says there is, a simple binary opposi-
tion governing each type of change. Instead of the hot coming
simply from the cold and vice versa, we might get the cold coming
sometimes from the hot, sometimes from the lukewarm, sometimes
from the scalding, and so on. And that indefinitely large range of
contraries would provide absolutely no model for the binary principle
according to which there is simply nothing for the living to come
from except the dead.
Polar contraries appear to fare no better, since they permit the
existence of an intermediate state. Plato, even in the Phaedo, does
speak of opposites as polar contraries, observing (90a) that in relation
to the opposite extremes on any scale the great majority of things
— 152 —
Plato’s Theory of Change at Phaedo 70–71
5
Cf. Republic 9.583c3–9, where it is explicit that (a) pleasant and painful
are opposites, and (b) there is an intermediate state that is neither pleasant nor
painful.
6
See in particular Jonathan Barnes, review of D. Gallop, Plato: Phaedo
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975) in Canadian Journal of Philosophy 8 (1978),
397–419; David Bostock, Plato’s Phaedo (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1986), 43–51. The same view can also be found in Michael Pakaluk, “Degrees
of Separation in the Phaedo,” Phronesis 48 (2003), 89–115. My own position is
in effect a development of Gallop’s, for which see also his reply to Barnes: David
Gallop, “Plato’s ‘Cyclical Argument’ recycled,” Phronesis, 27 (1982), 207–222.
7
I owe this point to David Ebrey. Cf. Bostock, Plato’s Phaedo, 49.
— 153 —
David Sedley
— 154 —
Plato’s Theory of Change at Phaedo 70–71
— 155 —
David Sedley
understand Socrates’ remark that double has an opposite. Cf. the earlier dialogue
Charmides, 168c6–7, οὐ γάρ ἐστίν που ἄλλου διπλάσιον ἢ ἡμίσεος.
— 156 —
Plato’s Theory of Change at Phaedo 70–71
— 157 —
David Sedley
— 158 —
Plato’s Theory of Change at Phaedo 70–71
13
This will apply inter alia to a familiar pair of Platonic opposites, odd and
even. If by addition or subtraction a set of things becomes numerically odd, it
was previously even, and vice versa. There is no transition, and no intermediate
state. Saying that it is now odd compared with its previous evenness may possibly
be true, but is certainly redundant.
14
Phaedo 64c2–9, 67d4–5.
— 159 —
David Sedley
— 160 —
Plato’s Theory of Change at Phaedo 70–71
— 161 —
David Sedley
— 162 —
Plato’s Theory of Change at Phaedo 70–71
15
This idea arose from discussion at the Moral Sciences Club, Cambridge, and
especially from a suggestion made by Catherine Rowett.
16
Cf. Statesman 262a1–2.
17
In addition to the Delphi conference in honor of Charles Kahn, versions of
this paper have been presented to audiences at the University of East Anglia, the
University of Cambridge (Moral Sciences Club), and the University of Bristol.
I am grateful for the helpful comments I received on all four occasions, and for
others received in writing from David Ebrey, Charles Kahn and Richard Patterson.
It is an honor to be contributing to this celebration of Charles Kahn’s life and
work, and I dedicate the above chapter to him in friendship and admiration.
— 163 —
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Virtue and Law in the Republic
Julia Annas
As is familiar, in Plato’s most famous work Socrates creates an ideally
virtuous city in order to illustrate, in “larger letters,” what virtue
is in people. If we can understand this, Plato thinks, we will grasp
the answer to the crucial question, how we should live (352d7).
This question is crucial because Plato takes it for granted that we
all want the life which is best for us, the happy, εὐδαίμων, life.
The Republic aims to show us that we will live happy lives not by
pushing for our own individual interests but by becoming virtuous
people; the city which models this is one which is virtuous, and
so happy.1 The overall virtue of both individual and city is that of
δικαιοσύνη, usually translated as justice.2 The virtue of justice is
the same in city and in individual (435a6–b2); it turns out to be a
relation among components of a whole, a relation which, we find in
the central books, is properly to be studied in the abstract manner
of mathematics. City and soul both illustrate the very same thing,3
namely justice, explored in the overall framework of a search for the
answer to the question, what is a good or a bad life for us.
So far so familiar; I hope to explore a less familiar perspective on
this well-known work, namely to examine the place in the Republic
of law. This turns out to shed light not only on the Republic itself
1
I take it that the city is virtuous and happy when its citizens are; I do not
argue for this somewhat disputed point in the present context.
2
There are well-known problems with translating δικαιοσύνη by our far
narrower term justice, but there is no one satisfactory term in English. It is virtue
in general rather than justice in the narrow sense which is being discussed in the
individual, and this is a good reason for talking, as I do in this context, of the
ideally virtuous city rather than the just one.
3
Familiar references to “the city-soul analogy” can be misleading; justice is the
same thing in city and in individual person.
— 165 —
Julia Annas
but also on its relation to the Laws. I present this piece with some
trepidation to someone who has worked as long and as brilliantly
on both works as has Charles. I hope it will serve at least as a very
small token of gratitude for our many discussions about Plato over
the years, especially those which greatly improved my earlier work
on the Republic. It is offered gratefully and with the warmest wishes.
Study of the ideally virtuous city described in the Republic has
tended to focus on what it shares with the ideally virtuous individ-
ual, namely its components and their relationships. The individual’s
three components, again familiarly, are reason, θυμός or “spirit”
and the desires.4 Only when reason is able to perform its appropriate
function, namely ruling the whole, can the other parts perform their
appropriate functions; all the components are in the right relation
and justice results as a virtue of the whole person only when reason
rules. Justice will, then, result in the city when we find the same
relationships among its components.
Socrates claims that in the city there are three types of people,
types which correspond (in ways that have been variously interpreted)
to the three types of motivation in the individual. In the city we find
the Producers, who do the manual work, and who are taken to be
focussed on the satisfaction of their own desires and the means to
these, mainly money; the Auxiliaries, people who are focussed on
honor and status and who form the military part of the city; and
the Guardians, who are focussed on pursuing truth, and who are
the only ones in the city who can understand what is best for the
whole city, rather than just for themselves or for any of the other
parts. Although they themselves wish most to engage in what is
valuable, namely rigorous study of abstract matters, they have to
rule the city in turn, because they are the only ones with the right
understanding, and the right temperament and training, to do so
in the interests of all, and thus justly.
Only a few have the right combination of natural endowments
to become Guardians, and these go through a tough regime of
training to eliminate the unsuitable. First they are brought up and
4
In the present context I am taking no stand on the nature of the “parts” of
the soul.
— 166 —
Virtue and Law in the Republic
have early education in a way sketched in Books 2 and 3:5 they are
to be surrounded by attractive environments encouraging virtuous
and co-operative behavior and thoughts, which are also furthered by
suitably censored stories presenting gods and heroes as virtuous and
co-operative. Then they go through physical and military training,
and then training in mathematical studies of increasing complexity.
The survivors go on to do “dialectic” or philosophical thinking,
which enables them to grasp synoptically the significance of their
previous studies and go on further to study the nature of goodness.
The Guardians rule and the other citizens obey; Plato is famously
unworried by this asymmetry of power. The Guardians are not
accountable to the other citizens for what they do or the orders
they give to the others, even though they may, for example, lie and
mislead in ways forbidden to the others. Rule of this absolute kind
is appropriate, Plato holds, only where the ruler does in fact have
knowledge of the kind a ruler needs to rule well, and it would be
absurd for such a ruler to be accountable to the ignorant. The briefly
sketched long accounts of the different stages of the Guardians’
formation and education are to show us what would be involved in
achieving such knowledge. Because these conditions are so demand-
ing, we can see that Plato does not have a readily applicable politi-
cal model in mind. But no alternative is given for establishing a
good city other than finding people with the right combination of
abilities and temperament, and educating them in the appropriate
way. As Socrates says, philosophers would have to become kings or
vice versa; even educating a community consisting only of people
ten and under would work only if the educators were themselves
already like the Guardians.
The Auxiliaries share this early training, but Plato soon focuses entirely on the
5
— 167 —
Julia Annas
BACKGROUND
To begin, the background. It is assumed on all hands, as obvious,
that laws are central to the establishment and maintenance of cities.9
Thrasymachus assumes that cities pass laws in the interests of the
rulers (338d6–339a4). Glaucon describes the origins of justice as
the way we describe the results of people compromising and making
laws (358e2–359b5). The laws, as well as the poets, are the source
of information about the gods (365d9–e2). Premature dialecticians
in actual cities come to be filled with παρανομία, lawless behavior
coming from contempt for the laws (537e4). Treating the law in a
way that is not serious also leads to the point that people in badly
ordered cities keep on passing laws, not realizing that they are just
6
On this issue I am modifying, though not totally rejecting, the account I gave
in my Introduction to Plato’s Republic (1981), 105–106. See also the interesting
article by Malcolm Schofield, “Law and Absolutism in the Republic,” Polis 23 #
2 (2006), 319–327.
7
A conservative tally of occurrences of terms for law or lawgiving in or
concerning the ideally virtuous city comes to over 40. This expands when we
bring in terms like εὺνομία (law and order), παρανομία (lawlessness) and the
like.
8
I am not here going into the question of the precise scope of nomos.
In what follows I assume that a concern with nomos is taken by Plato
unproblematically to cover a concern not only with written laws but with topics
falling under “unwritten law”—matters of practice which are in accordance
with the spirit of the laws. This is unlike the sharp division in modern thought
between legal and non-legal matters.
9
In Protagoras’ long speech in the Protagoras (324d–328c), he follows up an
account of formation and education of the young by commenting that the laws
take over and make people live according to their pattern (παράδειγμα). We are
to live “within” the laws the way that learners have to write within the lines that
teachers draw on their writing-tablets (326c6–e1).
— 168 —
Virtue and Law in the Republic
cutting off Hydra’s heads (426e3–7). Treating the law lightly also
turns out to be bad for the naive person who, when asked what the
fine is, answers what he heard from the lawgiver, but cannot support
this himself, and so is refuted by someone clever (538d6–e4); not
having got enough support from the law, he turns against it. Even
our desires, it turns out, are disciplined by the laws, as well as by
our better desires, though some of them can emerge in sleep as
lawless (παράνομοι) (571b3–c1). In the tyrant these are no longer
constrained by laws and come out in waking life (574d8–e2).
Also important are νόμιμα, things that are required by νόμος.
Philosophers familiar with the Republic may think that Plato does
not have a high opinion of things that are merely νόμιμα, for we
cannot help thinking of the famous passage in the Book 5 discussion
of knowledge where we find that the many νόμιμα of the many
about the fine and other things roll around between not-being and
purely being (479d2–4). I will not here go into the many compli-
cations of this passage, many of which arise from uncertainty as
to whether the νόμιμα in question are actions required by law, or
beliefs about what is thus required. From the present point of view
this is not the important point. Rather, to understand this passage
here we should recollect the naive person at 538d6–e4, who has
beliefs about what is fine and acts accordingly, but has no adequate
answer to the person who challenges him to say what the fine is.
The νόμιμα of the many are likewise epistemologically inadequate
and thus easily destabilized. The problem with them, however, is
their lack of adequate grounding, not the content. We can see this
from other occurrences of νόμιμα elsewhere in the work.
The well-educated Guardians, for example, will, we are told,
rediscover νόμιμα which appear small, but are quite important—
courteous manners of the young to the old, haircuts, fashions in
clothes and so on (425a7–b5). These are ways of acting which
Socrates says have been lost (in Athens, presumably), and their
rediscovery in a better city is not just a matter of one mere conven-
tion rather than another. These are clearly approved and good ways
of acting, not indifferent activities merely sanctioned by law or
convention. The Guardians must also be steadfast, in their studies
and also in war and other νόμιμα (537d1–3)—activities required
— 169 —
Julia Annas
of them by the law which are not mere conventions. Further, in the
Book 9 passage, discussing the image of the man with a little man
and beasts inside, we find that some of our νόμιμα about the fine
and the shameful do have a good grounding; they derive from our
views about someone’s internal structure. What is by law or conven-
tion thought fine, for example, reflects a belief that the little inner
man is in charge of his beasts, and what is thought shameful, from a
belief that the person’s inner beasts are dominating him (589c6–d3).
Here again νόμιμα are correct, even though we, the people who
have them, are clearly not in the ideally virtuous city. An activity’s
being νόμιμον is not, then, in the Republic, regarded negatively
(except perhaps from the epistemological point of view). It is just
the idea of requirement by law or convention, and this is assumed
to be a good thing generally, not only in the ideally virtuous city.
LAWGIVERS
These background attitudes to the centrality of laws in cities,
and to the value and importance of doing what is required by the
laws, might of course turn out to be philosophically trivial, no more
than a reflection of Plato’s background views absorbed from his own
upbringing. The developed use of the notions of law and lawgiving
in the presentation of the ideally virtuous state, however, suggest
that more is going on than that.
It is central, for example, to the sketch of the ideally virtuous
city that it is built up via the conception of Socrates and his interloc-
utors as the lawgivers for the city, establishing its laws. Lawgiving
is here of course a metaphor, but, as we shall see, it has important
implications.
The idea of legislating, and the discussants as lawgivers, is
introduced almost at the beginning of the long discussion of the
type of education needed to produce the kind of people the city
needs as its Guardians. Socrates gives examples of bad stories which
falsely present the gods as quarrelling and as producing evils for
humans. He introduces the idea that “we” will “not allow” these
stories, and that no one is to be permitted to say these things “in
his own city, if it is to be well-governed (εὐνομεῖσθαι).” Glaucon
— 170 —
Virtue and Law in the Republic
says that he likes “this law” and votes for it; Socrates responds that
this is one of the “laws (νόμοι) and patterns (τύποι) that poets
must conform to,” and the discussion of these patterns concludes
later with Glaucon saying that he agrees with these patterns and
would make them laws.10 The legislating idea is thus introduced
as a natural way of describing an ideally virtuous city and the way
people in it should behave. Frequently Socrates represents the laws as
what Glaucon is legislating for the city. Glaucon is told at 403b4–c2
that “this is how you will legislate in the city being founded” about
proper non-sexual erotic conduct. At 409e4–410a4 he is told how
he will legislate about medicine and about judging. At 458c6–d4
he is told that, “You, as the lawgiver, will pick out women as well
as men” and make arrangements for them. At 463c6–e1 he is asked
whether he will legislate merely the use of the words “father” and
other family terms, or also the appropriate behavior. And Socrates
says at 497c7–d2 that there must always be in the city an element
with the same reason (λόγος) as the one according to which “you,
Glaucon” laid down the laws.
Although Glaucon is represented as the legislator here, he is
always laying down laws that have emerged from discussions with
Socrates. Indeed, in one passage, just after Socrates has told him
that he will legislate about the education for the “children” he is
“bringing up,” Glaucon responds, “I will legislate, together with
you” (534d3–e1). And often it is “we” who legislate, namely both
Socrates and his interlocutor in agreement. We were not too ideal
in legislating that women as well as men should be Guardians, says
Socrates (456c1–3). We will legislate about the Guardians’ living
arrangements (417b6–8). Shall we lay down this law, about not
harrying fellow-Greeks in war, asks Socrates? Let’s lay it down,
replies Glaucon (471c1–3).
Because so many of the references to lawgiving take this form,
it might seem reasonable simply to see them as a handy metaphor
used in building up the general picture of the ideally virtuous city.
All the talk of law could then be seen just as an application of the
background idea that of course a city has laws, and behavior in
10
Republic 380b3–c10; 383c6–7.
— 171 —
Julia Annas
— 172 —
Virtue and Law in the Republic
salutary in the present context to recall that they are all respects in
which the ideally virtuous city is said to merit being called εὔνομος.
Laws are mentioned fairly frequently in situations of the citizens’
lives. The Guardians will choose a suitable place for the “camp”
suited for defence against enemies, and to control those inside, in
case anyone refuses to obey the laws (415d6–e3). The Guardians,
if they stick to their educational program, will not change any of
the important laws (445d9–e2). The citizens will in every way be
at peace with one another as a result of the laws (465b6–7). The
notorious reforms in Book 5, that women should be Guardians,
that there should be no family life, that the production of children
should be regulated and that victors in war should be rewarded by
physical affection are all called νόμοι, laws (453c8–d2, 457b7–c8,
461b3, e2–3, 465a1, 468b13–c3, 471c1–3). Their revolutionary
character is recognized, in the case of the first, by mention of τὸ
τραχὺ τοῦ νόμου, the difficult, harsh aspect of the law (452c4–5).
The decline of the ideally virtuous person, in Books 8 and
9, is familiar as a decline in character; it happens when there is a
failure of the Guardians to “breed” properly, and hence a failure in
the παιδεία that is so important for keeping the city stable. The
decline from ruler through timocrat, oligarch and democrat to the
tyrant is a decline in the kind of person, as his inferior components
become ever more dominant. The degeneration from one type of life
to another in the individual is represented as a series of ever more
damaging decisions made by a person about how to live his life, each
rendered worse by the limiting effects of the previous bad decision,
which has already led to breakdown and corruption of character.11
However, it is equally stressed in the text that this degener-
ation is also a progressive rejection of law. The timocrats spend
others’ money and enjoy their pleasures in secret, running away
like children from the law as if it were their father, and they do this
because they have been brought up by force rather than persuasion
(548b4–c2). The oligarchs spend money on themselves and pervert
— 173 —
Julia Annas
(παράγουσι) the relevant laws, since they and their wives do not
obey them (550d7–10).12 Oligarchs force through a law establishing
a wealth qualification for citizenship (551a12–b1), but refuse to have
laws limiting the extent to which citizens can borrow (555c1–5,
556a4–b4); both these measures increase the distance between rich
and poor. People in the democratic state, in the end, get so fond of
freedom that in refusing to have any master (δεσπότης) they pay
attention to none of the laws, written or unwritten (563d3–e1).
When the tyrannical type of person is no longer subject to the
laws and to his father, he acts out desires in waking life which in
an ordinary city people repress because of the laws (574d8–e2).
Degeneration of character, then, is parallel to a degeneration in
respect for and obedience to law. Correspondingly, we find, after
the descriptions of the bad cities and people, that in the good person
law works together with, and apparently in parallel with, reason
(λόγος) and order (τάξις). When the philosopher and the tyrant
are being compared as regards happiness, Socrates claims that the
one furthest from philosophy and reason is also furthest from law
and from order (587a8–12). The danger of poetry, it emerges, is
that once you accept pleasant poetry into the city, pleasure and pain
will rule, instead of law and the reason which always resolves what
is best for the community (607a5–8).
In one notable passage we find that when a good person suffers
a serious loss, and is grieving in private, reason and law tell him not
to succumb to emotion. One part of him is ready to obey the law,
and to do what the law bids. What the law says is remarkable. It
tells the person that it is most fine not to grieve, that it is unclear
whether the outcome is good or bad, that human affairs are trivial
in any case, and that grieving gets in the way of useful deliberation
about the situation (604a1–d1). The Stoics would presumably have
found this a congenial passage, with many elements fitting their
own approach to grief.13 Here the law is not envisaged as merely
commanding, but as delivering the content of right reason in a mode
more like advice than command.
12
Is this one failure with respect to the law, or two? It is not obvious.
13
They would, of course, have recast the “parts” idea in their own terms.
— 174 —
Virtue and Law in the Republic
— 175 —
Julia Annas
whether, given the mutual dependence of good laws and good character, this
could ever get off the ground.
— 176 —
Virtue and Law in the Republic
be in the spirit of the good major laws, both because of these laws
themselves and because the regulations will be the product of people
whose characters have developed well because they were brought
up according to those laws. Hence, secondly, Socrates says that we
do not need to give orders to people who are perfectly capable of
working out for themselves what they need to do. (The Guardians
themselves do give orders to the other citizens, who do have to be
ordered to pay their harbor dues, sit on juries and the like.)
Most importantly, this passage shows us the ways in which
law and education work together, with neither having priority in
the establishment of the ideally virtuous city. The Guardians are
brought up to have good characters, and this involves being brought
up to be “law-abiding” and to reject “lawlessness.” They do not
see their attitude to the laws as a distinct issue from that of their
developing the virtues of courage, temperance, wisdom and justice;
in coming to have these virtues, they have already come to have an
attitude of conformity to the laws, the virtuous city being εὔνομος.
Similarly, coming to conform to the laws plays a role in generating
their virtuous character, even their play being ἔννομος, law-abiding.
Plato not only does not see a problem here, or an issue of priority:
he emphasizes, over and over again, the way that the two factors of
law and education work together in the development of the virtuous
person (and fall apart equally in the cases of vicious people).
We can now see that the role of law in a well-known passage in
Book 7 (519e1–520a4) is less surprising than it may at first appear.
To the complaint that in the city the Guardians have been given a
life which is worse than they could otherwise live, Socrates replies,
“You are forgetting that the law is not concerned to bring it about
that any one class in the city should be outstandingly happy, but
rather to contrive that happiness should come about in the city as
a whole. It fits together the citizens by means of persuasion and
necessity, making them share with one another whatever benefit
each group can contribute to the community. It produces men of
this kind in the city, not to let them turn in whatever direction each
one wishes, but to make use of them itself towards binding the city
together.” “It” is the law throughout. It might seem strange that at
this late point in the book Socrates should be appealing to law to
— 177 —
Julia Annas
The “second-best” city is one that there is already a name for, namely the
15
— 178 —
Virtue and Law in the Republic
— 179 —
Julia Annas
See my “Virtue and Law in Plato,” in Plato’s Laws. A Critical Guide, ed.
16
— 180 —
Virtue and Law in the Republic
There is no suggestion, however, that the doctor requires the patient’s consent,
18
— 181 —
Julia Annas
detail how all aspects of life are to be organized. In the Laws Plato
explores the relation of law to virtue, and of the role of law in the
development of virtue, more explicitly and carefully than in the
Republic, and introduces new ideas about both the force and the
potential persuasiveness of law.
The Republic and Laws share the assumption that the ideally
virtuous city will make the citizens virtuous and so happy. This is
more prominent in the Republic, which famously sets up the ideally
virtuous city to model the virtuous person, in an attempt to show
the individual reader that the virtuous life is the best one. Because
of the force of the overall argument and the parallel of person and
city, we tend not to note the way that laws are involved in both
the establishment of the ideally virtuous city and the development
of virtue in the ideally virtuous person in the city. Plato assumes
throughout that the development of virtue (and of the understanding
required for the virtue of the Guardians) will be supported by laws
in a city and will in turn support them, but he does not worry about
the role of law in the development of virtue, and so the presence of
law in the ideally virtuous city tends to go unremarked. Also, outside
the model context of the ideally virtuous city, the virtuous person
is not envisaged as developing within a system of laws. Rather, the
contrast is drawn between the ideally virtuous city and the actual
world, where the person wishing to be virtuous can only use the
ideally virtuous city as a “model laid up in heaven” to help him
to order his or her inner city (592b1–4). The laws of your actual
city are not only no good for developing virtue, but are positively
harmful, and many of your fellow-citizens do not take them seriously
anyway, so in the actual world, any virtue you develop from trying
to understand and internalize the virtue of the ideal city obviously
does not come from conforming to any laws.
Paying attention to the role of laws in the Republic, however,
may help us to see Plato as continuing his interest and concern with
virtue and its relation to law in the Laws. He is not just changing
the subject from the rule of expert individuals to the rule of law, as
is sometimes assumed, but rather returning with a different intent
to the same issue, and to very similar material.
— 182 —
Dialectic and the Second Part
of Plato’s Parmenides
Vassilis Karasmanis
The Platonic dialogue Parmenides has certain important and distinc-
tive features that have long puzzled scholars. What is its aim, what
philosophical problems does it posit, what answers does it provide,
why does it have the structure it has—extraordinary for a Platonic
dialogue—and how are its two main parts related, which can at first
seem unconnected? How is it related to other Platonic dialogues
and what is the role of the hypothesis of the “One,” and the method
of its examination? This short essay will try to give an answer to
the last three questions, without, however, avoiding the other ones
when they relate to my main subject.
It is well-known that the Parmenides is divided into two main
parts, of unequal length, which are connected by a short transi-
tional passage (135a–136e). The first part (126a–135a) includes
an introduction, the presentation of Zeno’s positions and Socrates’
criticism of them. Finally, it gives Parmenides’ criticism of the theory
of Forms, proposed by the young Socrates. This part contains many
dramatic elements and some humor. In the second part (136e–166c),
Parmenides indicates to the young Socrates that he is inexperienced
in dialectic and needs practice. In due course he then undertakes
the task of explaining what exactly practice in dialectic consists of.
With the assistance of somebody from the audience, Parmenides
offers an example of his method and of his way of training the skill
of philosophical research.
We notice immediately that while the first part of the dialogue
occupies less than ten Stephanus pages, the second extends to thirty
pages of text. Further, we see a big difference in content between
the two parts of the dialogue. Starting with Zeno’s book, the first
— 183 —
Vassilis Karasmanis
— 184 —
Dialectic and the Second Part of Plato’s Parmenides
1
The word “dialectic” does not have the ordinary meaning of “discourse” here
but the technical meaning that Plato gives it in the Republic (511b3–4, 534b3–5)
as the good or real philosophy. It does not make sense to say that if the theory
of Forms were rejected, all discourse would be destroyed. See, similarly, Samuel
Rickless, Plato’s Forms in Transition (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,
2007), 97–98.
2
Translations from the Parmenides are taken or adapted from Mary Louise Gill
and Paul Ryan, in Plato: Complete Works, ed. J. Cooper, (Indianapolis: Hackett,
1997).
3
See 136b8 “or as having any other property.”
— 185 —
Vassilis Karasmanis
4
Who later became one of the thirty tyrants (127d).
5
Some authors, including Proclus (Procli Commentarium in Platonis
Parmenidem, in Procli opera Inedita, ed. Victor Cousin, (Paris: 1864), 617–1258,
622–623, claim that we have nine hypotheses. But, in this way, the schema loses
its symmetry.
— 186 —
Dialectic and the Second Part of Plato’s Parmenides
6
In this category belong mainly older scholars like A. E. Taylor, Plato: The Man
and his Work (London: Meuthen, 1929), 351; W. F. R. Hardie, A Study in Plato
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1936), 97; Harold Cherniss, “Parmenides and
the ‘Parmenides’ of Plato,” American Journal of Philology, LIII, 1932, 135–136;
and Paul Shorey, What Plato Said (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1933),
289. In the same category we could also place scholars who deal only with the
first part of the dialogue, those who consider it as perhaps independent from the
second part.
7
And indeed, certain of the arguments of the second part are problematic
enough.
8
See, mainly, A. E. Taylor, The Parmenides of Plato (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1934), 26, and H. Cherniss, “Parmenides,” 1932, 135–136.
9
For this view see Richard Robinson, Plato’s Earlier Dialectic (Oxford: Oxford
University Press. 2nd ed., 1953), 264–267, and W. G. Runciman, “Plato’s
Parmenides,” (1959), reprinted in Studies in Plato’s Metaphysics, ed. R. E. Allen
(London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1965), 184.
— 187 —
Vassilis Karasmanis
— 188 —
Dialectic and the Second Part of Plato’s Parmenides
that the hypotheses in each one of the four pairs are only verbally
the same, most contradictions are only apparent and not real. The
same applies to the final conclusion of the dialogue which, if seen
in this light, does not lead to complete skepticism but rather serves
to encourage a more systematic search of the subject, something in
line with the encouragement by Parmenides of the young Socrates
in 135–136. Meinwald (Plato’s Parmenides, ch. 3) arrives at similar
results by distinguishing two kinds of predication marked by the
phrases “in relation to itself” (pros heauto) and “in relation to the
others” (pros ta alla).15
So understood, the arguments are not only not sophisms but
also yield positive results. Similar remarks apply to the conclusion
of the dialogue. The second part is, on this view, not independent
of the first, but answers—or, at least, sheds some light on—the
problems in the theory of Forms that have appeared in the first
part.16 This is indicated by the emphasis on the distinction between
one and many, as well as by the examination of the hypotheses both
in relation to themselves and to “others.” In this way, the dialogue
as a whole acquires a unity. Certain interpreters of this category
consider the second part more important than the first, in the sense
that it gives the final answer to the problems that emerge in the first
part.17 Generally speaking, the interpretations of the second category
present fewer disadvantages than those of the first. However, there
15
This distinction of the two types of predication and the two uses of “is”
was first formulated (in the case of the Sophist) by Michael Frede (Prädikation
und Existenzaussage, Hypomnemata, no. 18, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1967).
16
The reference to the “venerable” Parmenides whom Socrates met when he
was young and who appeared to him to have “a wholy noble depth” that we
find in Theaetetus 183e, is yet another clue that Plato considers the second part
of the dialogue as very serious and not a parody. Rickless (Transition, 95, ch. 3)
claims that the “second part of the Parmenides is a direct and rational response to
the problems raised in the first part.” This happens by showing that some of the
principles on which the theory of Forms—as presented in the first part—relies
have to be abandoned. In this way we arrive at a modified and less problematic
theory of Forms.
17
C. Meinwald argues that her interpretation, which relies on the distinction
of two kinds of predication, answers satisfactorily to the third man argument (see
“Good-bye to the Third Man,” in The Cambridge Companion to Plato, ed. R.
Kraut (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 365–396.
— 189 —
Vassilis Karasmanis
18
There are some interpretations which—in order to give concrete answers
to all the previous questions—engage in curious intellectual games. Those who
believe that, in the second part, Plato gives concrete solutions to the problems
of the theory of Forms cannot explain the conclusion of the dialogue, which—
depending on our interpretation—is either refutative, aporetic, or skeptical.
19
There are always elements in the dramatic plot of the Platonic dialogues, and
particularly in the preambles, that help us understand relevant aspects in them,
as well as the relation of dialogues to one another. This was already pointed out
by Proclus in his comments on the Parmenides, 659.
20
Cf. Republic 375a, 451d, 537a.
— 190 —
Dialectic and the Second Part of Plato’s Parmenides
that of the Phaedo21 and the Republic. In the Phaedo, the Forms are
introduced as separate entities and their characteristics are stated
(incomposite, constant, unvarying, invisible, etc., see 78c–79a).
The Forms are considered to be causes of the characteristics of
particular things (95e–96a) which acquire them by participating
in the Forms (102bff). When the theory of Forms appears once
again at the end of the fifth book of the Republic, the emphasis is
now on the relation between the “one” (the Form) and the “many”
(the particulars), and the possibility of acquiring knowledge of the
Forms. These are precisely the aspects of the theory of Forms that
are presented and discussed in the Parmenides.
Moreover, the problem of method is central in all three
dialogues. The hypothetical method, which had already appeared
in the Meno, is developed in the Phaedo (100aff).22 This method is
used positively to prove and not merely to disprove something. It
is particularly useful for finding premises that help to prove what
we want. Concisely, it consists in the following process: suppose we
want to prove a proposition P. First, we try to see from which possible
premises we should be able to prove our proposition P. Among them
we choose the “strongest” proposition (or theory—hypothesis)
suitable for this task, let it be R, and from this (probably together
with other already known premises) we prove P. The proposition
P has been proven so far hypothetically on the basis of R (Phaedo
100a2–4). Secondly, we examine various consequences of R in order
to see whether it creates contradictions elsewhere in our system of
our propositions. If it does, we must reject hypothesis R and find
another one (101d1–5). Thirdly, our hypothesis R itself needs a
proof. In order to prove it we use a “higher” hypothesis T, and so
on. The process of finding higher hypotheses stops when we reach
something “sufficient” (hikanon), which is probably something
already known or something that does not require proof (101d5–e1).
21
That Cephalus comes from Clazomenae is perhaps an allusion to the Phaedo
(97b–99c) where Anaxagoras’ theory is presented.
22
For the problem of method in the Meno, the Phaedo and the Republic, see
Vassilis Karasmanis, “The Hypothetical Method in Plato’s Middle Dialogues,”
(PhD Thesis, Oxford University, 1987). What is said here regarding Plato’s
methodology in these dialogues are conclusions from the above study.
— 191 —
Vassilis Karasmanis
23
I do not believe that some particular ontological difference exists between the
Good and the other Forms, although a passage in the Republic (509b) has given
motive for such an interpretation.
24
Another question is what the Good as “unhypothesized first principle”
is. Certainly, it cannot be an entity, or the proposition that this entity exists.
From a proposition that posits the existence of something we cannot draw any
conclusions. Hence, it must be something more. Perhaps a set of propositions
that state that a) the Good is something, b) it is such and such, and c) it has such
type of relations with the other Forms (e.g., something similar to the hypothesis
of the Forms in the Phaedo 102a–b). For this topic, see Vassilis Karasmanis,
“Hypothetical Method,” 231–237.
— 192 —
Dialectic and the Second Part of Plato’s Parmenides
speak clearly about the Good, saying that he does not know what
it is, and can only say what it is by means of images. What is said
in the Republic is so obscure and allusive that we can only make
conjectures on this issue.
There is only a small passage (534b–c) that appears to say
something more about the knowledge of the Good. Here, Plato
notes that when somebody reaches the highest point of the dialectical
ascent he must give reason (logon didonai) for the Good. Because
“unless someone can distinguish in an account (diorisasthai tô logô)25
the form of the good from everything else, can survive all refutation
(pantôn elenchôn dexiôn), as if in a battle, striving to judge things
not in accordance with opinion but in accordance with being, and
can come through all this with his account still intact, you’ll say
that he doesn’t know the good itself or any other good.”26
In this passage, Plato seems to suggest that if we are to know
the first principle (the Good), we must try to distinguish it from all
other things. That is to say, we must find the differences between
the Good and other things. Some of the proposed differences may
be essential ones. We submit these propositions (hypotheses), which
say something about the Good, to all sorts of elenchoi, or tests.
Whichever of them resists all our attempts at refutation27 will reflect
the real nature of the Good. Thus our propositions about the Good
become “known” and are considered true, not because they are
proved via higher premises (or hypotheses) but because they cannot
be disproved or refuted.
Let us now return to the Parmenides. If the theory of Forms
presents problems, as we have seen in the first part of the dialogue,
but is still basically correct, the problems that arise are probably due
to insufficient attention having been paid to the foundation of the
25
The same words can also be translated as “giving a definition.” However, such
a translation would be very restrictive. Even if what is required is a definition of
the Good, we first try to distinguich it conceptually from other things.
26
Translation is taken from G. M. A. Grube, rev. C. D. C. Reeve, in Plato:
Complete Works, ed. J. Cooper (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997).
27
That is to say, without creating contradictions. The type of these elenchoi,
or tests, is similar to that of the second step of the hypothetical method in the
Phaedo.
— 193 —
Vassilis Karasmanis
28
R. Robinson, Plato’s Earlier Dialectic (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1984), 248, thinks that the gymnastic dialectic has nothing to do with the
hypothetical method (in the Phaedo and the Republic) and claims that the second
part of the Parmenides does not present a method.
29
The similarity of these things with the five greatest kinds (megista
genê—254d4) of the Sophist (Being, Sameness, Difference, Motion, Rest) is
characteristic. The One is often identified with Being, while the pair like/unlike
is very close to the other pair sameness/difference. Generation and destruction
are essential characteristics of the perceptible world.
— 194 —
Dialectic and the Second Part of Plato’s Parmenides
30
See Gregory Vlastos, “The Socratic elenchus: Method is all,” in Gregory
Vlastos, Socratic Studies, ed. Myles Burnyeat (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1994), 2–4.
31
Translations from the Metaphysics are taken from W. D. Ross, in The
Complete Works of Aristotle: The revised Oxford translation, Volume two, edited by
Jonathan Barnes (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984).
— 195 —
Vassilis Karasmanis
32
Of course, if an introduced hypothesis creates contradictions we have good
reason to reject it as false. However, what we actually search for in this process
is to see what results when we draw the consequences of the hypothesis. This
process has resemblances to the second step of the hypothetical method in the
Phaedo.
33
In which the One should be examined twice, in relation to itself and in
relation to the others.
— 196 —
Dialectic and the Second Part of Plato’s Parmenides
What I have said so far might suggest that the One of the
Parmenides is the same as the Good of the Republic. However,
nowhere in the Platonic corpus do we have explicit evidence for
such an identification. Nevertheless, there are similarities. For the
Eleatic philosophers, and specifically for Parmenides, at least accord-
ing to Plato, the One is the fundamental first principle, as is the
34
See Vassilis Karasmanis, “Hypothetical Method,” 180–181.
35
See note 24.
— 197 —
Vassilis Karasmanis
Good for Plato (in the Republic).36 Plato’s theory of first principles
is continuously altered. In the Republic we have one and only one
first principle, the Good, which is what gives unity to the world
of the Forms. In the Parmenides he says nothing about what he
himself considers to be the first principle. However, judging from
the spirit of the whole dialogue, we may conjecture that he adopts
the position of Parmenides that the One is the first principle (or at
least one of the first principles). In the Sophist we no longer have
any one first principle but five greatest kinds. The first of them
(and perhaps the most important), Being, presents resemblances
to the One of Parmenides.37 In the Timaeus, the goodness of the
creator is the cause of the universe.38 In the Philebus (23c–d) we
have four kinds (Limit, Unlimited, Mixture, Cause) which are
different from those of the Sophist. The Limit appears to be anything
that is susceptible of measurement and numerical relations (25a),
identified in some way with number (25e1). At 15a–b, the Forms
are called “unities” (henades) and “monads” because “each one of
them is always one and the same and is not susceptible of generation
36
In 137b2–3, Parmenides says that he will examine his own hypothesis,
which is the One. In the Sophist (244b), Plato reports that the Eleatics “say that
everything is one” and that “only the one is.” Similarly for the Pythagoreans, the
One is the more important principle in their arithmetical ontology. See Aristotle,
Metaphysics 987a15–20: “The Pythagorean speak also for two principles . . . but
that the infinity itself and the one itself are the substance of all things in which
they are predicated. For this reason number is the substance of everything.”
37
But also to the Good of the Republic. In Sophist 254a, Plato speaks about
Being in the same terms as about the Good in the Republic: “But the philosopher
always uses reasoning to stay near the form, being. He isn’t at all easy to see
because that area is so bright and the eyes of most people’s souls can’t bear to look
at what’s divine.” (Translation is taken from Nicholas White, in Plato: Complete
Works, ed. J. Cooper, [Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997]). But even Aristotle seems
to identify, in some way, being with the one. In Metaphysics 1003b19ff., he says
that first philosophy deals with the “being as being.” But: “If now, being and
unity are the same and are one thing in the sense that they are implied in one
another as principle and cause are, not in the sense that they are explained by the
same formula. . . . And if, further, the essence of each thing is one in no merely
accidental way, and similarly is from its very nature something that is: —all this
being so, there must be exactly as many species of being as of unity.”
38
See 29e1. Of course this concerns the natural world and not the world of
Forms.
— 198 —
Dialectic and the Second Part of Plato’s Parmenides
— 199 —
Vassilis Karasmanis
that the good is one, I think that this appeared to them perfectly
paradoxical. After that, others sneered and others defamed him.”42
It is not my aim to evaluate these pieces of evidence concerning
Plato’s first principles here or to consider whether they are compatible
or not with what we find in the dialogues. For my purposes it is
sufficient that in them the One and the Good are related in some
way and have a particular status as first principles. This agrees with
what we find in the dialogues.
We should conclude from the above that, despite their similar-
ities, it is rather difficult to identify the Good of the Republic with
the One of the Parmenides. Also that Plato’s theory of first principles
is continuously modified: From the unique principle of the Republic,
to the five greatest kinds of the Sophist, or the four of the Philebus,
and probably to the two first principles that Aristotle reports. But
notwithstanding all these changes, we realize—both from the
dialogues and from external testimony—that the Good and the
One are always at the center of his thought. Therefore, even if the
One of the Parmenides is not the same as the Good of the Republic,
it still has the status of a first principle. Let us consider the issue in
a different way. If indeed, as I am arguing, Plato, in the Parmenides,
wanted to present a method capable of dealing with first principles
and leading to knowledge of them, then the choice of the One as
the principle to which to apply his method seems most appropriate.
For what principle more general than, or superior to, the One could
one possibly find? The choice, therefore, of the One is not the choice
of a random hypothesis but of one that commands the status of a
first principle. For the examination of such a hypothesis, he will
apply a method that leads to the understanding and knowledge of
first principles.
— 200 —
Dialectic and the Second Part of Plato’s Parmenides
See 147d: “Or whether you utter the same name once or many times, do you
43
— 201 —
Vassilis Karasmanis
— 202 —
Dialectic and the Second Part of Plato’s Parmenides
sound arguments but rather to force us to think about issues central to Plato’s
philosophy “of the sort described as ‘dialectic’ in the Republic (the hardest part of
philosophy, and the part that comes after a complete and synoptic study of all the
branches of mathematics, 531c, sq), and at the same time, to give us practice in
constituting and correcting good and bad arguments of sorts necessary for such
investigation” (90).
47
I would like to thank David Charles, Richard Patterson and Vasilis Politis
who read an earlier version of the paper. I am really grateful to them for their
helpful comments. I also want to thank the participants of the conference in
honor of Charles Kahn for their valuable discussion.
— 203 —
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Plato’s Eleatic Challenge
and the Problem of Self-predication
in the Parmenides
Arnold Hermann
INTRODUCTION
— 205 —
Arnold Hermann
1
Kahn, Plato and the Post-Socratic Dialogue. Return to the Philosophy of Nature
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming).
— 206 —
Plato’s Eleatic Challenge and the Problem of Self-predication in the Parmenides
— 207 —
Arnold Hermann
3
Parmenides, 135b–c.
4
E.g., Rickless, Plato’s Forms in Transition (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2007).
— 208 —
Plato’s Eleatic Challenge and the Problem of Self-predication in the Parmenides
5
Owen, “The Place of the Timaeus in Plato’s Dialogues,” in Studies in Plato’s
Metaphysics, ed. R. E. Allen (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1965), 337;
Taylor, The Parmenides of Plato (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1934);
Brumbaugh, Plato on the One (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961), 189ff.;
Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, V: The Later Plato and the Academy
[HGP V] (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 141; Griswold,
“Comments on Kahn,” New Perspectives on Plato, Modern and Ancient, 139;
Fine, On Ideas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 140; Allen, Plato’s
— 209 —
Arnold Hermann
— 210 —
Plato’s Eleatic Challenge and the Problem of Self-predication in the Parmenides
8
Cf. Tarán, Parmenides (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965).
9
This should not suggest however, that Parmenides is bent on pursuing a “theory
of meaning,” much less some archaic form of analytics or nominalism. I agree
with Charles Kahn’s position on the matter, particularly with this observation:
“the concern with what is knowable or intelligible in the physical world is an
essential motive of the poem; whereas the concern with what can or cannot be
meaningfully said belongs to the age of Berkeley and Hume, perhaps, but above
all to that of Wittgenstein and Carnap” (Kahn, “More on Parmenides,” Review of
Metaphysics 23 [December, 1969]: 340).
— 211 —
Arnold Hermann
And here is the relevant passage in the Sophist that gives us our
clue to the Parmenides:
10
Kahn, Plato and the Post-Socratic Dialogue. Cf. also Anscombe, “The New
Theory of Forms,” Monist, vol. 50, n. 3 (1966): 409.
11
Sophist, 259e. Plato Complete Works, ed. Cooper (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997).
— 212 —
Plato’s Eleatic Challenge and the Problem of Self-predication in the Parmenides
12
Kahn, Plato and the Post-Socratic Dialogue.
13
Occasionally also as “in relation to something” (πρὸς τι).
14
Not unlike M. Frede on behalf of the distinctions in the Sophist, “Prädikation
und Existenzaussage,” Hypomnemata, Heft 18 (1967).
15
Kahn appears to be following Michael Frede here (who made his distinctions
on behalf of the Sophist, not the Parmenides), and perhaps Constance Meinwald
to a certain degree. Cf. Kahn, Plato and the Post-Socratic Dialogue; also Frede,
M., “Prädikation und Existenzaussage”; and Meinwald, Plato’s Parmenides
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991). Compare also Bostock’s discussion
of πρὸς ἕτερον, καθ᾽ αὑτό, πρὸς τι, and πρὸς ἄλλα in “Plato on ‘Is Not’
(Sophist 254–259),” Oxford Studies, Vol. II (1984): 92–93.
— 213 —
Arnold Hermann
16
With reference to Sandra Peterson’s work, “A Reasonable Self-predication
Premise for the Third Man Argument,” The Philosophical Review 82 (1973):
451–470. This species of predications are called “Pauline” because the reading is
inspired by a passage in Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians: “Charity suffereth long
and is kind.” Compare, however, Peterson’s description of Pauline predication
with Vlastos’s take on the subject. Vlastos increasingly labels the various instances
that he cites as self-predicative as “Pauline predications,” insisting however that
his definition differs from Peterson. Yet Vlastos has changed his position on self-
predication so many times over the years, it is hard to nail him down. Cf. Vlastos,
“The Third Man Argument in the Parmenides,” in Studies in Greek Philosophy,
Vol. 2, Socrates, Plato, and Their Tradition,” 166–193); “Postscript to the Third
Man: A Reply to Geach,” The Philosophical Review 65.1 (1956): 83–94; “Self-
Predication in Plato’s Later Period,” The Philosophical Review 78.1 (1969): 74–
78; “Self-predication and Self-participation in Plato’s Later Period,” in Gregory
Vlastos, Platonic Studies, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973), 335–
341; “The Unity of the Virtues in the Protagoras,” The Review of Metaphysics 25.3
(1972): 415–458; “A Note on ‘Pauline Predications’ in Plato,” Phronesis 19.2
(1974): 95–101; “On a Proposed Redefinition of ‘Self-predication’ in Plato,”
Phronesis 26.1 (1981): 76–79.
17
This idea is often overlooked in the Parmenides, but see 129e–130a, which
sets the agenda for the exercise generally referred to as the Second Part of the
Parmenides.
18
Nehamas, “Self-predication and Forms,” American Philosophical Quarterly
16 (1979): 82.
— 214 —
Plato’s Eleatic Challenge and the Problem of Self-predication in the Parmenides
19
Cf. Hermann, Plato’s Parmenides: Text, Translation & Introductory Essay (Las
Vegas: Parmenides Publishing, 2010).
20
Vlastos is commonly credited with coining the term “self-predication.” He
himself claims to be proposing the concept as the “Self-predication Assumption”;
cf. “The Third Man Argument in the Parmenides,” 170. However, in Frege’s
correspondence to Russell we find the following remark in a letter from 1902:
“Incidentally, I find the phrase ‘a predicate is being predicated of itself,’ to be
imprecise. A predicate is generally a first level (‘Stufe’) function, which being a
proposition (orig. ‘Argument’) demands an object, and which cannot have itself
as proposition (subject). I rather would like to say, ‘a concept is predicated of its
own extension.’” (Sluga, “Frege und die Typentheorie,” in Logik und Logikkalkül,
eds. M. Käsbaur and Franz von Kutschera [Freiburg and Munich: Verlag Karl
Alber, 1962], 198–199, my translation). As to the assumption of self-predication
itself and its advocates and critics, the names of the former are quite well known;
hence there is no need on this occasion to list them. Consult the bibliography for
further details. However, I would like to mention two critics of self-predication
whose studies are indispensable for the interpreter: Hägler, Platons Parmenides
(Berlin: Gruyter, 1983), and Shanna, “The Anatomy of an Illusion: On Plato’s
Purported Commitment to Self-Predication,” Apeiron 40.2 (2011): 159–198. A
third, must-read work on the topic, is Apolloni’s The Self-Predication Assumption
in Plato (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2011). Apolloni allows for a benign
sort of self-predication—“F is F” suggests nothing more than “the F is F-itself,”
or “Fness”(xviii)—and his exposition is erudite, well-balanced, and thorough.
21
Vlastos, “The Third Man Argument in the Parmenides,” 170. Sellars
argues that the term self-predication is misleading; he offers a reformulation of
Vlastos’s definition: “The adjective corresponding to the name of any Form can
correctly be predicated of that Form” (Sellars, “Vlastos and the Third Man,” The
Philosophical Review 64 [1955]: 414).
— 215 —
Arnold Hermann
22
Vlastos, “Addenda to the Third Man Argument: A Reply to Professor
Sellars,” in Studies in Greek Philosophy, Vol. 2, Socrates, Plato, and Their Tradition
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 202–203.
23
Ibid., 200.
24
Ibid., 202.
25
Incidentally, Michael Frede speaks correctly of self-predication in
“Prädikation und Existenzaussage” when he corrects Peck’s assertion “Motion
is Motion”: “Dagegen ist zunächst zu sagen, daß ‘Bewegung ist’ nicht zu
‘Bewegung ist Bewegung,’ sondern besser zu ‘Bewegung ist in Bewegung’ ergänzt
werden sollte.” Translation: “That is to say, ‘Motion is’ should not be expanded
to ‘Motion is Motion’ but to ‘Motion is in motion.’” See Frede, “Prädikation und
Existenzaussage,” 49.
— 216 —
Plato’s Eleatic Challenge and the Problem of Self-predication in the Parmenides
26
This fundamental error is popularized largely by Meinwald’s work (Plato’s
Parmenides) and, regrettably, has remained largely unchallenged by subsequent
literature.
27
The point I am making should be taken in a strictly epistemological sense;
it is also related to what Wittgenstein allows to be said about the standard metre
in Paris. (Philosophical Investigations §50. Cf. also, Pollock, “Wittgenstein on
The Standard Metre.” Philosophical Investigations 27:2 April 2004.) On the
meaninglessness of self-predication and Russell’s Theory of Types, see, Apolloni,
The Self-Predication Assumption in Plato, 229.
28
The use of the copulative “is” in a bare per se statement such as “Justice is
just” may, on the surface, give us the semblance of intelligibility—hence, provide
us with the satisfying sense that “we have said something meaningful.” Upon
a deeper analysis however, we soon realize that we have said nothing at all. To
say something meaningful, other or additional concepts have to be introduced
and contextualized, i.e., the much-cited symplokê must be established. While
this is one of the main lessons from the Sophist, it is already presaged in the
Parmenides, 142c2–3. See below for further discussion of the passage. (Ironically,
as the copious literature on this inherently simple subject amply demonstrates,
we must explain what we mean by F is F when we say it, and how, or in what sense,
it should be understood.)
— 217 —
Arnold Hermann
— 218 —
Plato’s Eleatic Challenge and the Problem of Self-predication in the Parmenides
— 219 —
Arnold Hermann
end, when the bundle is dismantled, and the constituents are fully
separated from each other, anything for which it could be a predicate,
that is, of which it could possibly be predicated, has been removed.
For example, the property ἕν, “one” or “oneness,” as subject of
Argument I, is neither possessed by anything, nor does it possess other
properties. Now we cannot say that it “is” this or that or the other
in respect to anything, not even itself, because by doing so we would
make it have other properties. This in turn, as the Argument suggests,
leads to questions about temporal distinctions or other existential or
qualitative conditions. But these cannot tell us anything about the
nature of our subject, once we have reached our goal of disassociating
the subject property from other properties.
Thus, we should keep in mind that the principal distinction we
are after in the Parmenides is between (a) the property as itself, and (b)
its having properties. Having properties is made dependent on “having
being”—not on being Being, but on participating in Being—which
allows the subject to have Being as a property (142d–e).
This principle has been recognized by Alexander Nehamas,
who presents us with an exact formulation of it, even though he
argues that Plato failed to make this critical distinction. In his essay
“Self-predication and Plato’s Theory of Forms,” Nehamas suggests the
following relationship between Parmenides and Plato’s work: Plato
had indeed worked within a Parmenidean framework for much of his
life, although he was required to overthrow that framework in his later
dialogues, particularly when it began to threaten the foundations of
his “degrees of reality” system. Nehamas contends that Plato may have
followed Parmenides’ thinking quite thoroughly, even to the point of
admitting that there was “strictly speaking, only one way of having
a characteristic, namely, being that characteristic itself.”33 In short,
“only the F, and nothing else, is F.” It is this supposition, which goes
to the character and function of the Forms—both in the predicative
and existential sense—that is of particular interest to our context.
Nehamas suggests that Plato adopted Parmenides’ doctrine
without much discrimination, to the detriment, as he later came to
realize, of the theory of Forms. While “unwilling to follow Parmenides
33
Nehamas, “Self-predication and Forms,” 182.
— 220 —
Plato’s Eleatic Challenge and the Problem of Self-predication in the Parmenides
34
Ibid.
— 221 —
Arnold Hermann
— 222 —
Plato’s Eleatic Challenge and the Problem of Self-predication in the Parmenides
— 223 —
Arnold Hermann
35
Vlastos, “The Third Man Argument in the Parmenides,” 182–183, 182n38.
— 224 —
Plato’s Eleatic Challenge and the Problem of Self-predication in the Parmenides
If the things “other than the one” are “unlimited” but have
“limit,” we can exclude the latter from being a case of self-predica-
tion. But then as what would the things in question self-predicate:
as “other than one” or as “unlimited”? Or should we be charitable
with the concept of self-predication, and suppose this to be a case
of so-called Pauline predication—a softer species of self-predication
that makes it a figure of speech, if you will—whereby the term
“unlimited” would only be an indirect way of saying “other than
one”?36
But even if we read the passage as an example of Pauline predica-
tion, we still find there the distinction between being and having
a property. The text reads, “something different comes to be in
them” (158d5; see also above), indicating that we are dealing with
the “possession factor” again: what “comes in”37 must be different
from the inherent nature into which it comes, because it comes
from an external source—in this case, “limit.” This indicates that
to come into possession of a property is tantamount to coming into
possession of what is different from a given subject, as opposed to
what is inherent in it. It is the fact that this property is different from
36
Largely in the sense expounded by Peterson, “A Reasonable Self-predication
Premise for the Third Man Argument,” and not in the sense Vlastos explains
Pauline predications in “The Unity of Virtues in the Protagoras,” 427, i.e., the
assertion of the predicate-term not of the abstract noun in the subject-position
but to the participants in the Form. Cf. also “A Note on Pauline Predications in
Plato,” 98.
37
“Comes to be in,” γίγνεσθαι.
— 225 —
Arnold Hermann
and not inherent in the subject that makes the subject’s possession or
partaking in the property necessary.
This further suggests that a self-predicating Form, by virtue of
possessing its own property, would have to be different from itself—
which is absurd.
38
Cf. Hintikka, “Meinong in a Long Perspective,” Grazer Philosophische
Studien 50: 29–45 (1995). See also the “Frege-Russell Ambiguity Thesis.”
39
See Kahn’s magisterial work “The Greek Verb ‘To Be’ and the Concept
of Being,” Foundations of Language 2 (1966): 245–265, as well as “On the
Terminology for Copula and Existence,” in Islamic Philosophy and the Classical
Tradition, eds. Stern, Hourani, and Brown (Columbia: University of South
Carolina Press, 1972), 141–158; “Being in Parmenides and Plato,” La Parola
del Passato (Naples), 43 (1988): 237–261; “Some Philosophical Uses of ‘to Be’
— 226 —
Plato’s Eleatic Challenge and the Problem of Self-predication in the Parmenides
in Plato,” and “Linguistic Relativism and the Greek Project of Ontology,” in The
Question of Being, ed. Sprung (University Park and London: Pennsylvania State
University Press, 1978), 31–44.
— 227 —
Arnold Hermann
— 228 —
Plato’s Eleatic Challenge and the Problem of Self-predication in the Parmenides
— 229 —
Arnold Hermann
40
Yet this oddity has found a staunch supporter in Meinwald (Plato’s
Parmenides).
41
Pace Apolloni, who argues forcefully for a general distinction between self-
participation and self-predication in Plato, dismissing the former while allowing
an innocuous version of the latter. (The Self-Predication Assumption in Plato,
82–84, 100, 168.)
— 230 —
Plato’s Eleatic Challenge and the Problem of Self-predication in the Parmenides
42
I would like to express my gratitude to Richard Patterson for his valuable
suggestions and advice toward finalizing this paper.
— 231 —
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Negation and Not-Being:
Dark Matter in the Sophist
Lesley Brown
Charles Kahn’s work on the verb “be” in ancient Greek has sparked
what he has “modestly called [his] version of the Copernican
Revolution: replacing existence by predication at the center of
the system of uses for einai.”1 In gratitude for the stimulus I have
gained from this rich seam within Kahn’s wide-ranging work, and
for fruitful exchanges on einai over the years, I am very happy to
contribute these tentative remarks on a stretch of Plato’s Sophist. His
insight about einai and predication will prove to be an important
key in unlocking some of the difficulties I examine below.
My aim is to try to understand what I regard as the most difficult
stretch of the Sophist, 257–259. In responding to a particularly
impenetrable claim made by the Eleatic Stranger (ES), Theaetetus
announces at 258b7 that they have found τὸ μὴ ὄν (not being),
which they have been searching for on account of the sophist. He
is thinking, of course, of what sparked the long excursus into not
being and being: the sophist’s imagined challenge to the inquirers’
defining his expertise as involving images and falsehood. Here’s
that challenge: speaking of images and falsehood requires speaking
of what is not, and combining it with being, but to do so risks
contradiction and infringes a dictum of Parmenides. This heralds
the puzzles of not being, and of being, which are followed by the
positive investigations of the Sophist’s Middle Part. So Theaetetus’
eureka moment ought to signal some satisfying clarification and
1
Charles Kahn, The Verb “Be” in Ancient Greek, reprinted by Hackett (2003),
x. The new introduction, from which the above quotation comes, is reprinted in
the welcome volume Essays on Being (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).
— 233 —
Lesley Brown
— 234 —
Negation and Not-Being: Dark Matter in the Sophist
4
J. Kostman, “False Logos and Not-Being in Plato’s Sophist,” in Patterns in
Plato’s Thought, ed. J. M. E. Moravcsik (Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, 1973),
already made such objections to Owen’s argumentation.
5
In L. Brown, “The Sophist on Statements, Predication and Falsehood,” in
G. Fine (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Plato, (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2008), 437–462, I discuss the Communion of Kinds stretch at 444–451. Agreeing
with Kahn, The Verb ‘Be’, 372, 400, I find no grounds for saying that an “is” of
identity is marked off, either in that passage or elsewhere in Plato or Aristotle.
I prefer instead to see Plato noting a distinction between kinds of statement
(predicative versus identifying statements). In this essay I argue at greater length
for the interpretation of 257a–c adumbrated in that paper at 456–457.
— 235 —
Lesley Brown
6
Cf. 255e4.
7
Cf. 256d11–e1.
8
Cf. 257a1–5.
— 236 —
Negation and Not-Being: Dark Matter in the Sophist
9
Cf. 257a4.
10
Frede, “False Statement,” 211; others including Lee, “Negation,” 299n53,
note this enigma.
— 237 —
Lesley Brown
11
I am in considerable agreement here with Kostman’s valuable article, “False
— 238 —
Negation and Not-Being: Dark Matter in the Sophist
Logos,” section IV, though I do not agree with him that we have to translate
heteron as incompatible.
12
Compare the following imaginary dialogue: “When we say ‘mighty’
something, we don’t mean ‘strong,’ we mean to intensify.” “How so?” “For
instance, when we say ‘mighty rich,’ we mean ‘very rich,’ not ‘strong and rich.’ ” I
take A1 in a similar way, that is, roughly as: when we say “not something.”
13
In support of the translation “for instance,” note that in all the following
places οἷον ὅταν is used to introduce an illustration of a general claim: Phaedo
70e6, Cratylus 394d6, Cratylus 424e1, Republic 462c10.
14
Note that at 257b8 “not large” is called a rhema, while at 257c1, the ES refers
to the words (onomata) which follow the negative. This is keeping with Plato’s
standard usage (prior to the Sophist) of onoma for single word, rhema for phrase.
In 261dff. he will announce, with considerable fanfare, a new usage for the two
terms.
15
I am making two assumptions: a) that Plato does not intend to distinguish
between what we mean (A1, A2) and what an expression means, and b) that he
— 239 —
Lesley Brown
explain the terms contrary and different, the ES takes the case of
“not large” and offers “small” and “same-sized” as “contrary” and
“only different” respectively: not large does not mean large’s contrary,
small. I take it that both small and same-sized are different from large,
while small (but not same-sized) is contrary as well as different. So
contraries here are polar contraries, i.e., contraries at opposite ends
of a single scale.
Before asking how to understand “different” we should clarify
the terms large, small, same-sized (ἴσον). Plato is clearly thinking
of the trio larger than, same-sized as, smaller than, a trio he often
discusses together.16 Though he here uses the terms large and small,
rather than larger than/smaller than, it is clear that he has the above
trio in mind.17 The point made in A2 alludes to the fact that what
is not large (in comparison to Y) need not be small (in comparison
to Y) but may be the same size (as Y). One who recognizes that
“large” is interchangeable with “larger” and who has an elementary
understanding of the relations between larger than, smaller than
and equal to/same-sized as would understand the point at once, as
Theaetetus does.18
Now to the contested question: how to understand the claim
that not . . . does not mean the contrary of . . . but only different.
It is crucial that the “only different” term (see A1, A3)—that is,
— 240 —
Negation and Not-Being: Dark Matter in the Sophist
19
L. Brown, “The Sophist on Statements,” 457.
20
I pass over the question of how exactly to construe the positive thesis about
the meaning of not large. The issue is, in part, whether one takes “one of the
others” de re or de dicto.
21
Ferejohn, “Semantic Fragmentation,” 262ff.
— 241 —
Lesley Brown
22
Brown, “The Sophist on Statements,” 458n5, notes that the incompatibility
range account of negation and falsehood was supported by Mabbott and Ryle
in an Aristotelian Society Symposium in 1929, and effectively criticized by
H. H. Price.
23
Frede, Prädikation, 78, and “False Statements,” 408–409, offers this
interpretation but does not show how he derives it from A3. Bostock, “Is not,”
115, admits it is a strained reading of A3 but tries to justify it; cf. next note.
24
Bostock, “Is not,” 115, notes the expression “the things which the words
following the ‘not’ stand for” πράγματα περὶ ἅττ’ ἂν κέηται τὰ ὀνόματα
and suggests that here Plato is talking not about forms (as the things the words
— 242 —
Negation and Not-Being: Dark Matter in the Sophist
given, on the other hand, fits the preceding sentence perfectly. Just
as “not large” need not mean “small” any more than “same-sized,”
so in general “not F” means “one of the others than F” (that is, one
or another from the understood range of properties other than F,
and not necessarily the contrary of F). Since Bostock supports his
reading by appealing to a sentence from Stage 2, I will have a little
more to say about it below.
Our conclusion about Stage 1 is that it is best read as offering
a tempting, if flawed account of expressions such as “not F” and/
or of their use in negative predications of the type, “x is not F.” (It
is tempting to think that “x is not white” means “x is some color
other than white,” but careful reflection shows that this cannot be
correct.) Paying attention to the illustration in A2, we saw how to
interpret contrary (viz., as polar contrary) and different (viz., as a
different one from a range of incompatible properties). No other
interpretation offers an adequate explanation of the point of A2. I
prefer an interpretation that makes good sense of the text, even if
it credits Plato with a less than watertight account of negation, to
ones that do Procrustean violence to what Plato wrote.
apply to) but about instances of forms, the terms being assigned what Bostock
calls their generalizing role. But this does not fit with the full version of what the
ES says, for he begins by saying that “not” indicates “one of the others than the
words” and then corrects himself—“or rather, than the things, etc.” That slip
could hardly have occurred if the ES was all along thinking not of forms but
their instances.
25
Frede, Prädikation, 86–89; Bostock, “Is not,” 115–117.
— 243 —
Lesley Brown
— 244 —
Negation and Not-Being: Dark Matter in the Sophist
Knowledge
APPLIED TO: producing shoes shapes numbers
NAME: cobblery geometry arithmetic
Different
FROM: beautiful large etc.
NAME: not beautiful not large
Frede, Prädikation, 88, cites Phaedrus 248c, 251b; Republic 429c, for “the
26
— 245 —
Lesley Brown
27
Bostock, “Is not,” 116.
28
The clearest cases are Theaetetus 187e5, Symposium 177a5, Republic 393b7.
It is striking how frequently Plato combines ἑκάστοτε with verbs of saying,
often—it seems—as a sort of catchphrase. I have noted over twenty occurrences.
See also Sophist 237d6.
29
As van Eck, “Falsity without,” 32, argues persuasively, while keeping the
traditional translation of ἑκάστοτε.
— 246 —
Negation and Not-Being: Dark Matter in the Sophist
the ways each of Knowledge and the Different are parcelled out.30
In the sequel, the ES will stress that the not beautiful, the not large,
the not just and so on have an equal claim to being as the beautiful,
the large and the just.31 This seems a strange thesis for Plato to be
arguing for, and one that seems to conflict with Aristotle’s claims
that the Platonists deny negative forms.32
How are we to understand the positing of a form of not F,
described as a part of the different set against F? How can we apply
the moral of Stage 1 to this? One way to do so—though I do not feel
entirely confident it is right—is to carry over the idea that Plato has
in mind a range of incompatible properties such that to be not F is
to have some property taken from that range that is other than Fness.
Thus the form not large is the form or property of being some size
(relative to . . .) other than large. Likewise, the form not beautiful is
the property of having some aesthetic property other than beautiful:
perhaps plain, perhaps ugly. I have already noted, above, that this
is unsatisfactory as an account of negation, even though it is an
account that appealed to thinkers as diverse as Hegel, Bosanquet
and Ryle. But if we set aside that objection, we can see the appeal
of understanding “not square” as “having some shape other than
square” and “not green” as “having some color other than green.”
If you want to countenance negative forms/forms of negations, it is
comforting (if incorrect) to do so with some positive designation.33
A more serious difficulty for this understanding of the notion of
30
257c. A further parallel is missed in English: knowledge of . . . and different
from . . . are both expressed by the genitive case in Greek.
31
258b9–10, not beautiful “is no less than” beautiful. 258a1–2, “ὁμοίως ἄρα
τὸ μὴ μέγα καὶ τὸ μέγα αὐτὸ εἶναι λεκτέον”; 258b9–c4, indicates that these
are regarded as forms.
32
Metaphysics 990b13–14, 1079a9–10. The issue is a complex one; see Frede,
Prädikation, 92, and G. Fine, On Ideas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993),
113–116, with notes. I agree with Frede, against Fine, that this passage does assert
the existence of negative forms/forms of negations.
33
Ferejohn, “Semantic Fragmentation,” 279, argues for this line, putting a lot
of weight on the term antithesis. See also M.-L. Gill, “Method and Metaphysics
in Plato’s Sophist and Statesman,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Winter 2009 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/
win2009/entries/plato-sophstate/. Many scholars oppose this reading, including
Lee, “Plato on Negation,” 292 and 296; Dixsaut, “La Négation,” 188n15.
— 247 —
Lesley Brown
Defended by, among others, Frede, Prädikation, 91–92, and J. van Eck, “Not
35
— 248 —
Negation and Not-Being: Dark Matter in the Sophist
so too not being in just the same way was and is not being.”36 This
seems to be a clear statement that there is a form of not being, in
just the same way as (and in addition to) the other negative forms.
So far the so-called Analogy interpretation of the first formula seems
to be vindicated. But it faces serious difficulties. After setting out
the relevant texts I shall argue that the so-called Generalization
interpretation is probably the correct one. Before we proceed, note
that on one point both formulae are in agreement: not being is not
identified with the different, but with either one special part of it
(as on the Analogy reading, suggested by the first formula), or with
any part of the different (as on the Generalization reading).
With the OCT, I accept the additions by Boeckh in 258c1–2. Those who
36
prefer not to add them to the text must supply them mentally.
— 249 —
Lesley Brown
258d Str. Whereas we have not only demonstrated that the things
that are not are, but in addition we’ve brought to light what the
form of not being is. We’ve demonstrated the nature of the different,
showing that it is, and that it’s parcelled out38 over all the things
37
Lee, “Negation,” 282–283, lists various interpretations with their adherents.
He argues against supplying <part of> to yield either part of being, or part of the
nature of being, protesting—strongly but not decisively—that we have not been
introduced to the notion of a part of being. Frede, Prädikation, 91–92, defends
supplying <part of>, to make the first formula cohere with the second.
38
Cf. 257c7.
— 250 —
Negation and Not-Being: Dark Matter in the Sophist
e that are, set against each other39; and the part of it set against each
being—that very thing is what we’ve dared to say really is not being.
e4 Tht. Absolutely, sir; I think we’ve spoken very truly indeed.
Cf. 258b1.
39
We find both forms in Simplicius: at In Phys. 135.26 the MSS quote the
40
— 251 —
Lesley Brown
set against a being.41 It is not identified with a single part, the one
set against being. In other words, not being is explained as not being
beautiful, or not being large, or not being just, or . . . and so on. The
second formula for not being clearly offers the generalizing account
of not being.42 And since it is introduced as a restatement of what
he already delivered (note ἀπεφηνάμεθα and ἀποδείξαντες in
258d8), we should try to make the two formulae cohere, if possible.
That is why I favored the less obvious way of interpreting the first
formula, as discussed above.43
— 252 —
Negation and Not-Being: Dark Matter in the Sophist
. . . not . . . contrary
not large same-sized small
is not is not something is not anything at all
CONCLUDING REMARKS
That almost concludes my discussion of the dark stretch. I do
not think I have shed much light on Stage 3, and I certainly am not
convinced that “this carefully constructed doctrine of the Parts of
Otherness” represents one of Plato’s “major ‘analytic’ achievements,”
44
Owen, “Not-Being,” 234, “just as . . . calling a thing not white does not
relegate it to the other extreme black, so . . . saying that it ‘not is’ does not relegate
it to the other extreme from being.”
45
Owen, “Not-Being,” 234: “The conclusion he is leading us to is that in one
case <sc that of the negation of ‘is’> this latter option is not open. With the verb
‘to be’ the negative construction not only does not mean the contrary (which is
what the analogy is designed to show) but cannot even be applied to anything
in the contrary state.” Kostman, “False Logos,” 203, points out the disanalogy.
— 253 —
Lesley Brown
as Lee describes it.46 So I find it less surprising than Lee does that
it is left “totally unused in Plato’s subsequent account of falsity,”
though I agree in finding it strange that it is not even mentioned
in the résumé.
The role of Stage 1, however, seems to me clear. Whether or not
Plato intended it as the missing account of negative predication, or
simply as an account of the meaning of negative expressions—and
I do not think we need to choose between the two suggestions, for
Stage 1—he certainly introduced a key notion when he claimed
that a negative term need not signify the contrary of F but “only
different.” I have argued above that he gives a clear indication of
his meaning here with the help of the example in A2 that invokes
the trio large/small/same-sized (though commentators have been
reluctant to take the hint, for fear of saddling Plato with an incorrect
account), and that we must understand him to appeal to the notion
of something different chosen from a range of incompatible properties.
Plato will make use of the same disputed term, “different,” which he
uses to paraphrase “not” in his account of what it is for “Theaetetus
flies” to be false; and there too, as I and others have argued, we
understand his account best if we invoke the notion of something
different chosen from a range of incompatible properties.47 There we
are offered as a true statement, “Theaetetus sits,” and we note the
relation of flying to sitting, just as we noted the relation of equal
to large: not any old different attribute, but a different one from
an understood range. On this point at least, our dark stretch helps
throw light on an important part still to come in the Sophist, the
justly admired discussion of false statement.48
46
Lee, “Negation,” 299n53.
47
Brown, “The Sophist on Statements,” 456n52, cites Ferejohn,“Semantic
Fragmentation,” n9, for a list of earlier advocates of this view, and adds M.-L.
Gill, see note 33, and J. Szaif, Platon’s Begriff der Wahrheit (Munich: Verlag Karl
Alber, 1998), 487–499.
48
I am very grateful to all who made helpful comments on an earlier version
of this paper, both in the workshop for ancient philosophy in Oxford, and at the
Delphi conference in June 2009. Especial thanks are due to Charles Kahn, and
to Richard Patterson for his help as editor.
— 254 —
Fifth-Century Bugbears
in the Timaeus*
Sarah Broadie
— 255 —
Sarah Broadie
it. But the present paper is not for believing Platonists so much as
for those who want to watch Plato at work as a philosopher.
I must now narrow the scope of these opening remarks, since
on one front it would be a gross mistake to suggest that scholars
pass over the Timaeus’ response to previous metaphysics. Everyone
is keenly aware of its fundamental rejection of any approach that
makes randomness or chance a major player in the generation of
our world, the most extreme example of this type of theory being
fifth-century atomism. It is hardly a secret how Plato’s theory of just
four supremely beautiful particle-shapes aims to surpass the atomist
system with its postulate of an infinite variety. The attractiveness
of Plato’s science of inanimate materials lies in its serious bid to
explain in detail a vast range of physical and chemical phenomena.
If these explanations, or enough of them, are found satisfying, that
corroborates Plato’s choice of a corpuscular starting point. And this
corroboration confirms, in turn, his more general foundational
premise that this cosmos is through and through the product of
divine reason. This is because anyone wanting to accept the Platonic
corpuscular theory because of its explanatory power will want to
accept as truth the postulate of the four geometrically perfect types
of particles;1 but from this one is all but logically compelled to infer
that it was some sort of cosmic reason that settled on the four types.
For on the level of cosmology, it would be as absurd to suppose that
particles of these and just these types simply happen to be what the
physical world is made of, as it would be for readers of the Timaeus
to suppose that when Plato came to write this part of the account
he just happened to select those particle-types for no reason!
However, the focus of this paper is not on Plato’s differences with
the atomists, but on his response to some fifth-century views that
take purposefulness to be ultimate in the universe, but locate it in
ways that for one or another reason are insupportable to Plato. Since
1
I am assuming that such a thinker is what today we call a “scientific realist.”
For interesting discussion of Plato as a “proto-scientific-realist” see A. Gregory,
Plato’s Philosophy of Science (London: Duckworth, 2000). One of Gregory’s main
theses is that for Plato the world-views of the atomists and the physiologoi are not
just theologically inadequate, but fail (not merely on matters of detail) in terms
of good scientific theory construction (see the summary at 265–274).
— 256 —
Fifth-Century Bugbears in the Timaeus
II
The narrative of the first passage begins at the point when
the Demiurge has finished creating the all-encompassing living
cosmos: its body (which is made from the four corporeal elements,
earth, fire, water, and air), its soul (which is made from a mixture
of incorporeal ingredients), and the astronomical system that makes
the movements of its soul visible. The cosmos itself and the stars
and planets are immortal gods. The next task (the agenda being
to create a physical world as fair, excellent, and perfect as any such
thing can be) is to create mortal animals, since without them the
cosmos would be incomplete. The making of mortals has to be
assigned to certain created divine ancillaries, as the chief Demiurge
cannot himself make anything touched by death. However, the
2
I address the themes of the next two sections in much more detail in S. Broadie,
Nature and Divinity in Plato’s Timaeus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2011). This title includes the apparently redundant reference to Plato because
one aim of the book is to understand the cosmology (and to some extent Critias’
story) in terms of ideas and issues that were part of the context in which Plato,
the historical individual, composed the Timaeus-Critias.
— 257 —
Sarah Broadie
3
Reading καὶ πάλιν ἐπὶ τὸν προτέρον <ἰὼν or τρεπόμενος> κρατῆρα with
F. M. Cornford, Plato’s Cosmology (Routledge and Kegan Paul: London, 1935;
reprinted Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997), 142n2.
— 258 —
Fifth-Century Bugbears in the Timaeus
this time they lacked the same unvarying purity, but were
of second and third rate quality. And when he had com-
pounded the whole, he divided it into souls equal in number
to the stars, and assigned each soul to one particular star,
and mounting <each> as if on a vehicle he showed them
the nature of the all and told them the fated laws: the
first birth would be ordained as one and the same for all
of them, so that no one would be disadvantaged by him;
and having been sown into the instruments of temporal
lengths, each into the one that is proper to it, they must
be born as the most god-revering of animals; and, human
nature being twofold, its superior part would be such a
kind as would later be called “man” (ἀνήρ). So: whenever
they came, of necessity, to be implanted in bodies, and
of the body that is theirs something would be passing in
and something would be passing out, sense perception
first would necessarily arise, innate and the same for all,
the effect of violent impacts; and second would arise pas-
sionate love (ἐρῶς) mixed with pleasure and pain; and
in addition to these fear and temper (θυμός) and all the
feelings that go with these, and all whose nature is dispa-
rate from them and opposed. If they mastered these they
would live in righteousness, but if mastered by them, in
unrighteousness. And he who lived well for the appropri-
ate amount of time would be conveyed back to the hab-
itation of his companion star and would have a happy
and congenial life; but if he failed in this he would at his
second birth change to a woman’s nature. (41d4–42c1)
— 259 —
Sarah Broadie
— 260 —
Fifth-Century Bugbears in the Timaeus
4
Making the cosmic soul went as follows: stage 1 was a mixing of pairs of pri-
mary ingredients, there being three of these pairs (35a1–6); stage 2 was a mixing
of the three results of stage 1 (a6–b3); and stage 3 was the mathematical marking
out of the material produced from stage 2 (35b2–36b5). Now, Timaeus says of
stage 2 that here “all three” are mixed together (35a6–7). Is “all three” qualitative
only, or also quantitative? I.e., is the point that each of the results of 1 contrib-
uted to the result of 2, or is it that the whole of each result of 1 is used up at 2?
If the latter, then the remainders mentioned at 41d5–6 were left out of stage 1,
i.e., they are primary in nature. Again, the material marked out at stage 3 is called
“this whole” (ὅλον τοῦτο, 35b2), which in the context means that it was a stage
2 mixture of all three results of stage 1 (or possibly that it is a mixture of all of
them immediately and of all the primary ingredients ultimately). But does this
mean that each of the results of stage 1 was represented in the material for stage
3, or that the totality of them without remainder went into the material for 3? If
the latter, then (as before) the remnants used for souls of mortals must have been
left out of stage 1. I am not so much interested in deducing the nature of the
remnants as in the ambiguity itself of “all” and “whole,” and in the fact that their
use in connection with stages 2 and 3 helps to create the impression that they
likewise apply to stage 1. At 36b5–7 Timaeus concludes his account of stage 3,
the marking out, by emphatically stating that here the Demiurge had used up the
entirety of material resulting from stage 2. An audience who had never been here
before might well get the impression pro tem that stage 3 operated on the entire
result of stage 2 and stage 2 on the entire result of stage 1, and so by extrapolation
that stage 1 had used up all the available primary materials.
— 261 —
Sarah Broadie
mixing for the cosmic soul had been either positively mistaken or
unclear in some way that matters (even if it is not yet clear why).
This realization would naturally have got them wondering: “That
possibility which I overlooked before—why is it important?”
Secondly, Timaeus has earlier explained with great fullness and
emphasis that the cosmic divinity was designed precisely so that the
entirety of available corporeal materials would be contained in its
body (32c5–33a6). This may well have lulled a first-time audience
into assuming at that stage (perhaps no more than subliminally)
that just as all the corporeal matter was used up to make the body
of the cosmic god, so it must be with all the incorporeal materials
from which the cosmic soul was constituted.
The mysterious mixing-bowl is the subject of a lengthy discus-
sion by Proclus.5 As we might expect, Proclus and his reported
predecessors find ideas in the text that to us seem pretty remote,
from Plato as well as from ourselves. Even so, Proclus does wrestle
with a good question: why were mixing-bowl and leftover psychic
ingredients not mentioned when the cosmic soul-stuff was mixed
(250.29–251.1)? My answer in part is the suggestion (which Proclus
might have considered childish) that Plato deliberately intended the
remainders and the new act of mixing to come as a surprise. The
other part of my answer is this: it was important to Plato to present
all together, in immediate sequence, (a) the image of the remain-
ders (calling for a new act of mixing) and (b) the image of the new
mixture being divided into a vast number of distinct souls: “And
when he had compounded the whole, he divided it into souls equal
in number to the stars” (41d8). After all, when Timaeus described
the first mixing, he could logically have said at that point: “And,
by the way, there were some ingredients left over, which the god
carefully reserved for mixing later.” But Plato did not have him say
that there. I am suggesting that this is because (there may have been
other reasons too, of course) at that point of the narrative (35b1) it
would have been impossible to forge an immediate imaginative link
between the whole notion of a second act of psychopoiesis, and the
idea that what this second act produces is a vast plurality of distinct
5
In Timaeum (Diehl 1904) 246.29–251.22, commenting on 41d4–6.
— 262 —
Fifth-Century Bugbears in the Timaeus
immortal souls destined for mortal bodies.6 Such a link could not
have been forged when the first mixing was presented, because the
natural next step at that point was to explain the marking out of
the cosmic soul material into the harmonic and arithmetic intervals
(35b2–36b5); and this in turn led straight into a series of difficult
topics that come thick and fast in natural sequence.7 Not until four
and a half Stephanus pages on from the first mixing does Plato
show the Demiurge turning to the problem of how to complete the
cosmos through the creation of mortal animals.
Now, why am I making so much of the fact that, in the story
as Plato tells it, we learn about the new mixing and the remainders
and the dividing into a plurality of new souls at virtually the same
moment? Well, my hunch is that he wanted to transfix his early
audience with the thought that mortal rational beings like us have
immortal souls that are individual centers of responsibility: distinct
from each other and from the cosmic soul. It was particularly
important to make this last point clear because Plato also wanted
the rational souls of mortals to be of kindred nature to the cosmic
soul. (The ingredients are the same in kind, but the mixture is less
pure the second time round.) Plato, as I see it, achieves the needed
effect by (a) jolting the audience into a heightened state of attention
through the wholly unanticipated appearance of the mixing bowl
and remainders; and (b) immediately presenting to that heightened
attention the image of the Demiurge creating those new rational
souls as a plurality of individuals. Why does Plato want this effect?
6
H. Jackson, “Plato’s later theory of ideas III [the Timaeus],” Journal of
Philosophy (1884), 13, and R. D. Archer-Hind, The Timaeus of Plato (London:
Macmillan (reprinted New Hampshire: Ayer Company, 1988), 141–142, held
that the Demiurge first divides the human-soul material into portions that are
not yet individual souls, and assigns these portions to the stars: individualization
takes place through a subsequent division. P. Shorey, “Recent Platonism in
England,” American Journal of Philology 3 (1888), 274–309, reports that Th. H.
Martin, Études sur le Timée de Platon (Paris: 1841), held a similar view. As Shorey
says (59): “there is not a word in the Greek that suggests a further division.”
7
Creation of the cosmic bands of locomotion of the Same and the Other
(36b6–d7); enveloping the cosmic body within this system of circular psychic
movements (36d7–37a2); the cosmic soul’s cognition (37a2–c5); the creation
of the visible chronological system; the difference between temporality and the
changeless now of eternity; the everlastingness of the cosmos (37c6–38c3); much
detail about the paths and velocities of sun, moon, and planets (38c3–39e2).
— 263 —
Sarah Broadie
8
I am certainly not claiming that Plato in the Timaeus discovered or invented
the notion of personal immortality. The claim is that before the Timaeus the
general context of cosmology was very far from being a place where this notion
was the obvious one to reach for, and that Plato therefore had reason to be par-
ticularly emphatic in introducing it into his own natural philosophy. In this as
in much else his precursor was Empedocles, but Empedocles’ system was not the
only one at hand in the background.
9
This has often been noticed in connection with the Phaedo and Phaedrus
arguments.
— 264 —
Fifth-Century Bugbears in the Timaeus
to speak, individual and personal to me, any more than some parcel
of corporeal matter in me that was also present in my father, and
is just a portion of the whole mass of such matter in the universe?
Then there is the argument (3) from Affinity: our soul cognizes
the Forms, so it like them must be incorporeal, eternal, etc. (Phaedo
78b–80b). But there is nothing individualizing about this affinity:
the argument would work equally well whether the soul in each of
us is individualized in itself or whether each human body is united
with a bit of the universal intelligence, the bits being individualized
only by linkage with particular bodies. Lastly in the Phaedo there
is (4) the Essential Connection argument which seeks to prove an
essential connection between soul and life just as there is between
three and odd and between fire and heat (Phaedo 102b–107a). This
simply bypasses any question of individuality. The situation is not
improved by (5) the Phaedrus argument which Plato inherited from
Alcmaeon of Croton. It claims that soul must be immortal, because
soul, being “self-moving,” is the source of all motion, so that if soul
ever did not exist there would not be motion in the universe (which
is assumed to be impossible). Hence soul is a fundamental of the
universe, and hence it can never cease to be within the history of the
universe (Phaedrus 245c–e). There is nothing here to support the
thought that my soul is not just a portion of soul in the universe. In
sum, arguments (1) to (5) in no way depend on the notion that our
souls are essentially individual. Essential individuality is not built
into the notion of soul at work in these arguments, and it makes
no contribution to the derivation of the conclusion.10
Finally, there is (6) the argument in Republic X about injustice
as the soul’s worst and most proper evil. Since it is observable that
seriously unjust persons do not in this life perish from the injustice
that is in them, we conclude that the soul is indestructible. If it
cannot be destroyed by its own proper evil, nothing else can destroy
it (Republic X, 608e–610e). This argument may seem more hopeful
from the present point of view; i.e., given that injustice and justice
are properties of individual persons as such, perhaps the argument
The notion of soul no doubt varies between some of these arguments, but
10
— 265 —
Sarah Broadie
shows that the soul that is immortal is personal and individual. But
I am not sure, given the context, that we do Plato any favors by
granting that injustice and its opposite are properties of individual
persons as such. Earlier in the Republic Plato has argued that cities
can be just and unjust, and there he seemed certain that justice and
injustice in this case amounts to exactly the same as these qualities
when they occur in individuals (IV, 441d5–e2; 442d7–9). This
important position is undermined by the immortality argument
in Book X. For Plato could hardly deny that experience in this
life shows that city-states are indeed sometimes destroyed by their
internal injustice (cf. IV, 434b7; VII, 521a8), which suggests that
justice and injustice in individuals cannot be safely modelled on
the justice and injustice of cities.
One can, of course, run these arguments for immortality on the
prior and independent assumption that the soul of man is individ-
ual and personal.11 Then, if we find the arguments convincing, we
shall accept them as proving the immortality of distinct individual
souls. The assumption is doubtless permissible in the context of
ethical dialogues, since the question there is how we individuals
should live or what our attitude should be to philosophy, wealth,
political power, rhetoric. But in the context of Greek cosmology as
conducted in the fifth and early fourth centuries, one would not
have been entitled to take that assumption for granted. And this fact,
I suggest, is behind the startling character of the Timaean account
of how the Demiurge created the rational souls of mortals. I am of
course not claiming that a cosmological context as such rules it out
that such souls are individual, and personal, and subjects of moral
responsibility. But I am claiming that in itself this context offers
no helping hand towards such an understanding. The cosmology
has to be very deliberately tailored to accommodate and accentu-
ate it, which is as much as to say that the minds of Plato’s early
audience have to be very deliberately steered in this direction. For
them, the easy presumption would have been that the human soul,
or the immortal part of it, is going to be explained as a piece or a
11
This is obviously presupposed in many places in Plato.
— 266 —
Fifth-Century Bugbears in the Timaeus
12
Translation from G. S. Kirk, J. E. Raven and M. Schofield, The Presocratic
Philosophers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983; hereafter, KRS),
438 and 442. According to Theophrastus (de Sensu, 42, DK 64A19), Diogenes
spoke of the air “within” us, by which we perceive, as “a small part (μόριον)
of God.”
— 267 —
Sarah Broadie
air.13 But it does not follow that Plato could equally reasonably have
expected them not to feel very much at home with the tenet that,
whatever intelligence consists in, one and the same intelligence
governs all things, humans included.
It might be objected that this way of thinking would have been
out of date by the time Plato wrote the Timaeus, so that there was
no reason for him to take special measures to combat it in his own
cosmology. In response: most of the philosophical activity that took
place between Diogenes’ floruit and the composition of the Timaeus
was focused on ethics, political theory, and epistemology.14 Those
intervening years did not see the arrival of a new cosmological broom
that swept away the notion that intelligence in us is part and parcel
of intelligence in the cosmos.15
However, there is direct evidence that this sort of view was alive
and kicking even in the period when Plato wrote the Timaeus. At
Philebus 29a6–30d8 Socrates argues that νοῦς rules the universe. To
establish this, he reasons that just as the fire, water, air, and earth
in us come from the universe at large, so the soul in us that orders
13
This is the traditional interpretation of Diogenes. It is disputed by Barnes
1979, vol. II, 272–274) but not, I think, on grounds that affect the present
argument.
14
Cf. KRS, 452: “With Diogenes and Democritus, who were little if at all
older than Socrates, the Presocratic period is legitimately held to end. During the
second half of the fifth century bce, particularly during the Peloponnesian War
and under the influence of the mature Socrates and the Sophists, the old cosmo-
logical approach—by which the primary aim was to explain the outside world
as a whole, man being considered only incidentally—was gradually replaced by
a humanistic approach to philosophy, by which the study of man became no
longer subsidiary but the starting point of all enquiry.”
15
Not only Diogenes but Anaxagoras before him would have encouraged that
notion if, as D. Sedley (Creationism and its Critics in Antiquity (Berkeley and
Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2007) has argued, “the reference [in
Anaxagoras] of the word nous ranges, without clear demarcation, over both in-
telligence as a power resident in each of us, whose properties we therefore know
at first hand, and the great cosmic intelligence which created the world. The
ambiguity is permissible because Anaxagoras almost certainly holds that the great
cosmic intelligence, having created the world, apportioned at least some of itself
into individual living beings, ourselves included,” 11. At 24 Sedley speaks of
Anaxagoras as regarding human beings “as, among all living creatures, the best
vehicles for nous itself to occupy” (emphasis added). See also S. Menn, Plato on God
as Nous (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1995), 26ff., on νοῦς as
a mass-noun in Anaxagoras.
— 268 —
Fifth-Century Bugbears in the Timaeus
things wisely must likewise come from the universe (30a5–8); hence
the universe has and is governed by wisdom and nous. Protarchus,
who represents common sense, finds this completely convincing.16
The parallel between the cosmic provenance of the rational soul in
us, and that of the fire, earth, water, and air in us, can certainly
be interpreted as meaning that our rational souls are simply small
portions of the rational soul that exists in and rules the universe.
And Socrates says nothing at all to block that interpretation.17
This background helps to explain the highly charged way in
which Plato depicts the creation of human rational souls in the
Timaeus. They are distinct from the cosmic soul and they are not
parts of it. They come into being at a later stage in the creation-
story, and from numerically different (and inferior) portions of the
incorporeal materials from which it was made. Note that in order to
craft the human body, the ancillary gods “borrowed” its materials
from the cosmos. We do not own the materials of our bodies; they
belong to nature at large and the loan will be returned (42e8–43a1).
The non-analogous (or non-symmetrical) treatment of the rational
souls of mortals should have struck Plato’s audience as particularly
telling: it should have stuck out like a sore thumb that neither these
souls nor the materials for them were borrowed from anywhere.
Each is an individualized creation, and (as 42d2–4; cf. e3–4, makes
clear) each is to be a distinct center of responsibility. No doubt in
the context of ethical philosophizing this assumption could be taken
for granted in Plato’s time. Later on, students of the Timaeus system
would find its presence there totally predictable and unremarkable.
But when Plato actually made the assumption into an axiom of his
cosmology, he needed to foreground its presence by means of extreme
and startling emphasis. To that end, he arranges the narrative so
that the motif of mixing bowl and remainders springs out almost
16
In fact, he had been ready to grant the point without argument (Philebus
28e1–6).
17
Archer-Hind (The Timaeus of Plato), 27, actually saw Philebus 29a6–30d8
as proving that in the Timaeus “finite souls are derived from the universal soul.”
In response, Shorey, “Recent Platonism,” 300, dismissed Philebus 29a6–30d8 as
“mere pious Socratic commonplace.” An abbreviated version of the argument
occurs in Xenophon, Memorabilia I. iv. 8. See Sedley, Creationism, 78n8, for
references to discussion about the possible common ancestor.
— 269 —
Sarah Broadie
III
I turn now to the second of my cases, the Receptacle. I shall
begin by summarizing the relevant passage (48e2–53a7). I shall
then develop an account of how I think the Receptacle ought to be
interpreted, or—to put the matter in different words—what the
problem is to which it answers. I shall then, for comparison, briefly
present the main rival interpretation.
About a third of the way into the cosmology Timaeus stops in
his tracks to announce a “second beginning” (48a7–b3; cf. e2–3).
This new beginning is the start of an account of the nature of the
corporeal materials of the universe, fire, water, earth, and air. The
four have been present and important in the account from the start,
but they have been largely taken for granted. Now they are to be
discussed in their own right. Timaeus began preparing for this
new stage with the very important declaration that the corporeal
materials are not the causes par excellence of the finished cosmos:
they are only contributory causes (συναίτια, 46d1–2; cf. τὰ τῶν
ὀμμάτων συμμεταίτια at 46e6, referring back to the ἀιτία of
18
What are we to make of the fact that the Philebus argument countenances just
the sort of picture of our souls that Plato is so anxious to rule out in the Timaeus?
If the theory of the Timaeus seems more sophisticated, and if we therefore regard
it as more developed, we might infer on this basis that the Timaeus is the later
dialogue. Alternatively, the moral to draw is that dialectical context can make
all the difference. In the Philebus passage, Socrates’ concern is to show that nous
rules the universe. He is simply not engaged with the question (nor is there any
reason why he should be) of exactly how cosmic νοῦς is related to your νοῦς and
mine, or how yours is to mine. Cf. Shorey, “Recent Platonism,” 300.
— 270 —
Fifth-Century Bugbears in the Timaeus
vision expounded at 45b4ff.). The cause in the strict sense, i.e., the
leading cause, is divine intelligence. The corporeal materials are
devoid of soul, and therefore devoid of intelligence. It was possible
to construct the cosmos and the organic creatures that live within it
because these materials (which Timaeus speaks of as Necessity and
also as the “wandering cause”) “yielded to persuasion” by Intelligence
(46c7–e6). We may wonder how inanimate things can sensibly be
said to be “persuaded” by anything; but the point, I think, is simply
that the fully formed and fully stocked world exists only because
the corporeal materials were amenable to being used in the task of
divine formation: they did not resist it.
Timaeus moves on, taking two important steps. The first is a
declaration that he will study the elements and their properties as
they were even before this cosmos was made from them (48b3–5;
cf. 52d4; 53a7). What this says is not that he is going to engage
in a sort of palaeo-physics of pre-cosmic matter or rudiments. The
point is that studying the elements as they would have been before
demiurgy fashioned them into bodies of living things19 is the same
as studying them in themselves. The aim is to isolate the specific
independent contributions they make to the finished world, i.e.,
the world as it is today, and thereby identify the possibilities they
offered to divine intelligence when it appropriated them for building
the body of the cosmic god and those of astral gods and mortals.20
Timaeus’ second important step at this stage is to equate the study
of the elements (so called) as they are in themselves with the study
of their genesis. For they do have a genesis, although very many
19
Or: as they would have been had no cosmos been formed. This formula-
tion leaves open whether the beginning of the cosmos is to be understood liter-
ally or not.
20
Timaeus does not examine the specific natures and properties of the elements
until the Receptacle passage is over: he does so on the basis of the subsequent
geometrical analysis of the elements. (Geometrical analysis: 53c4–56c7, with a
digression at 55c7–d6; explanation of phenomenal properties: 56c8–68d7. The
sequence is rounded off by a peroration stating that the elements as just ex-
pounded were what the Demiurge took over (παρελάμβανεν) for fashioning the
cosmos—hence (διὸ) the importance for cosmology of distinguishing the two
kinds of causes, basic corporeal matter and Intelligence: 68e1–69a5. The point
of “hence” is that the materials had to be taken over by a cause quite other than
they: by themselves they could not have given rise to the cosmos.)
— 271 —
Sarah Broadie
21
The whole thrust of what follows is to show that although fire, water, earth,
and air as we experience them are the corporeal basics (the geometrical account
will show precise ways of understanding the empirical contribution they make
to the cosmos), they are not, either one by one or collectively, self-sufficient
metaphysically speaking.
22
It is worth emphasizing that according to the text the contents of the Recep-
tacle really are precisely what has just been stated: fire, water, earth, and air. This
needs saying because some scholars have held, mainly on the basis of 53b1–2
and 69b5–8, that the Receptacle’s contents are pre-cosmic “traces” of the four
elements—rudiments with virtually no distinctive characteristics. What those
passages say is that such traces were all that there was before God brought or-
der to them in accordance with the geometry explained at 53c4ff. Some have
supposed that the Receptacle essentially has the role of being the place in which
God ordered the pre-geometrical traces. If that were correct it would indeed follow
that the Receptacle, like the traces themselves, is a wholly pre-cosmic entity, one
whose contribution to the account is completely over by the time the story gets
to the finished cosmos such as we see it today. However, (a) Timaeus never says
that God geometrized the traces in the Receptacle. In fact, Timaeus never once
juxtaposes the motif of the traces with that of the Receptacle. Moreover, (b) he
says near the beginning of the Receptacle passage that fire, water, earth, and air as
we see them today all seem to turn into each other (see especially 49c1, ὁρῶμεν),
and he then goes on to postulate the Receptacle as that in which these transfor-
mations happen. The related puzzle at 49b1–50a4 about how to speak of fire, etc.
is evidently one that is supposed to embarrass us. Furthermore, (c) the Receptacle
is responsible for the separative movements of the elements (52d4–53a7), and
this separative tendency, Timaeus says, continues as a force in the cosmos as it
is today (57c2–6; cf. 58a2–c4 and 57b5–6). Altogether, the text indicates two
pre-cosmic transitions, each carried out by a divine agency and each for the sake
of the finished cosmos: one from traces to the geometrized particles that make
up fire, water, etc. such as they are today, the second from this per se unorga-
nized fire, water, etc. to the fully fashioned cosmos of living beings (see especially
69b3–c3 for the two transitions). The difference is not always kept clear: e.g., at
53a7–8 Plato moves from talking about unorganized fire, etc. in the Receptacle
(the Receptacle passage ends at 53a7) to talking about the traces (53b1ff.): it is
hard to tell whether the bridging sentence is about the former or the latter. Again,
at 56c3–7 he speaks of the geometrical formation as “Necessity yielding to per-
suasion,” language that was earlier (48a1–5) used for the amenability of fire, etc.
to the formation of organic structures.
— 272 —
Fifth-Century Bugbears in the Timaeus
23
One might well wonder why this has to be assumed.
24
The contrast implied by “rather . . . in a discursive way” is with the method
of presenting earlier points about the Receptacle, i.e., via similes and images: the
Receptacle is, as it were, the nurse of all becoming (49a5–6); it is like gold being
continually re-shaped (50a5–b6); it is a paste for moulding (c2–5; d4–6; e8–11);
it is like the mother (d2–4; 51a4–5); it is like the odorless base for scented oint-
ments (d5–8). Moreover, “recipient” and “receptacle” (53a3; see A. E. Taylor, A
Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1928, 356) are not
— 273 —
Sarah Broadie
mere dead metaphors. The non-discursive way takes over again at 52d4ff., where
the Receptacle is again called “nurse of becoming” (4–5) and the separative mo-
tion of its contents is compared to what happens when grain is thrashed and
shaken in a winnowing basket (52e6–53a7).
25
If Forms of fire, etc. exist, they are the “reality” of the fire, etc. that we per-
ceive by sense. But if only the latter exist, then the reality of fire, etc. has the
nature of (τοιαύτην, 51c3) what we perceive, and the things we perceive by sense
must be “posited as ultimate constants” (θετέον βεβαιότατα, d7). See Taylor,
Commentary, 335–336 for the interpretation of 51c3.
26
On the meaning of this see note 31.
27
We might think it obvious that they are two kinds in that νοῦς operates by
intellection, not sense-experience; thus we may think that Timaeus ought to be
asking whether intelligence has its own proper objects in the case of fire, etc. How-
ever, the term νοῦς is primarily an accolade (as distinct from the name of a distinct
cognitive faculty) meaning the supreme form of cognition, what grasps reality or
truth. Hence if there are no Forms of fire, etc., then (in relation to fire, etc.) sense
perception or true opinion based on sense perception will count as νοῦς.
— 274 —
Fifth-Century Bugbears in the Timaeus
28
This is seen clearly by Taylor, Commentary, 338.
29
This ἔνδοξον was employed by Zeno of Elea and Gorgias.
— 275 —
Sarah Broadie
30
Almost all interpreters identify the Receptacle of 49a1–51b6 and 52d4–53a7
with the χώρα of 52a8–d4 (the exception is D. Miller, The Third Kind in Plato’s
Timaeus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003). The identifiers are cor-
rect, in my view, but they have the burden of explaining why Plato switches, and
switches just when he does, between speaking of the Receptacle and speaking of
χώρα. I discuss this question in Broadie, Nature and Divinity, ch. 6.
31
Thus ὧδε ὀῦν τήν γ᾽ἐμὴν τίθεμαι ψῆφον at 51d3 does not mean: “My own
verdict then is this”—thus Cornford, Cosmology,189—but: “What is about to
follow is the principle in accordance with which I shall give my verdict.” Taylor,
Commentary, makes the same mistake in his note on 51c5–d3: “[Timaeus] gives
his own personal conviction and indicates briefly the grounds on which he rests
it,” 337. It is no accident that Cornford’s translation brushes out the second
reference to the voting pebble (52d2; Cornford, Cosmology, 197), rendering the
Greek by “. . . according to my judgment.” The perfect imperative at 52d3 sug-
gests the act of voting.
— 276 —
Fifth-Century Bugbears in the Timaeus
— 277 —
Sarah Broadie
— 278 —
Fifth-Century Bugbears in the Timaeus
I share the view that the Timaean Forms of fire, etc. are more
than the abstract geometrical shapes of the material particles.34
For grasping these Forms involves, in part, understanding why it
is good that these elements exist, and this will involve reference to
animals. For example, the cosmos was made to be inter alia a place
where sense perception is possible; hence its ingredients include
fire and earth because visibility requires fire and tangibility earth
(31b4–8). This piece of teleology could not be discovered just from
the geometry of the particles; the geometry, rather, is the means
by which the Forms are implemented in the physical world.35 We
do not know the cosmological Form of a thing unless we know the
cosmological value of that kind of thing.
Now, although the elemental Forms may be more than the
elemental geometry, and although the relation between this “more”
and the geometry may not be very clear, I take it that the Timaeus
proceeds on the assumption that it is through the geometry that those
Forms are physically implemented. This is crucial because it means
that if the physical elements have any pre-cosmic properties such
that it is impossible to understand (or to imagine ourselves eventu-
ally understanding) how those properties consist in or supervene
on the supposed geometrical structure of the particles, then the
elements have pre-cosmic properties that do not originate from the
Forms. Such properties, therefore, would baffle any investigation
that looks to the Forms. Let us, however, for a moment lay aside
this hypothetical point about human investigation, and take on
board something said by Timaeus about the divine geometrizing
34
The text is silent about the relation of the Forms to the geometry, just as it is
silent about the relation of the Receptacle to the geometrizing god and the traces
to which he gave order (see note 22, point [a]).
35
Cf. C. Kahn, “Why Is the Sophist a sequel to the Theaetetus?,” Phronesis 52
(2007), 57: “The geometry of the elemental triangles and, more generally, the
use of mathematics to give structure to the phenomena of nature, is the marvel-
ous device by which Forms are imitated in phenomena. In other words, applied
mathematics is the mechanism by which the noetic unity of unchanging Forms
is transmitted to the perceptual plurality of kinds of things that come to be and
perish. In this intermediate role, between the purely intelligible and the percepti-
ble, between the eternal and the changing, mathematics provides the instrument
by which the one becomes many, as an invariant Form is repeatedly imitated in
regular modifications of the Receptacle” (57).
— 279 —
Sarah Broadie
act that gave rise (somehow) to the particles of the four elements
so that these were there for the Demiurge and his ancillaries to
use in constructing the bodies of the cosmic god, the astral gods,
and mortal animals. Timaeus says that this geometrizing was done
when “the ordering of the universe began to be taken in hand” (ὄτε
δ᾽ ἐπεχειρεῖτο κοσμεῖσθαι τὸ πᾶν, 53b1.36 Not only does this
phrase locate the geometrizing at the start of the entire process giving
rise to the complete cosmos, but only a thoroughly perverse reader
could take it not to be identifying the geometrizing with the first
stage of that process. So whether or not the geometrizer who prepared
the elements is a god numerically identical with the Demiurge who
shaped the cosmos from them (Timaeus in fact identifies them at
69b3–c3), the agent in each case is engaged on a different stage of
the self-same task with the self-same ultimate purpose.37 And the
connection does not end here, for the Demiurge makes heavy use
of mathematical principles and concepts at crucial points.38
These considerations make it reasonable to raise the question: if
there are pre-cosmic39 elemental properties that are not (a) geomet-
rical, nor (b) obviously supervenient on the geometry, nor (c) such
that it makes sense to hope that a fuller version of the theory would
show them to be thus supervenient, then are the elements, in so far as
they have these properties, under the control of the cosmos-shaping
Demiurge? If there are any pre-cosmic properties that are either
36
The translation is adapted from Cornford, Cosmology, 198.
37
Many scholars use “the Demiurge” indiscriminately in connection with the
agent of both stages, but Timaeus reserves the title and cognates for the Intelli-
gence responsible (directly or via ancillaries) for constructing living beings, body
and soul, including the cosmos itself, i.e., the Intelligence that “took over” fire
and water, etc. as the materials for this project. He does not use it of the geome-
trizing god who ordered the traces into the particles of those materials. See note
22 on the two pre-cosmic transitions.
38
The cosmic body (31b4–32b8); the cosmic soul (35b4–36b5); time and
astronomy (38b6–39d7).
39
“Pre-cosmic” here means older than the cosmos but continuingly operative
within it. The contrast is with properties that an element acquires (the resultant
true predications are generic, not universal) from its role in a cosmic or intra-
cosmic organic process: e.g. one type of fire has the property of enabling vision
(45b4–d6), another has the property of mincing up nutriment in the process
whereby blood is made (80d3–e6).
— 280 —
Fifth-Century Bugbears in the Timaeus
brute facts about the elements or belong to them through some cause
that lies beyond the geometrizing god, then: given the concinnity
of this god with the Demiurge, one might wonder whether the
properties in question come from the cosmos-shaping Demiurge as
such. But given that they are pre-cosmic, they cannot come from
the demiurgic divinity. So now the question arises: with what right
does one assume that elements possessed of these attributes would
unproblematically fall under the Demiurge’s control?
And of course there are pre-cosmic elemental properties not
rooted in the geometry, ones that are hardly trivial. These are the
tendencies of the four materials to mass together in different regions.
The ultimate reason why Plato postulates the Receptacle is, I think,
in order to account for this phenomenon of separation.40
In the context of this problem, the problem of accounting for
the separative movements, the Receptacle represents two things: an
admission and a reassurance. The admission is that the geometry
of the elements cannot explain the separative movements, and that
(as we would put it) empirically this system of movements is a brute
fact. The reassurance says that what has just been admitted does not
bring into question the perfection of the cosmos. For although the
system of movements is a brute fact empirically speaking, there is a
non-empirical principle that explains it, and this principle, although
utterly different from the geometrizing god, the Demiurge, and
the elemental Forms, is nevertheless on their side. It is the elements’
mother, and the Forms are their father. So the Receptacle is in
closest possible partnership with the divine rationality of those
Forms. That the elements move and exist only in dependence on her
makes mythically plausible their pre-cosmic amenability to being
fashioned into the cosmos. Without the Receptacle, Plato could
still have had Timaeus declare that Necessity, yielding to divine
wise persuasion, lent itself to the demiurgic work of producing the
superlatively excellent cosmos (47e5–48a5). But the declaration
would have been a bald demand to be given this premise for free.
Instead, in the actual narrative the elemental amenability makes
40
Separative movement of the elements into distinct large tracts is not the same
as relative mobility of their particles. The latter is supposedly accounted for by
the particle geometry; cf. 55d8–56b6.
— 281 —
Sarah Broadie
sense. It springs from the fact that the elements’ parents on both sides
belong on the same team as the Demiurge. A mother as such is in
one team with the father of her children. The father in this case is a
tetrad of Forms ready for conjoint geometrical implementation. The
tetrad belongs on the same general team as the mathematically rich
cosmic paradigm guiding the Demiurge. And a demiurge and his
guiding paradigm certainly belong on the same team as each other.
So: by the transitivity of “belonging on the same team as,” both the
Demiurge of the cosmos and the entire parentage of its elements
are on the same team. Finally, children belong with parents in one
family or fellowship. Not surprising, then, that the elements do not
resist the use to which the Demiurge puts them. Their geometrically
unaccountable aspect, the separative movement, turns out to be due
to a geometry-friendly cause.
Timaeus says that we apprehend this cause by a “bastard sort of
reasoning” (52b2). But the bastard is a close relative of the common
parent’s legitimate child. Under Timaeus’ guidance, one and the
same human cosmological capacity not only traces out through
authentic intellection (νόησις, 52a4) the mathematical structures
of the universe, but also, as an aspect of the same project, arrives
by a less transparent route at recognition of the Receptacle. Moving
from the epistemic level to the level of the objects, and applying
family imagery yet again, we could also think of the Receptacle
itself as the bastard sibling (a female one, perhaps) of the divine
and fully intelligible collective agency of the geometrizing god and
the Demiurge.41
All this metaphysically guaranteed co-operation gives Timaeus
(or Plato) an answer to what would otherwise be a serious objection.
In the absence of the Receptacle-mother motif (or some other device
bearing the same theoretical load), the cosmology would have to
display the separative movements of the elements as a sheer brute
fact, given that the non-brute facts about the elements derive from
the geometry and ultimately from divine rationality. In view of this,
a penetrating critic could question the security of the geometrical
41
The dual relationship of Hera with Zeus (sister and consort) might suggest a
similar dual bond between Receptacle and divine rational agency (i.e., the aspect
of it that is said to father the elements).
— 282 —
Fifth-Century Bugbears in the Timaeus
account of the elements. For if all that can be said about a fundamen-
tal feature of elemental behaviour is that the geometry cannot explain
it, then not only is it completely unexplained, but from the point of
view of the geometry and all that this stands for, it is a sheer anomaly.
Hence the critic could reasonably question whether the geometry
is in fact the best explanation of the phenomena that it supposedly
does explain. The critic could reasonably wonder whether we ought
not to be looking in some totally different direction for explanatory
principles that would generate a more unitary system. (Even if we
have no positive idea of what such a system would look like, we can
surmise that mathematics would have in it nothing like the dominant
role that mathematics plays in the actual Timaean cosmology.)
The Receptacle-motif fends off this sort of objection by exhibiting
the separative movements as, yes, geometrically inexplicable, but
scotching the implication that they are a sheer anomaly. If we stay
on the empirical level, the movements are anomalous, perhaps even
frighteningly so, but if we go beyond it we see that they are not.
For then we see them as due to a metaphysical principle that by its
very nature is friendly to elemental geometry and to the associated
rational values. In this way, then, the Receptacle-motif protects
the geometrical approach. Moreover, to engage in that approach
is to investigate the elements in the name or under the aegis of the
tetrad of Forms; hence anything that fends off scepticism about the
worth of the geometrical approach serves to vindicate those Forms.
Therefore the Receptacle-motif serves to vindicate them.
But as we have seen, the motif does more work than that. It
also makes sense of elemental subservience to the demiurgic project.
This theme brings me back to the title of this paper. In a scheme
of things where fire, air, earth, and water existed and there was no
Receptacle, the four would be completely self-sufficient in being
and movement. But for Plato, self-motion spells animation.42 Thus
living beings, mighty in extent and effects, completely indepen-
dent of the incorporeal Platonic Demiurge, having no guaranteed
affinity with his ethos, would have been around since before any
411c. At Timaeus 36e3–4 and 37a2 the self-motion of the cosmos seems to be
immediately linked with its being alive.
— 283 —
Sarah Broadie
43
According to J. B. Skemp (The Theory of Motion in Plato’s Later Dialogues,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1942), 58–59, Necessity in the Timaeus
(one of whose effects is “bringing like to like,” i.e., the separative movement) is
a close relative of Empedoclean Strife. This is what I am arguing would be the
case but for the Receptacle. By contrast, D. O’Brien, “Space and Movement:
Two Anomalies in the Text of the Timaeus,” in Plato Physicus; cosmologia e
antropologia nel Timeo, eds. C. Natali and S. Maso, Amsterdam: Hakkert 2003,
121–148, shows how Plato advertises the exclusion of Empedoclean Strife from
his own system by deliberately placing the cosmic soul so that it encompasses the
cosmic body “on the outside” (ἔξωθεν, 34b4 and 36e3). In Empedocles’ world,
the center is “home” to Love, the extremity to Strife, and Strife moves back in
towards the center as his power increases. See also O’Brien, Empedocles’ Cosmic
Cycle, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969, 144–145.
44
Contrast 41a6–b6, where the Demiurge declares that his own works are
guaranteed immortal since they could not be dissolved except by his willing it,
which cannot happen because he is good and they are fair.
45
In this counterfactual scenario, the non-affinity of fire, water, etc. with the
Demiurge and all he stands for makes it laughable to equate them with beauti-
fully geometrical particles; for if rationality as Plato understands it is not sover-
eign over the construction of the cosmos, why suppose that a Platonically-dear
geometrizing principle was active at a prior stage? So, again, for the reason given
at the end of the previous paragraph, intelligible Fire “itself by itself,” etc. would
be “nothing but words” (51b7–c5).
— 284 —
Fifth-Century Bugbears in the Timaeus
46
There is not the space to defend this claim here. The most I will say is that
the rival interpretation which I am about to mention would scarcely have gained
the ground that it has if its exponents had found in the this-such argument alone
a clearly satisfactory basis for positing the Receptacle.
— 285 —
Sarah Broadie
47
Plato, as I see it, hopes to get his audience so furiously intent on grasping
the nature of the portentous, enigmatic, Receptacle that their minds are too full
of this task to frame the thought: “What would be the difference without it?”
We might compare the moment at the very beginning of the cosmology where
Timaeus refuses to countenance even formulating the negation of the proposi-
tion (P) “This cosmos is beautiful and its craftsman good”: enunciating “not-P”
(even, one may note, as the mere antecedent of a hypothetical) would be irreli-
gious in anyone, he says (29a2–4). If my argument is on the right lines, it is easy
to see that the truth of “There is no Receptacle” (not-Q) seriously jeopardizes
the truth of P. (This would have been easy to see for an audience deeply familiar
with Empedocles’ system.) So if Plato (not just Timaeus) indeed regards not-P
as impious even to formulate, then from this point of view he is well justified
in using his arts of presentation to head people off from wondering about the
implications of not-Q. He is not (from this point of view) denying us a clarity to
which we have a right. Timaeus began by declaring that the cosmologist’s prayer
should be to construct a discourse that is acceptable most of all to the gods, and
to us next in sequence (ἑπομένως δὲ ἡμῖν, 27c7–d1; on the phrase see Corn-
ford, Cosmology, 21n1). Thus the requirements of piety take precedence over any
human right to intellectual openness.
48
Johansen (Plato’s Natural Philosophy, a study of the Timaeus-Critias, Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, ch. 6) gives a very different cosmo-
logical explanation of the Receptacle.
— 286 —
Fifth-Century Bugbears in the Timaeus
49
H. Cherniss (Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato and the Academy, Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1944, 172–173): “It is to save the possibility
of sensible phenomena as such, the essential characteristic of which is instability
and which, because they have no steadfast being of their own, must be imitations
of the real ideas, that Plato assumes a receptacle, χώρα; this receptacle is the field
required by phenomena because they are merely ‘likenesses.’” See also Cherniss,
The Riddle of the Early Academy, Berkeley-Los Angeles: University of California
Press, 1945, 23: “Plato himself explains [sic] that his theory of space as the
participant or receptacle is a consequence of his doctrine that physical particulars,
being constantly in process, are imitations of reality, for as such they imply not
only real entities—that is, the ideas, of which they are images—but also a field
or medium in which they can, as images, appear and disappear.” Again, Cherniss
(“The relation of the Timaeus to Plato’s Later Dialogues,” American Journal of
Philology, 88, 225–266; reprinted in Studies in Plato’s Metaphysics, ed. R. E.
Allen (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1965), 339–378; see esp. 246–247
and 264–265): “the theory of space is presented as saving at once the world of
becoming and the theory of its relation to being as that of image or semblance to
original reality.” E. N. Lee, “On the Metaphysics of the Image in Plato’s Timaeus,”
Monist 50, 341–368, regards the Receptacle-account up to 52d4 as “a coherent
structural whole,” one that “stands outside the coherent general pattern of the
rest of the dialogue,” 348ff. For Lee, 48e2–52d4 is “one of Plato’s major and
most careful metaphysical pronouncements—a fundamental statement not only
on the notoriously obscure Receptacle, but on his entire metaphysical theory of
phenomenal being,” 342–343; cf. 361. See also L. Brisson, Le même et l’autre dans
la structure ontologique du Timée de Platon, Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag,
1998, ch. 3. J. Sallis (Chorology, Bloomington-Indianapolis: Indiana University
Press, 122–123), interprets along the same lines notwithstanding his different
philosophical style. R. Mohr (God and Forms in Plato, Las Vegas: Parmenides
Publishing, 2005, 87) sees the Receptacle as resolving “the problem, left over
from the Republic, of how becoming holds a middle ground between being and
non-being”; cf. xxiv and 255). See also Kahn, “Sequel,” esp. 38; 52; 54–57. K.
Algra 1994, too, in a very detailed and nuanced study (Concepts of Space in Greek
Thought, Leiden: Brill, 1994, is inclined to see Plato’s “overall perspective” in
the Receptacle passage as “metaphysical rather than physical,” 91; 95; 105–106;
118. Some scholars explicitly link the Receptacle to the Parmenides paradoxes
of participation, seeing in the former a supposed antidote to the latter: e.g. Lee,
“Metaphysics of the Image,” 361–363; F. Fronterotta, ΜΕΘΕΞΙΣ, la teoria
Platonica delle idee e la partecipazione delle cose empiriche, Pisa: Scuola Normale
Superiore, 2001, 390–391; cf. 278–283; also Kahn, “Sequel,” 38.
— 287 —
Sarah Broadie
— 288 —
Fifth-Century Bugbears in the Timaeus
— 289 —
This page has been intentionally left blank.
False Pleasures: Philebus 36c–40e
Satoshi Ogihara
In this paper I shall present an interpretation of a much-discussed
passage in Plato’s Philebus, 36c–40e. Briefly, in that passage Socrates
persuades Protarchus that there are false pleasures (ψευδεῖς ἡδοναί).1
Although at first Protarchus denies that pleasure can be false
(36c8–9, d1–2, e4, et al.), the argument that Socrates offers at
38b–40d finally convinces him.
Even before giving this conclusive argument, which is the focus
of this paper, Socrates makes some attempts at persuasion (36c10–11,
37a1–e7). At 37a1–e7 he appeals to an analogy between belief and
pleasure. As for belief, if a mistake is made about “the thing believed”
then that belief is not right. Similarly in the case of pleasure, Socrates
says, if a mistake is made about “that in which (περὶ τὸ ἐφ’ ᾧ)”
one takes a pleasure, the pleasure is not right (37e1–7). Protarchus
accepts the truth of the whole conditional, while showing skepti-
cism about the feasibility of the antecedent (e8–9). Then Socrates
points out that pleasure sometimes accompanies ( μετὰ [+ genitive]
. . . γίγνεσθαι2 ) false belief (37e10–11). Presumably this refers to
the case in which one is pleased that p, when the proposition p is
false. Protarchus admits that pleasure sometimes accompanies false
1
Socrates goes on to give three more arguments for the possibility of false
pleasure, or show three other senses in which pleasure may be false. First, when
one overestimates the size of a pleasure (thanks to temporal distance or juxtapo-
sition with a pain), Socrates argues that the exceeding part of the pleasure is false
(41a–42c). Second, if one mistakenly thinks that painlessness is pleasant, feels
no pain and hence thinks oneself pleased, Socrates holds that this is taking a false
pleasure (42c–44a). And thirdly, a pleasure mixed with a pain is said to be a false
pleasure (46a–53c).
2
Cf. also Ἕπεται (+ dative) at 38b9–10.
— 291 —
Satoshi Ogihara
belief, and yet retorts that in such a case, although we say the belief
is false, nobody would call the pleasure itself false (37e12–38a2).
Socrates’ next argument convinces Protarchus. How? To antici-
pate, I think it is by drawing attention to a very restricted kind of
pleasure, which Protarchus agrees is false when and because the
belief involved is false. So it is crucial, at least on my interpreta-
tion, to understand exactly what type of pleasure is at issue in the
argument. In the experience in question, one believes one will be
pleased at something, e.g., the acquisition of a lot of gold, and
imagines oneself to be taking the pleasure. It is crucial to note, in
my view, that by identifying with the imagined self, one takes that
same pleasure. If one never acquires a lot of gold, the belief is false,
and so is the pleasure.
1. PROTARCHUS’ VIEW
Before discussing the relevant text, I wish to say something about
Protarchus’ view. It is common to describe him as a hedonist. For
now, let “hedonism” mean the claim that pleasure is the good, a
claim implying that all pleasures are good. I would like to suggest
that Protarchus may not be fully committed to hedonism at any
stage in the dialogue, not even at the outset.
This suggestion may sound paradoxical. There are two reasons
it may seem so. First, Protarchus has taken over a hedonist position
from Philebus, as we see at the opening of the dialogue (11a1–b3,
c5–9). Second, Protarchus seems to defend the hedonist thesis at
least for a while, and to do so well. In terms of a first attack on
hedonism, Socrates maintains that there is a great variety of pleasures
(12c4, c7–8). The pleasure of a licentious activity is contrasted with
the pleasure that a temperate person takes in her very temperance,
and the pleasure that a foolish person takes in foolish thoughts
and hopes is contrasted with the pleasure that a sensible person
takes in her very sensibleness (c8–d4). To this Protarchus replies,
“They certainly come from opposite things, Socrates, but they aren’t
themselves opposite to one another” (d7–8). A little later Protarchus
also says that the pleasures Socrates regards as unlike one another
are not so, “insofar as they are pleasures” (13c5). Protarchus thus
— 292 —
False Pleasures: Philebus 36c–40e
— 293 —
Satoshi Ogihara
to the pleasure these give (let us call this “non-transfer” claim), and
that on this basis he defends the weaker thesis. But the “non-transfer”
claim does not entail the hedonist thesis.
With this consideration in mind, let us look at Philebus 38a3–5.
As I have mentioned, when Socrates says that pleasure sometimes
accompanies false belief, Protarchus admits this and says that in such
a case, nobody calls the pleasure false (37e10–11). This is a version
of the “non-transfer” claim, although now it is brought forward
with respect to truth and falsity, while at 12d–13b it was brought
in mainly with regard to goodness and badness. Socrates then
remarks, “But you’re defending the λόγος of pleasure eagerly now,
Protarchus (Ἀλλὰ προθύμως ἀμύνεις τῷ τῆς ἡδονῆς, ὦ Πρώταρχε,
λόγῳ τὰ νῦν, 38a3–4).” This is the reading of manuscript T. Other
manuscripts have “τὸ” instead of “τῷ.” For now let me assume the
version of T and read “τῷ τῆς ἡδονῆς [. . .] λόγῳ.” To this remark
by Socrates Protarchus replies, “Not at all. I’m saying what I hear
(Οὐδέν γε, ἀλλ’ ἅπερ ἀκούω λέγω.).” This passage admits of several
interpretations, and I suggest that the phrase, “the λόγος of pleasure,”
refers to the hedonist thesis. (Another possibility is that it refers to
the claim that no pleasure is false.) So, on my interpretation, Socrates
is saying to Protarchus that the latter is defending the hedonist
thesis eagerly now. What exactly is it then that Protarchus denies
when he says “Not at all”? He denies, I suggest, that he is defending
hedonism at all. (Another possibility is that it is out of mere partisan
spirit—rather than conviction—that he is defending the λόγος of
pleasure.4) When he says, “I’m saying what I hear,” he is referring
to the ordinary mode of speech according to which falsity is never
predicated of a pleasure.
On my reading, Socrates is teasing Protarchus by suggesting that
the latter is now speaking as if he were a real hedonist.5 Protarchus
4
Dorothea Frede, Platon: Philebos (Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht,
1997), 49n52.
5
Given this interpretation, if “κείνου τἀνδρός” at 36d6–7 refers to Philebus
(rather than Protarchus’ biological father), so that Socrates’ address to Protarchus,
“ὦ παῖ ’κείνου τἀνδρός” means “successor of Philebus’ position,” then this may
also have a similar teasing tone. For an insightful discussion of this address, see
M. F. Burnyeat, “Fathers and Sons in Plato’s Republic and Philebus,” Classical
Quarterly 54 (2004), 80–87.
— 294 —
False Pleasures: Philebus 36c–40e
6
The discussion of false pleasure raises another issue concerning Protarchus’
position. At 37b5–8, Socrates says that he and Protarchus have to consider,
among other things, how it is that belief becomes both true and false, while
pleasure is only true. Protarchus concurs (b9). Does this suggest that Protarchus
holds that pleasures are always true (rather than that pleasures lack truth val-
ue)? The affirmative answer has been given by A. Kenny, “False Pleasures in the
Philebus: A reply to Mr Gosling,” Phronesis 5 (1960), 45–52; N. Mooradian,
“Converting Protarchus: Relativism and False Pleasures of Anticipation in Plato’s
Philebus,” Ancient Philosophy 16 (1995), 93–112; Sylvain Delcomminette, “False
Pleasures, Appearance and Imagination in Plato’s Philebus,” Phronesis 48 (2003),
215–237; and Verity Harte, “The Philebus on Pleasure: The Good, the Bad and
the False,” 104 (2003–4), 111–128. But if Protarchus does hold that pleasures
are always true, and Socrates knows this, then we must assume that Socrates
learned this before the dialogue opens; for Protarchus has said nothing to suggest
his commitment to the view. This is not impossible, although the reader may
have the impression that it is here at 36c that the relationship between pleasure
and truth becomes the issue for the first time. An alternative possibility is that
Protarchus has never really thought about the relationship between pleasure and
truth. At 37b5–8, Socrates may be raising a question while (somehow hastily)
reflecting his own conviction (yet to be argued for) that pleasure must have some-
thing to do with truth (cf. 36d3, e1–3).
— 295 —
Satoshi Ogihara
7
I translate “πολλὰς ἡδονάς” at 40a11 as “lots of pleasures” and take “pleasures”
— 296 —
False Pleasures: Philebus 36c–40e
— 297 —
Satoshi Ogihara
The crucial step is (d). But before considering it, let us first
prepare the ground by looking at the earlier stages of the argument.
A critical feature of the image of the hoped-for scene becomes
clear from (b). Picturing the future scene is of course making it
present to one’s mind. But as (b) says, the picture has the truth
value that the hope has. This means that it is part of the content of
the image that this image is concerned with the future as opposed
to the present and the past. When one imagines the hoped-for
8
Protarchus has agreed that belief may be true or false at 36d1. “Correct belief
and true reasoning” have been mentioned at the opening of the dialogue (11b8).
— 298 —
False Pleasures: Philebus 36c–40e
— 299 —
Satoshi Ogihara
Good Life and ‘the Good’ in the Philebus,” (dissertation [supervised by Charles
Kahn], The Department of Philosophy of the University of Pennsylvania, 2002.
Brandt, “Wahre und falsche Affekte,” 13n38, had already made the point: “The
imagined pleasure (χαίρειν) over the ἡδοναί is identified with an affective par-
ticipation by the hoping subject at the moment of hoping.” Teisserenc, “L’empire
du faux,” 295, speaks about the “coincidence” and “indistinctness” between the
two pleasures. Sylvain Delcomminette, Le Philèbe de Platon (Leiden, Boston:
Brill, 2006), 387, says: “There is truly an anticipatory pleasure only when the
imagining subject identifies for the moment with the imagined subject, which
identification enables him to live the future pleasure in advance. As one sees, the
anticipatory pleasure is nothing but the future pleasure itself, which is however
lived in advance thanks to the mediation of the anticipated pleasure. That in
which the dreamer here described takes pleasure is hence not the anticipation
of the fact of his future richness, but that of the pleasure that his richness will
procure, on the condition that he represents himself as experiencing this pleasure
in an image.” (My translation.)
— 300 —
False Pleasures: Philebus 36c–40e
— 301 —
Satoshi Ogihara
11
Gosling, Plato: Philebus, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975), 218, has
made the same point.
12
Pace, e.g., Teisserenc, “L’empire du faux,” 297.
13
I. Thalberg, “False Pleasures,” Journal of Philosophy 59 (1962), 65–74; Terry
Penner, “False Anticipatory Pleasures: Philebus 36a3–41a6,” Phronesis 15 (1970),
166–178; Dorothea Frede, “Rumpelstiltskin’s Pleasures: True and False Pleasures
— 302 —
False Pleasures: Philebus 36c–40e
has pointed out, it does not suffice for establishing that pleasure is
sometimes false to insist on the propositional nature of the relevant
kind of pleasure.14 For it is not clear why we should think that a
propositional attitude itself has the truth value of the proposition
involved.
— 303 —
Satoshi Ogihara
gambler, who does often imagine himself, with some specific ground,
to be “winning big.”)
The person who indulges in the fantasy does not care to know,
or know better, what will really happen in the future. The concern
to know something, or to know it better, may be roughly called a
cognitive concern. The person lacks such a concern. He is as it were
just making use of the psychological mechanism of imagination
to derive some pleasure from it. Compare the use of imagination
in another example, mentioned at 38c5–39c6, before the current
example. One who is unclearly seeing a distant object, and wants
to make a judgment as to what that object is, engages in an internal
question-and-answer exchange, and so arrives at a belief. If this
process is compared to a scribe in one’s soul writing an account in a
book, the process mentioned next is likened to a painter painting an
image of what has been written. And one somehow sees the image
in oneself. I take this to mean that one exercises the imagination
to see the object as one has judged it to be. This whole series of
acts, including the employment of the imagination, seems spurred
by the person’s concern to see the object better. The concern to see
something, or to see it better, may also be roughly called a cognitive
concern. While a cognitive concern is dominant in this example
of one’s seeing a distant object, roughly the same sort of concern
is absent in the example of one’s imagining oneself to be pleased.
The experience cited at Philebus 40a9–12 has something in
common with the experience that Socrates mentions in Republic V
458a1–b1. Here Socrates is asking Glaucon to allow him to address
the desirability of the abolition of nuclear families in Callipolis before
considering the feasibility of that policy. Socrates says:
— 304 —
False Pleasures: Philebus 36c–40e
— 305 —
Satoshi Ogihara
— 306 —
False Pleasures: Philebus 36c–40e
19
E.g., Thalberg, “False Pleasures”; Penner, “False Anticipatory Pleasures”; and
Frede, “Rumpelstiltskin’s Pleasures.”
20
E.g., A. Kenny, “False Pleasures”; Cynthia Hampton, Pleasure, Knowledge,
and Being (Albany: SUNY, 1990), 57–60; Verity Harte, “The Philebus.”
21
Unless in the meantime he has ceased to want a lot of gold by, say, taking
courses in ascetic philosophy. The point and the example are from Harte, “The
Philebus,” 121–122.
— 307 —
Satoshi Ogihara
22
Brandt, “Wahre und falsche Affekte,” 1–18, explains the presence of this
phrase by suggesting that for Plato the absolutely good person is only an ideal,
and that good people as we see them in reality are not perfectly good (hence only
“for the most part” good). This suggestion has been accepted by Delcomminette,
Le Philèbe, 387n74. But I doubt that Socrates is speaking at 40b2–7 about good
and bad people as we see them in reality. There he refers back to the two kinds of
people that he has introduced at 39e10–40a1, and they are said to be good in all
respects (i.e., have all the virtues). This seems to me to suggest that he is speaking
about ideally good and ideally bad people.
— 308 —
False Pleasures: Philebus 36c–40e
23
I thank Sarah Broadie, Dorothea Frede, Charles Kahn, Susan Sauvé Meyer,
Christopher Rowe, and Gerhard Seel for comments and questions on my pre-
sentation, as well as David Sedley for chairing the session in the Festschrift Sym-
posium. Thanks are also due to Myles Burnyeat, Jenny Bryan, Nicholas Denyer,
Malcolm Schofield, David Sedley, James Warren, and Harvey Yunis (the last of
whom also read my draft) for comments and questions in the B Club at the Uni-
versity of Cambridge, to Sylvain Delcomminette for comments, to Christopher
Gill, Daniel Ogden, and Richard Seaford for comments and questions in the
Graduate Seminar at the University of Exeter in 2010, and to Richard Patterson
for comments on a previous draft of this paper. On this occasion I wish to express
my gratitude, reverence, and love for Charles, my supervisor at the University of
Pennsylvania and one of my lifelong mentors.
— 309 —
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Pleasure, Pain, and “Anticipation”
in Plato’s Laws, Book I*
Susan Sauvé Meyer
* I am pleased to dedicate this essay to Charles Kahn, my colleague for the past
eighteen years, in appreciation of the encouragement he has given to my own
forays into the field of Platonic scholarship.
1
All translations from Plato’s Laws and Timaeus are my own.
— 311 —
Susan Sauvé Meyer
— 312 —
Pleasure, Pain, and “Anticipation” in Plato’s Laws, Book I
2
Thus W. W. Fortenbaugh, Aristotle on Emotion, 2nd ed. (London: Duckworth,
1975), 24: “what had seemed a threefold distinction is to be construed
primarily as a dichotomy.” K. Schöpsdau, Nomoi, Buch 1–3: Übersetzung und
Kommentar (Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1994), 229–230, argues
that the division is fundamentally bipartite, with the “anticipations” (θάρρος
and φόβος) not easily distinguished from pleasures and pains. The bipartite
diagnosis is defended most recently by M. Sassi, “The Self, the Soul, and
the Individual in the City of the Laws,” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy
35 (2008), 125–148. Earlier endorsements include G. Müller, Studien zu
den platonischen Nomoi (Munich: Beck, 1951), Zetemata 3, 22; D. A. Rees,
“Bipartition of the Soul in the Early Academy,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 77
(1957), 112–116; H. Görgemanns, Beiträge zur Interpretation von Platons Nomoi
(Munich: Beck, 1960), Zetemata 25, 122, 137, 142; A. Graeser, Probleme der
platonischen Seelenteilungslehre (Munich: Beck 1969), Zetemata 47, 102–105;
T. Robinson, Plato’s Psychology (Toronto: 1970), 124–125, 145. A tripartite
analysis of the Law’s psychology was endorsed by O. Apelt, Platon-Index
(Leipzig: F. Meiner, 1923) s.v. Seelenlehre, and by C. Ritter, Platon: sein Leben,
seine Schriften, seine Lehre, Vol. 2 (Munich: Beck, 1923), 451, but has since fallen
out of favor; an exception is T. Saunders, “The Structure of the Soul and State in
Plato’s Laws,” Eranos 60 (1962), 37–55.
— 313 —
Susan Sauvé Meyer
— 314 —
Pleasure, Pain, and “Anticipation” in Plato’s Laws, Book I
— 315 —
Susan Sauvé Meyer
that are the objects of appetitive impulses, I will argue, is that the former is a
pleasure or pain directed at an intentional object (e.g., distress at the prospect of
losing one’s job), rather than a pleasure or pain that is the intentional object of a
desire (e.g. the pleasures that are the object of sexual appetite).
8
Thus Frede, “Puppets,” 117 notes that “only the future provides incentives to
act in one way or another.”
— 316 —
Pleasure, Pain, and “Anticipation” in Plato’s Laws, Book I
9
Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Philosophers, 7.110–11. On tharros in the Stoic
doctrine of the passions, see Margaret Graver, Stoicism and Emotion (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2007), 213–220.
10
Thus Schöpsdau (Nomoi, 231) glosses θάρρος at 647a10 as “Dreistigkeit”
(brazenness), even though he translates it consistently as “Zuversicht”
(confidence).
— 317 —
Susan Sauvé Meyer
— 318 —
Pleasure, Pain, and “Anticipation” in Plato’s Laws, Book I
Not only does the requisite fear play a role in “resisting” the
attraction of pleasures that would play havoc with social peace and
stability (thus functioning as the counterpart of tharros in its role
of resisting pains), it also enables one to resist the “pains and other
fears” (647a5) of battle—thus doing the job of tharros. Indeed, the
Athenian claims, shame actually plays a more significant role than
tharros in military courage:
— 319 —
Susan Sauvé Meyer
Even if the fear in the first set of oppositions (which both tharros
and shame are supposed to resist) may be construed as a hedonistic
aversion to pain, the appropriately cultivated fear in the second set
is not. Like the tharros to be inculcated in the citizens, the fear that
they must acquire is an impulse that opposes our hedonistic attrac-
tion to pleasure and aversion to pain. We can capture this point by
labeling the requisite fear and tharros as “oppositional impulses.”11
In noting the oppositional nature of fear and tharros, we are in
the realm of what Thomas Aquinas called the “irascible” passions.12
Aquinas divided the passions into those belonging to the appetitive
and those belonging to the “spirited” part of the soul. In his vocabu-
lary, the latter is the “irascible” part, “ira” being his translation of
the Greek θυμός. Notable among the five “irascible” passions he
identifies are fear (timor) and daring (audacia—a good translation
of tharros); the other three irascible passions are hope (spes) and
despair (desperatio) (an opposed pair like fear and daring) and anger
(ira) which has no opposite. The common feature of these passions,
according to Aquinas, is that they are for objectives perceived as
difficult to achieve or difficult to avoid. That is to say, achieving
those objectives involves overcoming resistance or difficulty. This
is clearly the case for the variety of fear and confidence that we are
supposed to cultivate, according to the Athenian. As we have seen,
these are directed either against external opposition (as in the case
of the tharros that is to be deployed against the enemy in battle), or
against wayward internal impulses (in the case of the shame that
resists the pains and fears that would dissuade you from the right
course of action or the desires and pleasures that would lead you
astray).
Aquinas, in identifying such opposition as the salient feature of
the middle—or in his terminology “irascible”—part of the soul, has
11
The sense in which fear and tharros are “oppositional” (i.e., fighting against
resistance) is not the same as that in which they are opposites to each other. The
latter opposition reflects the fact that fear and tharros have opposing vectors: fear
is a restraining force while tharros is assertive.
12
Summa Theologica 1a2ae 23.1. On the sources of this notion, see S. S. Meyer
and A. M. Martin, “Emotion and the Emotions,” in R. Crisp, ed., The Oxford
Handbook to the History of Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), ch. 30.
— 320 —
Pleasure, Pain, and “Anticipation” in Plato’s Laws, Book I
— 321 —
Susan Sauvé Meyer
ANTICIPATIONS RECONSIDERED
If fear and tharros are not, after all, impulses to flee anticipated
pain and pursue anticipated pleasures (or at least not in the cases
most interesting to the Athenian), then how are we to understand
their characterization as “ἐλπίδες” of pleasure and pain at 644c9–
d1? We might get some illumination by considering other passages
where Plato discusses ἐλπίδες (anticipations), pleasures and pains,
and fear and tharros.
13
In this regard, one might note that the verb used to describe Leontius’ disgust
(δυσχεραίνειν—439e9) is used by Aristotle at Nicomachean Ethics 1179b31 to
describe the virtuous person’s distaste for what is shameful (αἰσχρόν), the flip
side of his love for the fine (στέργειν τὸ καλόν).
14
Thus even though Bobonich is right to claim that nowhere in Laws is θυμός
(“spirit”) said to play the role of assisting reason in its struggle against appetites
(“Akrasia and Agency,” 19n36, Plato’s Utopia Recast, 264), the iron strings of fear
and tharros play the same functional role. That they should “assist” the golden cord
of reason in this way is consistent with the proposal of Schöpsdau, Nomoi, 232
that the assistance referred to at Laws 645a6 comes from education (παιδεία);
presumably it is education that cultivates the requisite fear and tharros.
— 322 —
Pleasure, Pain, and “Anticipation” in Plato’s Laws, Book I
— 323 —
Susan Sauvé Meyer
— 324 —
Pleasure, Pain, and “Anticipation” in Plato’s Laws, Book I
17
The precise sense in which the pleasures in Socrates’ example are supposed to
be false is a matter of considerable scholarly dispute, which need not concern us
here. For a classic statement of the interpretive difficulties, including a sustained
discussion of anticipatory pleasures, see Dorothea Frede, “Rumpelstiltskin’s
Pleasures: True and False Pleasures in Plato’s Philebus,” Phronesis, Vol. 30, No.
2 (1985), 151–180. For a survey of and response to recent developments in the
dispute, see Matthew Evans, “Plato on the Possibility of Hedonic Mistakes,”
Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 35 (2008), 89–124.
18
On the significance of mental pictures in non-rational motivation, see
Hendrik Lorenz, The Brute Within: Appetitive Desire in Plato and Aristotle
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006), ch. 7.
— 325 —
Susan Sauvé Meyer
the envious person to contemplate it. Nor need the objects of the
emotional responses be actually expected to occur, as opposed to
“entertained” (which is nicely captured by the model of an internal
picture at Philebus 40a). This is easiest to see in the case of shame,
when it functions as a deterrent to inappropriate action. It is the
thought of doing the unjust act (not the positive expectation that
one will do it) that is painful to the person with a properly cultivated
sense of shame (“I would be ashamed to do that . . .”). Nonetheless,
it is a feature of both the emotional responses listed at 40e and 47e
and the “anticipatory” pleasures and pains described at 32b9–c2,
36a7–c1, 39d3–5 and 47c7, that they are pleasures or pains at
intentional objects, and it is presumably this shared feature that
underwrites their classification as pleasures or pains “of the soul.”
The upshot of these observations about “anticipations” and
emotions in Philebus is that it is perfectly intelligible why the
Athenian in Laws should classify fear (especially its specific manifes-
tation as shame) as an “anticipation”—the salient feature being
not that its intentional object (what is entertained) is an expected
painful experience (unlikely in the case of shameful pleasures), but
that entertaining that prospect is painful: that it is pain of the soul
directed at an intentional object.19 The Athenian would be using
ἐλπίς in a generic sense, prepared for but not articulated in the
Philebus, that encompasses all pleasures or pains with intentional
objects (whether anticipatory pleasures/pains or emotions). Thus the
distinction invoked at Laws 644c4–d3 between pleasure and pain as
our “witless advisors” and our “anticipations” of pleasure and pain is
(however inchoately) a distinction between the motive force supplied,
on the one hand, by our attraction to pleasure and aversion to pain
and, on the other, by our ability to have pleasures and pains with
intentional objects. The “witless advisors” are pleasures and pains
that function as the intentional objects of desire, e.g., the allure of
a cold drink on a hot day, while the “anticipations” are pleasures
19
While in many instances of fear the intentional object is a future pain, the
crucial feature that makes them fears, on this account, is that they are distress
at something anticipated, not that the thing anticipated is painful. The bad
reputation that is the object of shame, for example, is not intrinsically painful
(just as winning the lottery or the Nobel prize is not intrinsically pleasant).
— 326 —
Pleasure, Pain, and “Anticipation” in Plato’s Laws, Book I
and pains that themselves have intentional objects (e.g., pain at the
thought of drinking more than one’s fair share).20
Thus unpacked, the psychology of the “iron strings” in Plato’s
Laws, gestured at by the very economical description invoking
pleasure, pain, and “anticipation” at 644c4–d3, involves considerable
complexity. While accommodating all the potential for opposition
between spirited and appetitive impulses that is dramatized in the
Republic and Phaedrus, it also marks out two very different ways
in which pleasure and pain figure into our motivational apparatus.
On the simplest level (marked out by the identification of pleasure
and pain as our “witless advisors”) we have a set of hedonistic
motivations—a tendency to pursue pleasures and to flee from pains.
Quite distinct from this, and involving our capacity for opinion
(doxa), we have pleasures and pains that are directed at intentional
objects. When properly cultivated, the latter can direct us toward
goals other than securing pleasure or avoiding pain—for example,
achieving the admirable (καλόν). One of the morals of the puppets
fable is that the latter set of motivations can be deployed to resist
the pull of the former.21
In such cases, shame and tharros will oppose, from within the
iron ranks, the hedonistic pull of pleasure and pain. This is not a
deliberative opposition between alternatives (e.g., weighing how
20
This is not to deny that bodily pleasures and pains might also be “about”
things (in the way one might think the pain in my arm is “about” the broken
bone in my wrist, or the pleasure from a cold drink on a hot day is “about”
replenishing depleted bodily fluids). Such a “representationalist” theory of
pleasure and pain is defended for example, by Fred Feldman, Pleasure and the
Good Life (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004), ch. 4, and attributed to Plato in
the Philebus by Matthew Evans, “Plato and the Meaning of Pain,” Apeiron 40
(2007), 71–93. If the representationalist is right, then all pleasures and pains
are “about” or “at” something, but it can still be distinctive of the anticipatory
and emotional pleasures that Plato classifies as belonging to the soul, that they
are about intentional objects, involving belief or imagination. In any case, the
distinction of concern to my interpretive argument is not between pleasures/
pains that are about (intentional) objects and those that are not, but between
pleasures/pains that are the intentional objects of desires, and impulses (as in
cases of hedonistic attraction and aversion) that have pleasures or pains as their
intentional objects.
21
Thus Fortenbaugh is right, against some version of the “bipartite”
interpretations, that we have emotions here, but wrong if he means (as it seems to
me he does) that attraction to pleasures is not included among the iron strings).
— 327 —
Susan Sauvé Meyer
22
I am grateful to the participants at the Delphi conference for their generous
discussion of a preliminary draft of this paper, and to Flora Lee (herself a former
student of Professor Kahn) for incisive written comments on a later version.
Spirited discussion with audiences at Cornell and Fordham Universities forced
me to clarify my thinking on the distinction between “bodily” and “psychic”
pleasures in Philebus, and particular thanks in this regard are due to Stephen
Mahaffey and Richard Boyd. Richard Patterson helped me to clarify the upshot
of my argument, and for helpful discussion of Fortenbaugh’s views I am indebted
to Krisanna Scheiter.
— 328 —
Socrates in Plato’s Laws*
Christopher J. Rowe
The title of my paper is not intended to be (merely) provocative.
Socrates—notwithstanding a momentary lapse on Aristotle’s part1—
is not a speaker in the Laws, and is not mentioned by name anywhere
in the work. He is of course ruled out as a speaker, among other
things by Plato’s decision to locate the dialogue dramatically in Crete:
Socrates, notoriously, does not stray far outside the walls of Athens,
unless he is on military service; and both of the interlocutors chosen
to partner the anonymous Athenian main speaker are portrayed as
distinctly unphilosophical—not at all the types to have heard much
about Socrates, or to be much interested if they had.2 Nevertheless, it
will be my contention that Socrates is not only present in the Laws,
but in principle present in any and every part of it.3
This claim of mine will come in two parts, or two versions,
one weaker and less extreme than the other. Socrates is present in
the Laws first, I shall claim, insofar as the Athenian is continually
— 329 —
Christopher J. Rowe
evoking and alluding to things that this Socrates has said in other
Platonic dialogues. This is a thesis that many modern readers of
the Laws are likely to find thoroughly congenial—but chiefly for a
reason diametrically opposed (as will become clear) to that behind
my own sponsorship of it: they think that, on some important
subjects, Plato actually used the Laws to announce his abandonment
of ideas he had proposed in earlier works, especially the Republic.
The Laws, according to a story widely promulgated and accepted in
the last century, marks the moment when the idealist of the Republic
became a realist, settled for the second-best, and stopped trying
to put philosophy at the center of the affairs of the polis. On this
account, then, Plato looks over his shoulder, in the Laws, in order
to repudiate his (“middle”) Socrates’ dreams.
Now, however, in large part thanks to the work of André Laks,
and of Trevor Saunders before him,4 this story tends to be received
more sceptically: either the supposedly greater realism of the Laws is
already present in the Republic itself (in which the Utopia represented
by Callipolis, the Beautiful City, is more projection or model than
blueprint), so allowing the later dialogue to be understood as a
kind of working-out of the real political program of the earlier
one; or else the Laws is to be read, perhaps more subtly, as a kind
of commentary on the Republic, adding detail but also qualifying,
modifying, clarifying.5 Either of these two perspectives will lead us
actually to expect references popping up everywhere and anywhere
to the kinds of things Socrates is to be found saying in earlier
dialogues. So, looked at in this way, the idea that Socrates is to be
discovered in the Laws will not actually be controversial at all, let
4
See, e.g., André Laks, “Legislation and Demiurgy. On the relationship
between Plato’s Republic and Laws,” Classical Antiquity 9 (1990), 209–229,
and “L’utopie législative de Platon,” Revue philosophique 181 (1991), 417–428;
Trevor Saunders, Plato: the Laws (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1970), and
Plato’s Penal Code: Tradition, Controversy, and Reform in Greek Penology (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1991).
5
For a subtle example of the latter kind of approach (Laws as commentary),
see Malcolm Schofield, “Religion and Philosophy in the Laws,” in Plato’s Laws:
from Theory to Practice, Proceedings of the VI Symposium Platonicum, eds. Samuel
Scolnicov and Luc Brisson (Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag, 2003), 1–13, and
especially the notion Schofield introduces there of Plato as writing, in the Laws,
for the “practised Platonic reader” (first at p. 3).
— 330 —
Socrates in Plato’s Laws
6
I say “also” because, of course, the weaker version of my claim—very weak, as
it has just turned out to be—will be true in any case.
7
They will, then, be part of that strangeness that characters in the dialogues tend
to associate with the man: see, e.g., what Alcibiades says of him at Symposium
215aff.
— 331 —
Christopher J. Rowe
8
See Laws XII, 963d–964a.
9
Laws IX, 860d; see also V, 731c and 734b. We should note that in the lat-
ter passage the Athenian identifies akrateia—which he has earlier labelled “the
greatest ignorance,” amathia: III, 688e–689a—as one of the causes of our lack of
sôphrosunê; and moreover that he talks openly of bad desires (see, e.g., IX, 854a,
or III, 688b–c). Granted, this is not the language of the Socrates of the Lysis or
the Charmides; but I shall shortly argue against supposing that it signals an aban-
donment on Plato’s part of the position worked out in those earlier dialogues.
10
See Christopher Rowe, “The relationship of the Laws to other Platonic
dialogues: a proposal,” in Plato’s Laws: A Critical Guide, ed. C. Bobonich (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 29–50.
11
For a recent and extended example of this approach, see David Sedley, The
Midwife of Platonism: Text and Subtext in Plato’s Theaetetus (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 2004).
— 332 —
Socrates in Plato’s Laws
12
A greater openness to, or awareness of, Anglo-Saxon attitudes on the part of
continental European philosophers and historians of philosophy in recent de-
cades may have changed the situation a little, but not so much.
13
I.e., in Plato and the Socratic Dialogue: the Philosophical Use of a Literary Form
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), itself building on numerous
articles published in the preceding years.
14
Plato and the Socratic Dialogue deliberately restricts itself to the first two
periods of Plato’s work, which Kahn re-labels “Group I” and “Group II”; the
membership of each is significantly different from that of the “early” and “mid-
dle” groups as normally understood, with Cratylus, Phaedo and Symposium mi-
grating, as it were, to Group I. The grounds for Kahn’s reassignment of these
three dialogues is provided by the cumulative results of the nineteenth-century
stylometrists; it has no immediate consequences, in itself, for our interpretation
of the corpus.
15
Others have shared the same insight, but put it to different use: see, e.g.,
T. A. Szlezák, Platon und die Schriftlichkeit der Philosophie. Interpretationen zu
den früheren und mittleren Dialogen (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1985), and Das
Bild des Dialektikers in Platons späten Dialogen (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004).
— 333 —
Christopher J. Rowe
16
“Back to,” because of course preceding centuries of Platonists, especially
Neoplatonists, will have shared the same general view of the dialogues as cumu-
lative expositions of ground already won, rather than as open-ended explorations.
17
I.e., akrasia or akrateia.
18
For which see Christopher Rowe, “Just how Socratic are Plato’s ‘Socratic’
dialogues,” in Plato (internet journal of the International Plato Society) 2
(2002)—immediately followed by a response from Charles Kahn.
— 334 —
Socrates in Plato’s Laws
19
See Christopher Rowe, Plato and the Art of Philosophical Writing (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), which was the subject of an “Author
Meets Critics” session at the meeting of the Pacific Division of The American
Philosophical Association held in Vancouver in April 2009, with Charles Kahn
leading the Critics.
20
Gregory Vlastos, Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1991), 46. Kahn describes Vlastos’s position thus: “Ac-
cording to Vlastos, in [some ten or twelve Platonic] dialogues Plato is still under
the spell of his master, whose philosophy is not only distinct from but antitheti-
cal to Plato’s own mature thought. When Plato becomes an original philosopher,
he departs from, and reacts against, his original Socratic position” (Plato and the
Socratic Dialogue, 39).
21
That is, to the extent that Vlastos’s views had come to dominate Platonic
scholarship in large parts of the world.
— 335 —
Christopher J. Rowe
— 336 —
Socrates in Plato’s Laws
I.e.,: ideas that are associated peculiarly with Socrates, being of the sort that
25
— 337 —
Christopher J. Rowe
26
It goes without saying that Charles Kahn’s reconstruction of the thought
of the “Socratic” dialogues is quite different from this. But so too is Vlastos’s.
Vlastos’s reconstruction makes of it something he thinks Plato, or anyone, bet-
ter off without; no doubt many, including Kahn, would think the same of the
reconstruction I have just sketched in the text above (for a much more extended
account, and one rather less inclined to write off the thinking it reconstructs,
see Terry Penner and Christopher Rowe, Plato’s Lysis (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2005).
27
Surviving, somehow, even the division of soul into “parts,” in Republic IV,
Phaedrus and Timaeus. For a proposal as to how they survive that, see Plato and
the Art of Philosophical Writing, ch. 5. I also suppose the “Socratic” dialogues to
be much less metaphysically innocent than is usually supposed (even, perhaps,
by Charles Kahn), while also taking a somewhat deflationary approach to the
metaphysics, and the Forms, of the “middle” dialogues—commonly put together
as a group precisely because of the role played by Forms in them.
28
See note 9 above.
29
According the Socrates of a dialogue like the Gorgias, we—or dictators, or
orators—may appear to desire things that are actually bad for us. But if we only
ever desire our real good, then appearances must mislead, and mislead even us
(and dictators and orators). We may say we are driven by desire to do something;
what in fact drives us is our desire for the good, which unfortunately in some
cases is simply misdirected.
— 338 —
Socrates in Plato’s Laws
30
I shall now cease to put “Socratic” in scare quotes, on the understanding that
from here on “Socratic” indicates “belonging to the sorts of dialogues frequently
called ‘Socratic,’” or “belonging to Plato’s Socrates as he appears in the early
dialogues”—where “early” indicates membership of Kahn’s Group I (important-
ly, including Cratylus, Phaedo and Symposium: see note 14 above).
31
Malcolm Schofield, “Religion and Philosophy in the Laws,” 1–13.
32
See Rowe, “The relationship of the Laws to other Platonic dialogues” (note
10 above).
— 339 —
Christopher J. Rowe
at the same time, I suggest, he will normally indicate, for our benefit
(if we are “practised Platonic readers”), that despite all appearances
his own preferred position remains unaltered.
Here is one example of the strategy, which will be followed by
two more. Near the beginning of Laws IV, the Athenian is reflect-
ing on the conditions needed for the realization of the lawgiver’s
goals: he will pray for a city under the rule of a young tyrant, who
is “young, retentive, ready to learn, courageous and magnificent”;
he must also have “what we were saying33 must accompany all the
parts of virtue . . . if there is to be any advantage from the presence
of the others” (709e6–710a2). Clinias says to Megillus that he
takes the Athenian to be referring to sôphrosunê (“moderation,”
“sound-mindedness”): “the demotic (dêmôdês) sort,34 yes, Clinias,”
says the Athenian, “not the sort that one might mention in a loftier
context (semnunôn), making sôphronein be [a matter of?] wisdom
as well” (710a5–7), but the sort of restraint in relation to pleasures
that one sometimes finds in children and animals—“something
that we said35 was not worth much if it was possessed in isolation
from the many good things we were talking about/the many things
[we were saying were] called good” (a8–b2). What, Clinias and
Megillus might fairly ask, is this sôphrosunê in “a loftier context,”
one that “is wisdom as well”? And how is it to be distinguished
from the “demotic” one? They surely have no idea,36 but neither do
they even ask; nor are any answers given, even indirectly, anywhere
during the conversation in the Laws. Ordinary readers, who just
happened to pick up the Laws, would have every right to be puzzled
too. But those of us who have read other parts of Plato are better
off. We have come across the notion of “demotic” virtues before,
33
I.e., at III, 696b.
34
The phrase dêmosiai aretai at XII, 968a1–2, surely picks up the present passage.
35
I.e., at III, 696d.
36
True, in Book I they encountered a “disposition of soul” that was “sôphrôn
along with intelligence” (631c7), but the Athenian neither refers back to this
passage nor makes it obvious, by his wording, that this sôphrôn disposition is
identical to the loftier sort of sôphrosunê.
— 340 —
Socrates in Plato’s Laws
in the Republic37 and in the Phaedo,38 and we also know, from the
Phaedo, of a kind of virtue, and of sôphrosunê, that comes “with
wisdom” and is opposed to one without it—the former being the
philosopher’s version of moderation, which comes merely from his
not being interested in the sort of pleasures, associated with the
body, that excite others.39 If, as seems reasonable, we put all these
passages together, we “Platonic readers” will already have a fairly
firm hold on what a “loftier” kind of sôphrosunê might look like.40
We can, I think, go a step further. We (Platonic readers) are also
familiar with another sôphrosunê similarly associated with wisdom:
the sôphrosunê of the Charmides.41 It may not be clear exactly what
analysis of this sôphrosunê Socrates is intended to be suggesting,
there in the Charmides, but several of its features seem to come
fairly clearly into view: 42 it has nothing to do with restraining one’s
37
VII 500d7–9 (the philosopher-ruler as a “craftsman . . . of sôphrosunê and
justice and in short of all demotic [dêmotikê] virtue”). We may compare Laws XII
967d–968a, where the Athenian explains what any human being would need to
add to the “demotic” virtues (here dêmosiai: note 34 above) if he is to be securely
god-fearing and pious (theosebês) and fit to be entrusted with the rule of a whole
city; the requirements involve applying the fruits of astronomical/theological and
other higher studies to ethical practice.
38
82a (describing the fate of those who “have practised a demotic [dêmotikê]
and civic [politikê] virtue.”
39
69a–c; compare the list of qualities that Socrates derives at Republic VI
485a–487a from the possession of a “philosophical nature.”
40
We would need to suppose that dêmôdês (Laws) and dêmotikos (Republic,
Phaedo) are synonyms, and also that the “demotic and civic virtue” of Phaedo 82a
is not entirely unrelated to the “slavish” (andrapodôdês) virtue of Phaedo 69a–c;
neither looks a particularly daring leap.
41
Cf. also the reference to a justice and piety that comes “with wisdom” at
Theaetetus 176b1–2. Sedley (The Midwife of Platonism, 75–76) interprets this,
reasonably enough, in terms of the general Socratic claim that nothing—includ-
ing the virtues—is good unless combined with wisdom. I interpret it as saying,
in the case of the virtues, that ordinary, conventional, virtuous behaviour, incul-
cated by habit and legislation, needs the backing of wisdom not just to be good
but to count properly as virtuous at all, given that the virtues are supposed to be
good for us. But this seems to entail that the behavior in question must itself flow
directly from wisdom, be a consequence of it; and that is hardly distinguishable,
if it is distinguishable at all, from the claim that virtue is wisdom.
42
That is, on the supposition that the Charmides really is, in the end, about
sôphrosunê and not about something else—as Charles Kahn seems ultimately to
propose (Plato and the Socratic Dialogue, ch. 7).
— 341 —
Christopher J. Rowe
— 342 —
Socrates in Plato’s Laws
46
For similar reasons, Socrates leaves the inferiority of the sôphrosunê and the
other virtues defined in Republic IV (i.e., by comparison with their philosophical
counterparts) mostly unstated; he refers to it, in fact, only once, and then indi-
rectly and inconspicuously—see note 37 above. (For a defense of the view that
the virtues of Republic IV are to be taken as poor relations of “true” virtue, see
Plato and the Art of Philosophical Writing, ch. 5.)
47
I.e., “weakness of will,” akrateia.
48
Thus being accompanied by “the love and desire that follow in its train,” and
giving birth to the other virtues: III, 688a–b. However, this particular passage must,
presumably, apply first and foremost to the legislator’s knowledge and its effects.
49
In other words, the fact that ignorance comes first in the Athenian’s list of
causes, when combined with the fact that ignorance is not the primary cause—by
his own account—of the absence of the inferior sôphrosunê, seems to indicate that
it is not just this sôphrosunê that he has in mind.
50
Sc. that anyone who wants to live pleasantly can’t and won’t, willingly, live
akolastôs.
— 343 —
Christopher J. Rowe
51
I.e., by “bad” desires—which, according to a more Socratic analysis (not in
play here in (2)), will properly speaking be a matter of the misdirection of desire,
through ignorance.
— 344 —
Socrates in Plato’s Laws
— 345 —
Christopher J. Rowe
52
This is not to suggest that Diotima’s argument is particularly cogent; merely
that it gives us much to think about, and is extremely complex.
53
“Immortality” through reproduction, Symposium 207c–208b, 208e; through
heroism, 208c–e; though poetry, statesmanship (“the kind of wisdom concerned
with ordering cities and households, which is called sôphrosunê and justice,”
209a6–8), and the other arts, 208e–209e; through philosophy, 209e–212a.
54
In principle, of course, he—or rather Plato—could be evoking her in order
to signal that he has moved on. But given that there is no engagement with the
argument of the Symposium, only the bare—but, in my book, unmistakeable—
allusion, and given the signals I claim to have identified even in the small parts
of the Laws I have discussed in this essay, I take it that that option is in fact ruled
out. For examples of other probable or possible Socratic allusions in the address
to the colonists, three in a single Stephanus page, see IV, 716c–717b: 716c2–4
briefly summarizes Lysis 214a–e [on which see Penner and Rowe, Plato’s Lysis,
74–83]; the reference to “all service to the gods” at 716c7, after “prayers and
dedications,” surely leaves clear space for Socrates’ special kind of service to them
(if, that is, we are on the lookout for Socratic connections); and the singling out
of daimones as a special class of beings to be celebrated, separate from gods on
the one hand and heroes on the other, similarly leaves room for Socrates’ peculiar
daimôn. Greek ritual recognizes gods and heroes as objects of worship, not usu-
ally daimones as a distinct group—or is the legislator just covering all his bases?
— 346 —
Socrates in Plato’s Laws
will have at our disposal a much richer argument for the legislator’s
conclusion (“Marry! Have children!”); one containing just the sort
of richness, and philosophical complexity, that the Laws has so often
been critized for lacking.
I draw three conclusions from this. The first conclusion is that
the quality of the Laws as a piece of philosophy is not necessarily to
be judged from its surface. Secondly, I conclude that the apparent
obscurity often detected in the style, and indeed the substance,
of the Laws will at least sometimes, and at least in part, derive
from the fact—and I believe that my last example establishes it
as a fact—that Plato, at least sometimes (indeed, as I believe, very
often), chooses to write simultaneously on two levels, and for two
different audiences.55 And the third conclusion is that the passage
last discussed, from the preamble to the marriage law, gives us one
context in the Laws where what I have claimed more generally for
the dialogue is—or so I would claim—certainly true: namely, that
Socrates is driving the argument. For the whole of Diotima’s exuber-
ant account of Love and his effects is itself a dramatic elaboration
of the fundamental Socratic tenet, which she puts at the center of
her argument: “there is nothing else that humans love,” she says,
“except the good” (Symposium 205e7–206a1), and goes on to describe
how—one possible way in which?—this single principle, for all its
apparent simplicity, might be used to explain human life in all its
variety.56 But this same single principle, as I have argued (and as
Diotima demonstrates), brings a great deal of other, distinctively
Socratic, baggage with it, some of which is strewn, sometimes more
and sometimes less conspicuously, over other parts of the Laws.
Socrates may not be physically present, but he is undoubtedly there
below the surface argument, poking his head through and leaving
telltale traces that we shall need to follow if we are to do full justice
to this challenging dialogue.57
55
See also Rowe, “The relationship of the Laws to other Platonic dialogues”
(note 10 above).
56
See Christopher Rowe, “The Symposium as a Socratic dialogue,” in Plato’s
Symposium: Issues in Interpretation and Reception, eds. James Lesher, Debra Nails
and Frisbee Sheffield (Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2006),
9–22.
57
In my presentation in Delphi, I concluded with a discussion of Laws X,
— 347 —
Christopher J. Rowe
— 348 —
PART III
THEMES IN PLATO
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Slavery as a Philosophical Metaphor
in Plato and Xenophon*
Anthony A. Long
Slavery as a metaphor is an exceptionally powerful, long-lived, and
troubling way of talking about minds, characters, and feelings.
Our language for mental experience is metaphorical through and
through.1 Take, for instance, the expressions “screwed up,” “wired
up,” “not missing a beat,” “firing on all cylinders,” or “going ballis-
tic.” No one used these expressions 100 years ago, but they trip
off our technologically habituated tongues as if they were natural.
Some metaphors die out. Others become so entrenched that we can
hardly imagine a time when they were not in use even though their
constituent words have long ceased to have any literal application.
This is the case with the metaphor of slavery in expressions like
enslavement to work, or habit, or especially passion, which is as old
in English as Hamlet’s observation to Horatio (Hamlet Act 3 scene
2, 69–70): “Give me that man that is not passion’s slave, and I will
wear him in my heart’s core.” Go back to Rome, and we find Seneca
tartly saying: “Show me the man who is not a slave—whether to lust,
greed, or ambition. . . .” (Letters 47.17).2 Such language could only
originate in a culture that knew slavery as a horribly living practice.
— 351 —
Anthony A. Long
— 352 —
Slavery as a Philosophical Metaphor in Plato and Xenophon
4
Hermann Diels and Walther Kranz, eds., Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker
(Zürich/Berlin: Weidmann, 1964), vol. 2, 82B11a15.
5
My database for this paper is largely drawn from words with the δουλ root
(δοῦλος, δουλεύειν, δούλιος, etc.), with occasional references to such words as
ἀνδράποδον and λατρεία. I do not count Greek words that we moderns might
translate by “slave,” etc., unless their primary reference in Greek is to literal
enslavement. All translations are my own.
6
See Bernard Williams, Shame and Necessity (Berkeley: University of California
Press, reprinted 2008), ch. 2.
7
For further discussion, see my remarks in chapter 1 of A. A. Long, From
Epicurus to Epictetus (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006), 7–9.
— 353 —
Anthony A. Long
— 354 —
Slavery as a Philosophical Metaphor in Plato and Xenophon
9
For literal freedom and slavery as “indifferent” and goodness of character as
the only mark of true freedom, cf. Epictetus, Discourses 2.1.24, 2.2.12, 2.20.26,
4.1.9, 4.1.33–9.
10
For Xenophon, ἐγκράτεια is the “foundation of virtue”: Memorabilia 1.5.4;
cf. his focus on the term in 2.1 and 4.5.
11
Werner Jaeger proposed that the historical Socrates originated the usage of
ἐγκράτεια to signify “moral self-mastery,” Paideia (Oxford: Blackwell, 1944),
vol. 2, 54. If the historical Socrates also denied incontinence (ἀκρασία), as Plato’s
Socrates appears to do in what are generally taken to be the earliest dialogues,
it is striking that Plato is reticent in his use of ἐγκράτεια in just those works,
especially the Charmides, where one would have expected the term to be most
at home: see Louis-André Dorion, “Plato and enkrateia,” in Akrasia in Greek
Philosophy, eds. C. Bobonich and P. Destrée (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 119–138, who
proposes that Plato’s later use of the term is due to his partitioning the soul in
these later works but not before.
12
I cite the essay from Michael Sandel, ed., Liberalism and its Critics (New
York: New York University Press, 1984), 23. It was first published in Berlin’s Four
Essays on Liberty (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958).
— 355 —
Anthony A. Long
13
Dorion, “Plato and enkrateia,” 124n16, notes that Xenophon applies δοῦλος
to persons who are slaves to pleasure and ἀνδράποδον to those who are slavish
on account of ignorance.
— 356 —
Slavery as a Philosophical Metaphor in Plato and Xenophon
14
See Glenn Morrow, “Plato and Greek Slavery,” Mind 48 (1939), 196.
— 357 —
Anthony A. Long
In the Platonic Apology (23c1) Socrates tells the court that his
elenctic mission has made him completely poverty stricken owing
to his servitude (λατρεία) to the god, signifying Apollo; and in the
Phaedo (85b) he calls himself a fellow-slave (ὁμόδουλος) to Apollo’s
swans thanks to his prophetic powers. This metaphorical slavery
acquires full philosophical weight at the beginning of the Phaedo
where Cebes asks Socrates why, if death is better than life, suicide
is impious. Socrates’ main response invokes divine providence and
ownership. As beings looked after by the gods and indeed as their
actual property (κτήματα), thus implying that we stand to the gods
as their slaves, we should not bring our lives to an end until divinity
necessitates our death (62c). In the ensuing discussion, Socrates
is faced with the objection that no sensible person would want to
escape from a master superior to himself (i.e., a benevolent divinity)
and welcome death. To this he responds that when dead he expects
to find himself in the company of gods who are excellent masters.
Here, as in Pauline Christianity, slavery to the divine is taken to
be a blessing.15 The implications of this metaphorical slavery are the
reverse of demeaning. Socratic slavery to divinity implies complete
commitment to wisdom and the readiness to obey all prescripts
one takes to be mandated by that commitment. Remarkably, but
surely very deliberately, Plato’s Socrates in the Phaedo next represents
death, that is, the soul’s separation from the body, as emancipation
from servitude to corporeal desires (66d1).16 Thus Socrates, the
quintessentially philosophical soul, will soon exchange the servitude
imposed by the body and its distracting desires for an entirely
welcome enslavement to so-called divine masters. In this context
15
See Dale Martin, Slavery as Salvation (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1990), and St. Paul, Epistle to the Corinthians 1. 22: “He who was a free man
when he was called is Christ’s slave.” Servitude to divinity is far from being a new
locution (see note 7 above), but I take Socrates’ use of it to be a metaphorical
extension of that practice.
16
Plato’s frequent use of apallatomai to express the soul’s “separation” from
the body (e.g., Phaedo 67a7, 70a4, 77b8) reflects this verb’s common usage
in contexts of literal emancipation from slavery, such as Herodotus 1.170 and
Thucydides 5.100: see D. Kamen, Conceptualizing Manumission in Ancient
Greece (Berkeley PhD dissertation, 2005).
— 358 —
Slavery as a Philosophical Metaphor in Plato and Xenophon
17
Cf. Theaetetus 176a, on the philosopher’s need to “try to flee from here
post haste” which is equivalent to seeking the just, holy, and intelligent life that
constitutes assimilation to “divinity as much as possible,” and is contrasted with
the “servitude” of the political and forensic types who pander to the populace
(172d–173b). For a detailed discussion of the Isocratean and Platonic contexts,
see my article “Platonic souls as persons” in R. Salles, ed., Metaphysics, Soul,
and Ethics in Ancient Thought. Themes from the Work of Richard Sorabji (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 2005), 180–185.
— 359 —
Anthony A. Long
— 360 —
Slavery as a Philosophical Metaphor in Plato and Xenophon
to the laws (700c). Cities flourish when the rulers are slaves of the
laws (715d), and most strikingly:
Every man should reflect that, without exception,
one cannot become a worthy master without first
having been a slave, and that serving well is a finer
thing than ruling well—serving firstly the laws,
because this is servitude to the gods, and secondly,
for the young, to serve those who are old and who
have lived honorably. (762e)
18
Kinch Hoekstra questions my proposal that Socrates here implies the body
— 361 —
Anthony A. Long
spelled out by Isocrates (Antidosis 180), who observes that “it is the
body’s function to minister (ὑπηρετῆσαι) to the soul’s decisions.”
By this date, it seems, body/soul dualism and the normative
superiority of soul to body have become commonplace notions.
Accordingly, Plato could have pictured his utopia as an organism in
which natural rulers, qua souls, rule over natural slaves, qua bodies,
but this would have been a crudely simplistic model. After identifying
the three parts of the ideal state—producers, soldiers, and philosoph-
ical guardians—but before applying these as terms to characterize
the soul’s three parts—Socrates prepares the ground for his elaborate
psychological analogy by explaining the hackneyed concept of
σωφροσύνη (psychological moderation) as follows: “mastery over
certain pleasures and desires, as people say, being master of oneself
(κρείττων αὑτοῦ, 4.430e).19 Taking this latter expression (literally,
superiority over oneself) to be bizarre, on the grounds that it seems
to treat the same person as both virtual master and virtual slave,
Socrates leads into Isaiah Berlin’s remarks on self-mastery as positive
freedom by saying:
as the subject for the soul’s rule on the grounds that “Thrasymachus is unlikely
to agree that the soul should rule the body, whereas he readily agrees to Socrates’
view that a function of the soul is ruling.” I demur because I do not think that
Plato intends us to read Thrasymachus’ one word responses here in light of the
opinions concerning rule that he forcefully evinced in his previous arguments
with Socrates.
19
Cf. the very similar passage at Gorgias 491d, where Socrates glosses “ruling
over oneself ” by being σώφρονα καὶ ἐγκρατῆ αὐτὸν ἑαυτοῦ, and see Dorion,
“Plato and enkrateia,” 121–122, 127.
— 362 —
Slavery as a Philosophical Metaphor in Plato and Xenophon
and negative impulses for the same objective (for instance a drink) at
the same time, therefore (to avoid self-contradiction) the soul must
be composed of distinct parts. The passage is too familiar to need
further summary. Let the following suffice: by analogy with the
ideal state, Socrates proposes reason as the soul’s ruler overall and
opponent of irrational cravings; appetite as reason’s natural slave;
and the spirited part (τὸ θυμοειδές) as the natural ally of reason
in its conflicts with appetite.
As Socrates develops the tripartite model in Republic Book
4, political images come to the fore. Thus the two higher soul
components need to keep watch on appetite (the largest and
insatiable part) and prevent it from trying to enslave and rule over
themselves and so act inappropriately to its subordinate function
(442b). Concord is generated in the soul only when the ruling and
the two subject parts agree that reason should rule and do not rebel
against it (442c). Injustice is civil war within the soul, with the
natural ruler’s natural slave rebelling against the soul’s proper ruler,
which results in various vices or rather “complete badness” (444b).
The political imagery and the slavery metaphor return with great
detail and emphasis when Socrates turns to the progressive decline
from ideal state to tyranny in Books 8 and 9, and the corresponding
decline in the soul from the rule of reason to the deviant rule of
undisciplined appetite. Slavery is not only at its most virulent in
the appetitive part’s control of the tyrant’s reason, it also pertains
to the character of the oligarch. In his soul too, the rational and
spirited elements have been enslaved by this type of person to serve
his unbridled love of wealth (553d). As for democracy, its chief
feature, whether in society or in the individual, is anarchic freedom
or the absence of any authority, with all desires treated as equally
deserving of satisfaction (561c).
Metaphorical slavery in the Republic is a largely negative image
for the usurpation by appetite of reason’s status as rightful ruler in
the soul and thus in the entire person and ultimately in the ideal
community. Accordingly, Plato’s usage might seem to be little more
than a development from Gorgias’ description of people who lack
control over natural pleasures as enslaved. Actually, Plato’s handling
of the metaphor is far more creative, complex, and disturbing than
— 363 —
Anthony A. Long
20
See Gregory Vlastos, “Slavery in Plato’s Thought,” in Finley (note 2 above),
292n18. Comparable sentiments are voiced by Socrates in Alcibiades I, 135c2,
and by the Eleatic Stranger in Statesman 309a.
21
Contrast the remarkable statement by the paedagogus (Euripides, Ion 856):
“The only thing that confers shame on slaves is the name: in all other respects a
slave who is good is not inferior to free people.”
— 364 —
Slavery as a Philosophical Metaphor in Plato and Xenophon
22
Vlastos, “Slavery,” 289, citing Laws 720, 773, 966b.
23
Vlastos, “Slavery,” 293.
24
I originally wrote this paper for a conference on ancient slavery that was
planned and organized for the University of California at Irvine, by Andromache
Karanika, Cristiana Sogno, and Zina Giannopoulou, of the Irvine department of
Classics. I thank them for that excellent occasion, as I also thank the staff of the
Hyele Institute and Parmenides Publishing, and the European Cultural Centre
of Delphi for hosting the Charles Kahn conference in the most splendid way
imaginable. I am grateful to Kinch Hoekstra and John Ferrari for commenting
on the first draft of this paper and to Louis-André Dorion for sending me his
article “Plato and enkrateia.”
— 365 —
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Forms, Functions,
and Structure in Plato
Dorothea Frede
1
Joseph De Maistre, Lettres et opuscules inédits, tome 1 (Paris: Vaton, 1861), St.
Petersburg, 15 (27) August 1811. Letter 76, p. 264: “Toute nation a le gouver-
nement qu’elle mérite.”
2
The explanation for this extraordinary phenomenon is not hard to find. To
take up Kahn’s claim that Plato’s artful composition of his dialogues presupposes
cunning readers: cunning differs from person to person; cf. Charles Kahn, Plato
and the Socratic Dialogue: The Philosophical Use of a Literary Form (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1996), 59.
— 367 —
Dorothea Frede
3
Nothing hinges on the vexed question of whether there was a fixed “middle
period” in Plato’s philosophy, an assumption that has been contested again in
recent years (cf. New Perspectives on Plato, Modern and Ancient, eds. Julia Annas
and Christopher Rowe (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002).
4
This is one of the few uncontested points, as a comparison between authors
as different as, e.g., Ross, Dancy, and Silverman would show; David Ross, Plato’s
Theory of Ideas (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955), 11–21; Russell Dancy, Plato’s
Introduction of Forms (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Allan
Silverman, The Dialectic of Essence: A Study of Plato’s Metaphysics (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2002), 28–48.
— 368 —
Forms, Functions, and Structure in Plato
qua definable the objects must share a fixed nature whose compre-
hension does not differ from person to person or from situation to
situation. This, in a nutshell, was the origin of the conception of
Forms. And given that the uses of eidos and idea in ordinary Greek
in Plato’s time were no longer confined to their original sense of
“view,” “look,” or “appearance,” but had already acquired the abstract
sense of “type” or “kind,” there is nothing remarkable in the fact
that Plato adopted that terminology.5 That explains why even a
philosophically untrained person like Euthyphro understands the
meaning of Socrates’ demand for a specification of the eidos or idea
of what is holy or pious, although he is unable to come up with an
acceptable answer.6 But in Plato’s eyes the search for types or models
is not enough. He also claims, at least from a certain point on, that
these models or essences exist on their own, separate from their
earthly representatives, and are best accessible to reason when it is
divested of all earthly encumbrances. That, it seems, is the gist of
the famous argument that all learning is recollection, as presented
in the Phaedo. The difficulties with this kind of metaphysics and
epistemology has for some time encouraged a revisionist explanation
of Plato’s later philosophy, but the adherents of that movement are
now dwindling. There is just too much evidence that Plato never
discarded his theory of separate and ideal Forms.7
So the central questions still remain a matter of debate: In what
sense do these “essences” or “natures” exist on their own? Are there
Forms of all things or only of a certain class of entities, as Plato
sometimes seems to suggest? 8 And why does Plato hold that we do
5
On the increasingly abstract use of both eidos and idea in authors of the fifth
century, cf. the detailed study by Fritz-Gregor Herrmann, Words & Ideas: the
Roots of Plato’s Philosophy (Swansea: University of Wales Press, 2007), esp. chs. 4
and 5. See also Kahn, Socratic Dialogue, 354ff.
6
Euthyphro 6d.
7
There are, of course, scholars who deny that Plato ever held a two-world-
theory. One of the most persuasive opponents of “separation” in a literal sense is
Fine; cf. Gail Fine, “Separation,” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 2 (1984),
31–87, repr. in Gail Fine, Plato on Knowledge and Forms (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 2003), 252–200. Her reasons for challenging the traditional view cannot
be discussed here, just as there is no room for a discussion of the ample literature
on Plato’s metaphysics in general.
8
Cf. Phaedo 100b; Republic X 596a.
— 369 —
Dorothea Frede
not have access to them through our senses, but only through reason
alone? For he thereby seems to divide the world in two: there is
the physical world of the senses, and there is a netherworld of pure
essences accessible only to pure thought. Thus Plato speaks of the
“eyes of the mind” (Republic 533c) in contradistinction of the eyes
of the body and claims that the mind’s eye works better if it does
not get distracted by the senses and the body’s needs.9 Not only that:
the Forms are also supposed to represent the nature or essence they
stand for to a higher degree than do their earthly copies.
Among those who attribute such a two-worlds theory to Plato
there is dissent about the nature of the separation and the relation
between the respective kinds of entities. While some interpreters
limit the separation to the distinction between inborn, non-em-
pirical knowledge and the recollection of that knowledge with the
help of the senses, others regard Plato as a great visionary, a kind of
philosophical mystic, who attributes to the true philosophers the
ability to grasp by vision a reality that ordinary mortals cannot even
fathom. This seems to be behind the term “Ideenschau” that has been
current in German books on Plato for a very long time.10 In either
sense, the two-worlds Plato has met with serious objections not only
on exegetical, but also on philosophical grounds. Critics of such a
separation maintain that Plato thereby needlessly problematizes the
really real, so that the physical world that he had initially wanted
to explain turns out to be an entity of dubious status. No one has
expressed this type of criticism better than Kant in his introduction
to the Critique of Pure Reason (A5):
“The light dove, cleaving the air in her free flight, and feeling
its resistance, might imagine that its flight would be still easier in
empty space. It was thus that Plato left the world of the senses, as
setting too narrow limits to the understanding, and ventured out
beyond it on the wings of the ideas, in the empty space of pure
9
Such metaphors, if they are metaphors, are still used in Laws 897d.
10
The “Tübingen Platonists” had predecessors that were already the butt of
the very young Zeller (cf. Eduard Zeller, Platonische Studien (Tübingen: Osian-
der, 1839), 199–205. Cf. D. Frede, “Zellers Platon-Studien,” in Eduard Zeller.
Philosophie- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte im 19. Jahrhundert, ed. Gerald Hartung
(Berlin: de Gruyter 2010), 67–91.
— 370 —
Forms, Functions, and Structure in Plato
understanding. He did not observe that with all his efforts he made
no advance, meeting no resistance that might, as it were, serve as
a support on which he could take a stand, to which he could apply
his powers, and so set his understanding in motion. It is indeed the
common fate of human reason to complete its speculative structures
as speedily as may be, and only afterwards to enquire whether the
foundations are reliable.”11
Admiration for this deft criticism notwithstanding, we have to
ask ourselves whether it is it really true that Plato left the world of
the senses. If he did, then his metaphysics as well as his theory of
knowledge would indeed be inaccessible to us, unless we possess
the requisite visionary capacities ourselves. But if you ask the
adherents of a visionary Plato what they think is actually “seen”
in this “Ideenschau” and get an intelligible answer at all, it usually
amounts to no more than that what is “seen” is the essence of all
things. And that is not an answer at all, but rather a restatement
of the problem. But what better solution is there, concerning the
connection between the two worlds?12 The suggestion proposed in
this essay is as follows: If one pays less attention to what Plato only
sometimes says and attends to how he actually proceeds, a different
picture emerges. Nowhere does Socrates invite his collaborators to
join him in a session of “Ideenschau.”13 Instead of transcendental
meditation we find hard arguments and neat clarifications of quite
mundane concepts. This even applies to the otherworldly Phaedo
when it comes to examples of the Forms. Besides the equal itself, we
find such things as health, strength, and tallness, supplemented by
11
Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, trans. Norman Kemp Smith (Lon-
don: Macmillan, 1929).
12
Cf. Phaedo 64d–68a. Such passages are actually much more rare than
introductory works on Plato would lead one to expect. On this issue, cf. D.
Frede, “Plato on What the Body’s Eye Tells the Mind’s Eye,” Proceedings of the
Aristotelian Society 99 (1999), 191–209.
13
The passage that comes closest to a mystic vision is the sight of the Beautiful
as such at the top of Diotima’s scala amoris in the Symposium (210a–212a), but
the fact that the ladder contains not only physical beauty, but also the beauty of
laws, political institutions, and of learning in general, should warn us not to take
the “vision” au pied de la lettre, any more than the voyage of the winged chariot
to a “hyperouranean place” in the Phaedrus (246e–247e), which is soon “demy-
thologized” in terms of a dialectical treatment (249b–250a).
— 371 —
Dorothea Frede
even odder examples such as the taller and the shorter, and finally
by sickness, fever, fire, and snow. If Plato was not schizophrenic, he
must have known what he was doing. But what, according to the
interpretation defended here, was he doing?
14
On the importance of the couch, the elegant chaise-longue used in symposia,
as the symbol of high Greek culture, cf. Myles Burnyeat, “Culture and Society
in Plato’s Republic,” The Tanner Lectures on Human Values 20 (1999), 215–324,
esp. 232–236.
15
The translation (minus Glaucon’s answers) is that by G. M. A. Grube, rev.
by C. D. C. Reeve, in Plato. Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper (Indianapolis:
Hackett, 1997).
— 372 —
Forms, Functions, and Structure in Plato
16
The divine demiurge in the Timaeus does not create the Forms, he just looks
at them when creating the visible world (27d–29a).
— 373 —
Dorothea Frede
in need of repose, there has always been the right kind of gadget for
them to use—even at a time when people were sleeping on bundles
of hay or on the bare floor. And the same is true of the flute: the laws
of acoustics were valid before anyone produced the first instrument.
In fact, those conditions have been in existence forever. Hence,
one may attribute the creation of those conditions or functions to
a divine craftsman, though there is no need to take such a divine
fabrication literally. For, in the Republic Plato has special reason to
introduce three types of creators: he thereby justifies the lowly place
assigned to the human artist’s creations. Such reasons do not exist
in the analogous passages of the other dialogues that refer to Forms
of artefacts; instead, Plato attributes their existence to “nature.”
Even more important than Plato’s surreptitious replacement
of the divine maker by the human user is the fact that the use or
function is not confined to the production of furniture or musical
instruments. Plato also extends it to animals and human actions,
601d4–6: “Then are not the virtue (ἀρετή), the beauty and correct-
ness (ὀρθότης) of each manufactured item (σκεῦος), living creature
( ζῷον), and action (πρᾶξις) related to nothing but the use (χρεία)
for which each is made or naturally adapted?” This brief explanation
seems crucial for our understanding of the nature of the Forms that
are here under discussion. For Plato attributes a use or function to
all three types of things, even to natural entities, and declares that
the respective functions are at the same time the criteria of the
objects’ goodness and rightness. Now, the conception of a thing’s
function is easy to comprehend in the case of tools that have been
produced for some use or purpose, as in the case of the flute-player
who gives the instructions concerning the flute’s properties to the
flute-maker, based on his knowledge of harmonics and the propor-
tions requisite for the instrument. The fact that “use” should be the
decisive criterion for the appropriateness of actions— πρᾶξις—also
presents no problem. All actions have an aim or end and are therefore
naturally judged as right or wrong, depending on whether or not they
fulfill their purpose or use, and that purpose is ultimately determined
by the naturally best way for humans to live in a community. Hence
there are “by nature” good and bad ways for humans to pursue that
ultimate end. That, then, explains the goodness and rightness of
— 374 —
Forms, Functions, and Structure in Plato
the use of human actions and why this function should likewise be
taken to exist before any particular action is taken, given that there
are naturally well-, and poorly, constituted human communities.
The Forms of the virtues—the capacities that enable human beings
to act in the right way—are then also determined by their function.
But what about the third kind of thing mentioned in the text,
namely the animals? How can there be a use in their case that
determines their excellence, beauty, and rightness? Does Plato judge
them only in accordance with the use they have for us? Not only is
it unlikely that he is that anthropocentric, but human beings must
also be included among the animals. The use of an animal therefore
consists rather in the fulfilment of the conditions of its own nature.
The excellence of a human, a horse, or a lizard depends, then, on
its internal constitution and its suitability for its specific way of life.
Hence the “use” in question need not always be a purpose external
to the entity in question but can also be understood internally: some
things carry their own use in themselves. In the case of human
beings, their ἀρετή or excellence consists in acting and living in
accordance with the right use of all human faculties, including
those of the body.
17
The shuttle’s function anticipates in a way, then, the introduction of the
cathartic function of certain household activities in analogy to the cleansing of
the mind by the “sophist of noble lineage” (Sophist 226e–231b).
— 375 —
Dorothea Frede
does not there appeal to a divine maker but to the object’s essence as
it is “by nature,” and this nature is geared to fulfilling its function
of separating the threads of the woof and warp in the appropriate
way.18 Apart from instruments Plato also emphasizes, just as he
does in the Republic, the natural suitability of actions (πράξεις),
and just as in the Republic he lets the artisan “look” at the object’s
form in order to make it as good as possible.19 The craftsman will
not take a broken shuttle as his model, but look at the way it is by
nature best constituted. Animals are not mentioned in the passage
of the Cratylus, but they are included in the corresponding passage
in the Gorgias (503d–507c). Socrates argues there that every proper
craftsman’s aim is a well-ordered product.20 What applies to tools,
also applies to the body and to the soul; to restore and maintain
the body’s order is the doctor’s and trainer’s job; in the case of the
soul it is the orator’s task to establish lawfulness and virtue in the
citizens’ souls. In the further argument for his position Socrates adds
the explanation: “But the best way in which the excellence (ἀρετή)
of each thing comes to be present in it, whether it is that of a tool
(σκεῦος) or of a body or a soul as well, or of any animal ( ζῷον), is
not just any old way, but is due to whatever organization, correctness,
and craftsmanship is bestowed on them.”21 A similar point is also
made in the Euthydemus (290c), where young Clinias attributes the
knowledge of the right use of the products of all sciences and crafts
to the dialectician.22 To be sure: not all these dialogues mention
the Forms or clearly presuppose that theory. But it is all the more
18
There is an abundance of references in the Cratylus to the objects’ nature
(φύσις), how they are by nature (φύσει) or naturally constituted (πέφυκεν),
despite the fact that he is mainly concerned with artefacts.
19
Cf. Cratylus 389b: βλέπων . . . πρὸς τὸ εἶδος.
20
Gorgias 504a: “συστήσηται τεταγμένον τε καὶ κεκοσμημένον πρᾶγμα.”
21
Translation (with slight modifications) by Donald Zeyl, in Plato, ed. Cooper,
(1997).
22
Though the relative date of the Euthydemus is a matter of debate, the refer-
ence in the Gorgias speaks in favor of the assumption Plato had entertained that
the use determines the nature of certain things for quite some time, as is also
witnessed by the Charmides, esp. 171a–172d, concerning the benefits of temper-
ance. What may at first have been a proleptic thought (Kahn, Socratic Dialogue,
306–309) that preceded the introduction of the theory of Forms subsequently
found its place within that theory.
— 376 —
Forms, Functions, and Structure in Plato
— 377 —
Dorothea Frede
you have to find out what its use is, that is, what is good in it, for
it, and about it. “Functionalism” in that sense was, then, clearly not
the invention of Aristotle, as is often assumed; Plato preceded him
in this conception.
But what does all this tell us about the relation between the
“eyes of the body” and the “eye of the mind” according to Plato?
If you replace the divine craftsman who creates the Forms by the
pre-stabilized function, and reduce the knowledge of the Forms to
the knowledge of that function in each case, you end up with an
intelligible theory. Now, this rather deflated picture of the Forms
and their application may fit those texts where Plato concentrates
on rather prosaic examples. But what about the many other passages
where Plato does presuppose that the soul rises above all earthly
conditions to attain the truth, whether in one of his myths or in
some of his philosophical accounts? Worse, does the claim that
Forms are functions not imply that the routine type of knowledge
of a user of couches and flutes is quite sufficient to attribute to them
the honorific title of “knowledge”? For, this kind of knowledge seems
worlds apart from the kind of knowledge that Plato requires of his
philosopher-kings or -queens, a kind of knowledge that presupposes
many years of intensive intellectual labor.
This objection loses its force if we realize that even within crafts-
manship we have to distinguish between two types of knowledge.
Once a craft has been established there is indeed no need for intellec-
tual creativity; routine and know-how is all that is needed. But as
mentioned earlier, the first discoverer, the πρῶτος εὑρετής, does
have to “see in his mind” what the umpteenth craftsman merely
imitates. The creator of the flute must indeed have had a “divine
model” in his mind, if ever there was such a person. For, he must
at the same time have found out the laws of harmonics. For this
reason the identification of Form with function should be taken
seriously. That Plato in Republic X at first uses three beds (couches)
to illustrate his most important distinction should not be taken as
an indication that he is not serious about the theory; it is just a sign
of his sometimes somewhat whimsical sense of humor.
Hence we can turn to our main question, namely what to make
of the insight that Plato combines Forms and functions and thereby,
— 378 —
Forms, Functions, and Structure in Plato
— 379 —
Dorothea Frede
— 380 —
Forms, Functions, and Structure in Plato
the best possible way always already exist. They are discovered rather
than invented. Orthopaedists, for instance, have definite views on the
right kind of beds, chairs, or shoes, because they claim to know that
there is a naturally best nature or function of these things. All that
is necessary is to find the right way to realize their natural purpose.
And though there is an ongoing struggle among craftsmen over how
to make the best instruments, nobody seems to doubt that there are
such optimal conditions to be realized under material conditions,
even if Stradivarius’ secret may never be discovered.
That Plato, at least at times, treats the Forms like functions, has
not escaped the sharp eye of other interpreters. Thus Ross mentions
it in connection with the role of the Form of the good with respect
to all other Forms.26 In a recent monograph on creationism in
antiquity, Sedley ponders the view, albeit briefly, that the doctrine
in Republic X should be understood in terms of function, as a case
of intelligent design. Thus in the case of the carpenter making
a table: “[w]e might think of the Form of the table to which he
looks as being, as it were, the ideal function of a table, one that the
wooden table he produces could never discharge to perfection in
every aspect.”27 Sedley’s suggestion that the Forms are conceived of
as ideal functions has gotten flak in a review by Barnes: “Or what
about Sedley’s account of Plato’s famous Forms? He says that ‘the
Form of a table is neither a table nor a diagram nor set of instruc-
tions for making a table, but rather the ideal function of a table,
which it is left to the carpenter to embody in the materials at his
disposal in whatever way he judges best’. But is there such a thing
as the ideal function of a table? Aren’t there Forms of things which
are functionless: the Form of justice, say, or the Form of equality?
Again, isn’t a Platonic carpenter supposed to copy the Form of table?
Didn’t the demiurge imitate the Form of animal? But how can you
copy or imitate a function? And in any case, does Plato not say that
— 381 —
Dorothea Frede
the Form of table is a table? Isn’t it the paradigmatic table, the item
to which the term ‘table’ applies most strictly and most truly?”28
This barrage of objections is familiar to all Platonists, and they
cannot be met adequately point for point here except in bare outline.
To take the problem of “imitation” first: The talk of imitation of the
Forms, which Plato actually uses quite sparingly and alternatively
to “participating” or “having communion with” must be attributed
to metaphorical speech, as must be the language of “looking at”
on the craftsman’s side. Of course, a carpenter does not look at a
heaven of Ideas that is full of ideal objects or intelligently designed
models ready for copying. Instead, the craftsman, especially if he is
the inventor, carefully studies the purpose the object is to serve and
conceives of the appropriate shape and the means of construction, in
close consultation with the user of his product. “Imitation” means,
then, no more than the realization of what best serves the purpose
with the appropriate material. Whether or not Plato ever conceived
of the Forms as “self-predicating,” that is, as ideal models that possess
the characters their participants share, is still a matter of debate.
As some of Plato’s present-day defenders claim, self-predication is
a position Plato used for dialectical purposes, as in the captious
arguments against Protagoras in the dialogue named after him, but
not in any literal sense.29
The most pertinent issue raised in Barnes’s criticism is the
question of how to account for functionless Forms. To meet this
objection it is necessary to pinpoint such Forms. Justice, pace Barnes,
is certainly not without a function for Plato, as has been argued
earlier. And similar explanations apply to most other candidates of
28
Jonathan Barnes, review of Sedley, Creationism, London Review of Books, vol.
30, no. 11 (5 June 2008), 30–31.
29
Plato, Protagoras 329b–333e. This is not the place to discuss the problem of
self-predication of the Forms. In the Protagoras, there is no mention of Forms, but
Socrates does affirm that justice itself is just (330c). If this is not just a manoeuvre
to embarrass the famous sophist, but a reflection of Plato’s own thought, then
it may mean no more than that all virtues have their own “power” (Protagoras
330a: δύναμις), so that justice has a different power than piety without thereby
being impious. For an analysis of the arguments, cf. Christopher Taylor, Plato
Protagoras (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991) rev., ad loc. On the problems of the
status of properties in “Socratic” dialogues, cf. Silverman, Essence, 32–41.
— 382 —
Forms, Functions, and Structure in Plato
30
Cf. Republic VII 525b–526a; Philebus 56c–57a.
— 383 —
Dorothea Frede
various ways, you know that in the end his knowledge about these
things would be as accurate as anyone’s.”31 In that case the slave will
have comprehended the use and function of squares, triangles and
diagonals and be able to apply them in the solution of mathematical
problems. Thus, wherever there is some kind of normative state,
there is a Form, and its function or power lies in establishing and
maintaining that state. Finally, that Socrates expresses reservations
in the Parmenides about Forms of objects like human beings, fire
or water may be due to any number of reasons. Human beings are
complex entities that display not one type of goodness but many, with
respect to both soul and body. Hence it would be difficult to speak
of the Form of such a being.32 Fire and water are less complex, but
their nature and purpose are hard to pinpoint, and Plato may have
wanted to shelve that problem for further discussion in the Timaeus.
31
Meno 85d1–3. Translation by G. M. A. Grube, Plato, ed. Cooper (1997).
32
In Philebus 15a, Plato either regards this difficulty as solved or prefers to
ignore it for the time being, given that later on all well-formed entities are ex-
plained as mixtures of limit and the unlimited.
— 384 —
Forms, Functions, and Structure in Plato
33
The most extensive discussion of the method and its application is contained
in the Philebus 14b–28a; on the specifics of the dialectical method, cf. D. Frede,
Platon Philebos (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 132–169.
34
Cornford famously omitted the first part of the Sophist (218d–231b) from
his translation (F. M. Cornford, Plato’s Theory of Knowledge, London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul, 1935), because modern readers “might be wearied by a transla-
tion,” 170. An early dissenter in that respect was John Ackrill, “In Defense of
Platonic Division,” in Ryle: A Collection of Critical Essays, eds. Oscar Wood and
George Pitcher (London: Macmillan, 1963), 373–392.
35
Cf. Republic 508d–509b: “So that what gives truth to the things known and
the power to know to the knower is the Form of the Good. And though it is the
cause of knowledge and truth, it is also an object of knowledge. Both knowledge
and truth are beautiful things, but the good is other and more beautiful than
they.” . . . “You’ll be willing to say, I think, that the sun not only provides vis-
ible things with the power to be seen but also with coming to be, growth, and
nourishment, although it is not itself coming to be. Therefore, you should also
say that the objects of knowledge owe their being known to the good, but their
being is also due to it, although the good is not being, but superior to it in rank
(πρεσβεία) and power (δύναμις).”
— 385 —
Dorothea Frede
36
We get very few indications of this late development in Plato’s dialogues,
— 386 —
Forms, Functions, and Structure in Plato
far he himself pursued this project and whether it was more for
him than a dream to be fulfilled by posterity is difficult to say. But
at least he seems to have envisaged not only that the Forms of all
good things consist in their function, but that these functions are
based on a mathematical harmony or proportion. Plato was, then,
the ancestor of mathematical physics.37
That all things with a proper nature are based on a mathemat-
ical structure is the topic Plato pursues in the Timaeus, and to a
certain extent also in the Philebus, but these two dialogues have to
be passed over here. If they are mentioned at this point it is because
they confirm the impression that their mathematical structure is an
essential part of the conception of Plato’s Forms, at least in his later
dialogues. It is difficult to say when he first started to pursue these
thoughts. But there are indications that the basic idea may actually
have come to him quite early. For already in the Gorgias, Socrates
points out to Callicles that his major deficiency lies in his lack of
comprehension that geometrical proportion is the major ordering
force not only of human life, but also in the universe as a whole.38
This claim suggests that Plato did quite early conceive of the notion
that there is a mathematical fundamentum in re of all orderly things,
a notion that may have been spurred by his contact with certain
Pythagoreans in Southern Italy during his first voyage.39
apart from his emphasis on the “right measure.” But Aristotle in his critique of
Plato’s theory of Forms is quite vociferous about that issue. So there can be little
doubt that Plato at least experimented with the idea that everything that has a
stable nature is based on a mathematical structure.
37
On the role of mathematics in Plato, cf. Gregory Vlastos, “Elenchus and
Mathematics: A Turning Point in Plato’s Philosophical Development,” American
Journal of Philology 109 (1988), 362–396; Myles Burnyeat, “Plato on Why
Mathematics is Good for the Soul,” in Mathematics and Necessity. Essays in the
History of Philosophy, ed. Timothy Smiley, Proceedings of the British Academy 103
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 1–81.
38
Gorgias 508a: “You have failed to notice that proportionate equality (ἡ
ἰσότης ἡ γεωμετρική) has great power among both gods and men, and you
suppose that you ought to practice getting the greater share. That is because you
neglect geometry.” The Gorgias in a way also anticipates the Republic’s treatment
of the Forms as functions by its comparison of the craftsman’s imposition of or-
ganization (τάξις) and order (κόσμος) on his material with the relation of body
and soul (Gorgias 503d–507c).
39
That Archytas of Tarentum played a major role in Plato’s appreciation of
— 387 —
Dorothea Frede
mathematics has been long assumed. Cf. the magisterial treatment by Carl
Huffman, Archytas of Tarentum. Pythagorean, Philosopher and Mathematician
King (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), esp. 32–42.
— 388 —
Forms, Functions, and Structure in Plato
40
It is of course possible to regard the tyrant as a well-defined counterpart to
the philosopher-king. But Plato in the Gorgias characterizes his soul by dispro-
portion and ugliness, and these are characterized by lack of a definite nature
(525a: ἀσυμμετρίας τε καὶ αἰσχρότητος γέμουσαν).
— 389 —
Dorothea Frede
— 390 —
From Being an Image
to Being What-Is-Not
Paul Kalligas
One of Plato’s favourite analogies for describing the relation between
sensible particulars and their intelligible correlates is that of images
or copies (εἴδωλα) and their models. Already in the Lysis1 219d2–4,
all the various dear things (φίλα) are said to be some sort of images
(or, perhaps, phantoms: ὥσπερ εἴδωλα ἅττα) of the primary dear
(τὸ πρῶτον φίλον), which is the ultimate object of all our aspira-
tions, and thus to deceive (ἐξαπατᾶν) us, presumably because they
reflect some of the desirable features of their model. This notion
of an image is hinted at again in the Phaedo 74e3, by the use of
the verb προσεοικέναι,2 within the context of a discussion of the
way in which the process of recollection is triggered by something
which is like the recollected object, but in some sense deficiently
so, and is further developed in the Republic, as part of the more
general inquiry into the products of various kinds of imitative
procedures. In the allegory of the Cave, for example, the effigies
held by the puppeteers are repeatedly called εἴδωλα, presumably for
being imitative copies of the real beings outside the cave (Republic
520c4, 532b7; cf. 514c1–515a1), that is, objects of opinion instead
of true knowledge (534c5–6). And the products of the crafts such
as the work of the bed-manufacturer are said to be imitations or
1
That is, assuming that the Lysis is indeed one of the relatively early dia-
logues of Plato.
2
This seems to pick up the case of recollection through similarity illustrated by
means of the examples of “painted images” (γεγραμμένα) introduced previously
in the dialogue (Phaedo 73e5–74a3), but the context makes it clear that, in the
end, similarity is not at all the crucial notion here, since recollection can be ef-
fected equally both by similars and by dissimilars (see 74c13–d2).
— 391 —
Paul Kalligas
3
The last remark seems in fact to allude to Parmenides’ own “imagistic” ac-
count in his poem (διάκοσμον ἐοικότα) concerning the deceitful nature of the
opinions of the mortals (fr. B8.51 DK).
4
See Timaeus 48e2–52d1, with the careful analysis by E. N. Lee, “On the
Metaphysics of the Image in Plato’s Timaeus,” Monist 50 (1966), 341–368.
5
See F. M. Cornford, Plato’s Theory of Knowledge (London: Kegan Paul, Trench,
Trübner, 1935), 199.
— 392 —
From Being an Image to Being What-Is-Not
The image is more or less like the original, though not wholly like
it, not a reproduction. But it is also conceived as possessing in some
sense a lower grade of reality, as illusory, phantom-like” (author’s
emphasis). Thus it is not unusual to find Plato being accused of
abandoning the world of concrete sensible reality in favor of a
nebulous region of intangible presumed “prototypes” of the items
encountered by our everyday experience, of assuming as properly
real what—to every sober minded naturalist—seem to be no more
than abstractions from things or features existing in the world of
our common, and commonly shared, experience.
In what follows, I wish to challenge certain aspects of this
interpretation of the analogy of the image and to suggest that
Plato did not intend to question the reality of sensible existence,
but only to deny that we can be confident about the truth of any
statements we make in reference to it. In my view, in interpreting the
image analogy we have to take seriously into account the extended
analysis Plato offers with respect to the various kinds of imaging
in the Sophist, where a great amount of energy is given to an ex
professo examination of this, at first glance, rather inconsequential
or, at best, marginal topic. A full discussion of the pertinent section
of this dialogue would, however, by far exceed the limitations of
this paper. I wish therefore to propose instead, as a preliminary
investigation, to examine a single passage which seems to give us
some important clues about this issue. Further, in order to unravel
some of the difficulties involved there, I propose to use as a key a
passage from the discussion of the fifth hypothesis from the second
part of the Parmenides, which, as has been pointed out by Charles
Kahn,6 constitutes a significant parallel to the Sophist passage,
thus helping us to understand better a most crucial aspect of that
difficult text. Both passages present considerable textual problems
and have required significant philological interventions for their
restitution. For reasons of economy I will not discuss these problems
here. Let me just assure you that I do not intend to deviate from
6
In his important article on “Some Philosophical Uses of ‘to Be’ in Plato,”
originally published in Phronesis 26 (1981), 105–34, and now incorporated into
his recent volume of Essays on Being (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009),
75–108, esp. 90–93.
— 393 —
Paul Kalligas
— 394 —
From Being an Image to Being What-Is-Not
By now it should have become clear that what is at stake here is the
exact import of the copulative “is” connecting Y with the predicate
X. For in this case the “is” cannot be carrying the strong attributive
sense of “being truly” or “really” something, since this is restricted
to the case of X itself. It has nothing to do with Y’s being whatever
else it happens to be, or with its existence. In fact, Theaetetus goes
on to point out that Y is, after all, really at least one thing, namely
an image. This, however, does not alter the fact that it is not really
X, as X is said to be. But how are we to understand this difference?
I believe that the best way is to take it at its face value. To start
with, it is taken for granted that a statement of the type “X is X”
is always, invariably and necessarily true. This must be so because
X is taken to represent at least part of what X really is, it is an
essential feature of it and as such cannot possibly be separated from
it. There is no viewpoint from which one may approach X without,
8
This particular point has been emphasized in a passage in the Cratylus 432b4–
d3, where Socrates indicates that an exact duplicate of Cratylus would not be
an image of him at all, since images (εἰκόνες) have to be in some way deficient
(ἐνδέουσιν) with respect to their models.
— 395 —
Paul Kalligas
— 396 —
From Being an Image to Being What-Is-Not
— 397 —
Paul Kalligas
— 398 —
From Being an Image to Being What-Is-Not
The reference back to line b2, where Theaetetus had stated that
the copy, that is, Y, is in no way a true [X], but only something
that is similar [to the true X], makes it clear that what is under
discussion here is neither the existential status of Y, nor the ascrip-
tive function of the copula connecting it with the predicate X,
but rather its veridical force, what Kahn has called its “veridical
nuance.” If the “is” here is taken to carry the strong sense of “is truly
or really so-and-so,” that is, if it is regarded as equivalent to what
we previously termed—in our somewhat anachronistic jargon—as
“what is essentially so-and-so,” then, of course, the inference that Y
is not (really) X is valid, but it leaves the ground open for its being
any number of other things, including what it has been taken to
be from the start, namely an image of X. So Y turns out to be not
identical with what is truly X. Nonetheless, it can still be said to
be X—and therefore is “homonymous” with X9 —however, not in
the strong sense of “is” discussed earlier on.
9
See Plato, Timaeus 52a5; cf. Sophist 234b7.
— 399 —
Paul Kalligas
Theatetus’ answer, and the ensuing exchange with the visitor, marks
this paradox and reformulates it in such a way as to make it look
like a plain contradiction:
However, the tools for resolving the paradox have already been
indicated, though not spelled out in as much detail as one might
have wished. The crucial distinction that needs to be taken into
account in order to attain such a resolution is the one between the
two different uses of “is”: (a) the stronger one, which normally bears
— 400 —
From Being an Image to Being What-Is-Not
— 401 —
Paul Kalligas
— 402 —
From Being an Image to Being What-Is-Not
— 403 —
Paul Kalligas
Now this is a curious argument. For from the statement that the
One is not and the claim that this statement is true, it is inferred
that the One, by being the subject of a true statement, in some way
partakes in being. But such a conclusion hardly obtains. As Kahn
has pointed out, even granting that we shift from the copulative to
a veridical sense of “is” (or of “being”), the attribute “true” would
have to pertain not to the One itself, but to the statement as a whole,
of which the One is merely the subject. This is more than a simple
stylistic variant of the normal veridical construction. When we say
“things that are” by speaking truly, we make statements bearing the
truth value “True”; from this we can hardly infer that the subject
of such statements is itself in any conceivable sense “true” or, for
that matter, real. To say “things that are” about the One in no way
implies that the One “partakes in being”—that is, unless we are
— 404 —
From Being an Image to Being What-Is-Not
— 405 —
Paul Kalligas
10
Kahn, Essays, 92.
— 406 —
From Being an Image to Being What-Is-Not
This clarity is, however, effaced when we reach the final formula-
tion of the paradox, according to which “not-being in some way is”
(τὸ μὴ ὂν . . . εἶναί πως). For if this is taken to mean that what is
not [X], namely the image, which is other than the true X, is in
some way X, that is, is not essentially what the X designates, then
it merely duplicates the initial statement of Theaetetus and thus
renders the whole ensuing argument superfluous. What gives it the
force of a punch-line, making it look like a glaring paradox, is that it
seems to say that what is not truly X can truly be said to be (in some
way) X. This has been emphasized in the immediately preceding
remark of Theaetetus that the image is really an image [of X]. The
paradox relies on the veridical claim contained in this statement,
thus apparently verging on a blatant contradiction.
The image thus appears as ambivalent between two competing
and opposite claims. The one presents it as being not-X, in the sense
of being other than the X itself or than what is truly X. The other
maintains that, nonetheless, it must be, in some way, X, otherwise
it would not be an image at all. Its very status as an image requires
that there is a sense according to which it can be truly said to be X.
Such conflicting assessments are bound to undermine the validity
of either claim, and thus to render its relation to truth problematic.
And this is precisely the reason evoked in the Republic (597a4–11)
for saying that the image created by the imitative artist is “faint” or
“hazy” (ἀμυδρόν) with respect to truth (πρὸς ἀλήθειαν).
Now at last we can envisage the function played by the analogy
of the image in the Timaeus under a new light. It in no way implies
that the sensible world is, in some way, nonexistent, or even less real
than the intelligible one. After all, there is no reason to think of an
image as any less existent than the thing it is an image of, or that it
is not real, for it is obviously really what it is, namely an image. It
is of course other than the thing it is an image of, but this in itself
does not seem to be sufficient reason to demote its being. For even
if it is not essentially the same as its model, it may exhibit some of
its features in a no less perfect way than they are to be found there.
— 407 —
Paul Kalligas
11
This point has been forcefully argued by A. Nehamas, “Plato on the
Imperfection of the Sensible World,” in Virtues of Authenticity: Essays on Plato and
Socrates (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), 138–58 (reprinted from
APQ 12 [1975], 105–117), esp. 151–155. He formulates his view as follows
(144): “When we say that particulars are only imperfectly F in comparison to
the Form of F-ness, the imperfection belongs to the ‘being’ rather to the ‘F ’ n
‘being F,’” but he chooses not to focus on the kind of imperfection involved as
consisting in a difference in the truth claim contained in the pertinent statements.
— 408 —
From Being an Image to Being What-Is-Not
ὄντως ἀλήθεια . . . οὐδὲν παρ’ αὑτὴν λέγει, ἀλλ’ ὃ λέγει, καὶ ἔστι, καὶ ὅ
ἐστι, τοῦτο καὶ λέγει.
— 409 —
This page has been intentionally left blank.
The Method of Hypothesis
and Its Connection to the
Collection and Division Strategies
Tomás Calvo
— 411 —
Tomás Calvo
II
Let us go directly to the well known passages in the Phaedo
where we can find an explicit account of the Method of Hypothesis:
— 412 —
The Method of Hypothesis and its Connection to Collection/Division Strategies
— 413 —
Tomás Calvo
2
We recall that the Method of Collection and Division is named ἡ τῶν λόγων
μέθοδος twice by Plato, in the Sophist 227a–b and also in the Statesman 266d,
in a clear reference to the passage in the Sophist. This strongly suggests that
“statements” (on the being of things) and “notions” (Ideas) are the two aspects of
the “logical” meaning of λόγος in the context of Plato’s dialectic.
On the other hand, the way Aristotle refers to Plato’s statement of the au-
tonomous existence of Forms (surely referring implicitly to our passage in the
Phaedo) also seems interesting in this connection: “He [Plato] separated the One
and the Numbers from the things (in which he differed from the Pythagoreans),
and he introduced the Forms because his investigation focused on ‘logoi’ (ἐν τοῖς
λόγοις), while the earlier thinkers didn’t participate in Dialectic” (Metaphysics I
6, 987b29–33).
— 414 —
The Method of Hypothesis and its Connection to Collection/Division Strategies
2. After this paragraph—that is, between the first and the second
paragraphs in the text I have presented—Socrates explains to his
interlocutors the way this method has to be applied to the present
discussion. There are three points underlined by Socrates here.
His first is that the doctrine he is referring to “is nothing new, but
something he has constantly spoken of both in the present discus-
sion and at other times too. It is the hypothesis of the existence of
something which is beautiful itself by itself, and also of something
which is good, and something which is large, and so on with the
rest of them” (100b), that is, the statement that Ideas or Forms do
exist. His second is that once this has been assumed, one logically
has to accept that things become beautiful, or good, for example,
because of the Beautiful itself, because of the Good itself, and so on
that is, that for any substance coming to be, the appropriate Form
is the cause for it to became what it is. His third is that this is the
strongest (ἀσφαλές, ἀσφαλέστατον) statement on causality (100d,
100e), which has to be firmly maintained against any competing
proposal of physical-mechanical explanations (100e–101e).3
3
In this passage, Socrates explicitly refers to the existence of Forms as the
hypothesis “he has constantly spoken of both in the present discussion and at
other times too.” Should we take this to imply that the expression ἐν τοῖς λόγοις
refers to the Theory of Forms? If so, the sentence “taking refuge (ἐν τοῖς λόγοις)”
would mean something like “taking refuge in my known Doctrine of Forms.”
I do not think that this is the best interpretation, although the method is
certainly intended to work on the basis―and within the framework of the
hypothesis of the existence of Forms. In fact, the statements (λόγοι) concerned
are intended to express relations of Ideas, as I have already emphasized.
A further question is determining (a) how the method becomes applied
to the discussion of the Theory of Forms, and (b) how the hypothesis itself of
the existence of Forms actually works in the last proof for the immortality of
the soul. No doubt, these are very complicated issues. To my mind, the main
trend of the final proof for the immortality of the soul can be outlined in the
following way.
(1) Immediate hypothesis of the argument: The presence of life in soul makes it
what it is, namely, a living being and a principle of life for living beings. This is
the logical starting point for the final proof for the immortality of the soul: since
life is essentially present in it, the soul is incompatible with death, given that life
and death are contradictory to each other.
However, how can we ground this hypothesis? It seems that the strength of
this premise/hypothesis lies in the assumption that the presence of life is the real
cause for the soul to be what it is, namely, a living being and a principle of life.
Thus, this supposition points to the following higher hypothesis.
— 415 —
Tomás Calvo
3. As for the gap between the second and the third paragraphs
quoted, let us recall that it is here that Socrates develops his last
proof of the immortality of the soul. As we all remember, this proof
is grounded on the premise that the soul essentially brings life, and
therefore it cannot be affected by its opposite, death (102a–107a).
Cebes and Simmias express their agreement with this argument.
Nevertheless, Simmias acknowledges that he still has doubts “given
the great importance of the subject under discussion, together with
his poor opinion of human fallibility” (107a–b), which Socrates
answers with the words in the third paragraph of our quotation.
III
Within the context I have briefly described, Socrates’ proposal
appears as a general (we could say universal) methodological instru-
ment applicable to any issue, in any field, for the validation or
perhaps eventual refutation of statements, called “hypotheses,”
insofar as they are proposed in each case as principles or points of
departure for the explanation one is looking for. From the whole
of the three quoted paragraphs, it is possible to extract the main
steps of this logical procedure. The first is to establish or assume one
statement or hypothesis, the one considered to be the strongest within
the context of a specific question or issue. Once the hypothesis
has been proposed, the statements or propositions in agreement
with it are posited as true, while those in disagreement with it are
taken to be false. The second step is to test the hypothesis itself by
looking at its consequences: if its consequences are in agreement with
each other, the hypothesis itself can be maintained, since it has
successfully passed this test of refutation. On the other hand, if its
consequences do not agree with each other, the hypothesis is refuted,
(2) Higher hypothesis: (For any individual entity,) X-hood is the only cause of its
being X.
This hypothesis, in its turn, finally becomes grounded by Plato using the
highest hypothesis, that of the existence of Forms.
(3) The highest hypothesis: (For every X-hood,) X-hood exists by itself in itself.
I will make only two more remarks: (a) according to Aristotle’s testimony
quoted in note 1, this last step was taken by Plato, not by Socrates; and (b) no
doubt, the hypothesis of the existence of Forms needs further investigation, as is
explicitly indicated in the text.
— 416 —
The Method of Hypothesis and its Connection to Collection/Division Strategies
4
For different remarks and proposals on this, cf. Richard Robinson, Plato’s
Earlier Dialectic (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), 126–136; David Ross, Plato’s
Theory of Ideas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1951), ch. 3; Kenneth M.
Sayre, Plato’s Analytic Method. (Chicago: Chicago University Press), 15–40; R.
S. Bluck, “Hypothéseis in the Phaedo and Platonic Dialectic,” Phronesis (1957):
21–31; R. Hackforth, Plato’s Phaedo (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1980), 139–140; David Gallop, Plato. Phaedo (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975),
179–181.
— 417 —
Tomás Calvo
— 418 —
The Method of Hypothesis and its Connection to Collection/Division Strategies
— 419 —
Tomás Calvo
7
In the first paragraph, in the line quoted (“whatever proposition seems to me
not to be in agreement with the hypothesis I put it down as not true”), Socrates
literally speaks of “not being in agreement” (μὴ συμφωνεῖν) instead of “being
in disagreement” (διαφωνεῖν). Nevertheless, for the reasons just given, I think
that μὴ συμφωνεῖν has to be understood positively as διαφωνεῖν, and that
διαφωνεῖν, in its turn, means not only that the proposition disagreeing with the
hypothesis cannot be deduced from it, but that its contradictory can be positively
deduced from the hypothesis.
— 420 —
The Method of Hypothesis and its Connection to Collection/Division Strategies
This logical rule usually produces not only perplexity, but even
a great deal of uneasiness among Platonic commentators. At first
glance, it is certainly difficult to understand how two contradictory
statements (q and -q) could be deduced from one hypothesis, that
is, from one and only one proposition p. To this presumption one
can oppose the fact that only p follows from p; or, one may allow
that ~~p follows from p by the rule of “double negation,” or that p v
q follows by “disjunction introduction,” etc. But none of this sheds
any light on the question at hand. Thus, some scholars feel inclined
to think that either Plato expressed his meaning in a very obscure
and paradoxical way, or he was rather ignorant of some elementary
logical rules. For my part, I must say that I do not share in this
criticism. Always, and even in this particular case, I prefer to think
that Plato says something which is both sound and interesting. Let us
examine how the method works in this very dialogue.
To my mind, a paradigmatic place to analyze the working of the
method can be found in the Phaedo itself a few pages before, in the
passage where Socrates rejects Simmias’ hypothesis that “the soul
is an attunement (ἁρμονία) of the bodily constituents” (91c–94e).
Socrates deploys three arguments against this conception of the soul.
I’ll refer to only one, as they all have the same logical structure.8 In
his argument, Socrates emphasizes that the hypothesis of soul-at-
tunement disagrees with the well-known and accepted fact that the
soul can oppose the body, that is, it can deny and repress the bodily
feelings and appetites. Now, in order to understand this argument
fully, we must recall that this capacity of the soul to oppose the
body had been previously agreed upon by all the participants in the
dialogue, as they all accepted that the soul is in a permanent state of
war against the body, and that its task is controlling and repressing it.
8
The other two arguments are based, respectively, on the preexistence of the
soul and on its possibility of lacking attunement (moral badness). Syllogistically,
they can be formulated this way: (1) no attunement can preexist the bodily
elements of which it is an attunement; the soul preexists the body; ergo the soul
is not an attunement of the body; and (2) no attunement can participate in non-
attunement; the soul can participate in non-attunement (i.e., in moral badness);
ergo the soul is not an attunement.
— 421 —
Tomás Calvo
— 422 —
The Method of Hypothesis and its Connection to Collection/Division Strategies
9
Without leaving the perspective of propositional logic, many scholars try to
save Plato’s affirmation that contradictory statements could follow from one
hypothesis. They suggest that Plato’s affirmation holds when the hypothesis is
not an “atomic” statement but a complex one, composed of several statements,
and two of them are latently inconsistent with each other. (Cf. Robinson, Plato’s,
132–133; Ross, Plato’s, 46). In my view, this hermeneutic maneuver also misses
the point.
— 423 —
Tomás Calvo
— 424 —
The Method of Hypothesis and its Connection to Collection/Division Strategies
IV
This conclusion about the relationship between the Collection
and Division strategies and the Method of Hypothesis can be fully
confirmed, in my view, by an attentive reading of the Phaedrus,
where Collection and Division are considered to be the specific task
of Dialectic (cf. 265a–266b). I think that the following remarks will
be sufficient to obtain a general view on the whole issue.
1. In the Phaedrus, the Method of Collection and Division is
explicitly mentioned and explained by Socrates for the first time
after the three speeches on Love have already been pronounced.
The first speech which is strongly criticized by Socrates for both its
content and its formal composition is a rather conventional rhetorical
exercise ostensibly written by Lysias and delivered by Phaedrus. It is
addressed to a boy with the aim of persuading him of the advantages
of yielding to a non-lover rather than to an impassioned lover. The
main premise in the argument, its ὑπόθεσις, is the established topic
that love, passionate desire, is a kind of madness, and, as a madness,
it is a kind of sickness. The general structure of the argumentation
can be reduced to the following syllogism:
(4) mad people are dangerous and pernicious;
(5) passionate lovers are mad people;
(6) ergo, passionate lovers are dangerous.
It is interesting to observe that in the conversation between
Socrates and Phaedrus after Lysias’ discourse has been delivered
and before Socrates has presented his first speech Phaedrus says,
literally, “I will allow you to suppose [or ‘to hypothesize’] that the
lover is more sick than the non-lover” (236b1). Phaedrus uses the
verb ὑποτίθεσθαι to refer to the main premise of Lysias’ argumenta-
tion, which will also be assumed by Socrates as a premise in his first
speech. And according to the interpretation of the methodology in
the Phaedo that I have been suggesting, Lysias’ hypothesis has to be
understood as the statement that Eros belongs to the genus of dangerous
— 425 —
Tomás Calvo
10
However, ὑπολαμβάνειν generally adds the pejorative nuance of “supposing
erroneously,” as in this specific case. In order to eliminate this pejorative nuance,
an adverb is usually added to it: ὑπολαμβάνειν ὀρθῶς, καλῶς, etc.
11
In this critical consideration of his own first speech, Socrates does not recon-
struct it accurately. In fact, Socrates didn’t locate Eros explicitly within the genus
“madness” (μάνια), but within the genus “desire” (ἐπιθυμία), which became fur-
ther divided into two subgenera: (1) rational desire (σωφροσύνη) and irrational
desire of pleasures (ὕβρις). The last one was finally divided into irrational desire
of (a) food, (b) drink, and (c) bodily beauty (ἔρως). Thus, the genus “madness”
(μάνια) didn’t appear explicitly in the first Socratic speech. (Nevertheless, we
could consider that there is an implicit allusion to madness in the idea of irra-
tionality: ὕβρις).
— 426 —
The Method of Hypothesis and its Connection to Collection/Division Strategies
— 427 —
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Word and Image in Plato
Richard Patterson
— 429 —
Richard Patterson
— 430 —
Word and Image in Plato
— 431 —
Richard Patterson
3
From the point of view of the general framework used here, it is clear that
some (mythical) images incorporate features that are not rationally justified
by anything in their philosophical context, that some myths are more potent
emotionally than others, and that some are provided by characters in a dialogue
with a good deal more accompanying interpretation than others.
— 432 —
Word and Image in Plato
— 433 —
Richard Patterson
has the authority to tell us such things, so that we need neither infer
them nor wonder whether someone is feigning emotion, or lying,
or the like: we simply read them into the image as we construct it.
As a result we can correctly understand and experience the image
as, for example, one of self-possession, courage, or embarrassment.
In the examples just mentioned it is natural to think of Plato or
“Socrates” himself as helping us interpret our picture of Charmides’
entrance into the gymnasium, for example, or the scene at Cephalus’
house. However, there is no need to classify each instance of verbally
given information as exclusively formative or interpretive, for
sometimes the two functions are served simultaneously, and by the
same words. Again, the point is just that appropriate logoi lead us to
construct and understand a verbal image in a certain way; they cause
us to read specific things into the image and hence to experience it
accordingly. In the Laws image, the Athenian explicitly interprets
the “moving specks” for us as human souls, the direction of their
motion as the moral advance or decline of these souls, the larger
system as the result of divine planning and craft, and as guaranteeing
impartial and inescapable (904eff.) justice for all.
— 434 —
Word and Image in Plato
— 435 —
Richard Patterson
— 436 —
Word and Image in Plato
4
For a survey and discussion of the uses of “paradeigma” (and “mimema,”
“eidola,” and the like) in Plato, see R. Patterson, Image and Reality in Plato’s
Metaphysics (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1985).
— 437 —
Richard Patterson
— 438 —
Word and Image in Plato
— 439 —
Richard Patterson
— 440 —
Word and Image in Plato
6
The story, including the difficult task of actually working out the theory of
benzene molecules as closed curves, is well told in Margaret Boden, The Creative
Mind: Myths and Mechanisms (London and New York: Routledge, 2nd edition,
2004), 25–28).
— 441 —
Richard Patterson
— 442 —
Word and Image in Plato
cues that Socrates and company may have provided, or the manner
in which this or that point of analogy has or has not been rationally
justified. If the image-maker has done his job well, all of those things
are read into and seamlessly experienced together in the image,
even if we subsequently adopt a more analytic and critical stance.10
If the latter is considered our sole job we may, for better or worse, dispense
10
with the “experience” of the image and proceed directly to analysis and criticism.
— 443 —
Richard Patterson
human affairs, the other showing that they will not fail to perform
their job well (900c–902b). I will lay out the argument step-by-
step, not because the core of the reasoning is otherwise difficult to
discern, or because of any “technical difficulties” that need to be
pinpointed (although in fact some interesting subtleties have been
consistently overlooked by commentators, including the rather
basic fact that the Athenian actually presents four distinguishable
arguments rather than one), but primarily because this is essential
to our present purpose of investigating the argument’s relation to the
subsequent myth. Examination of the argument is worthwhile also
for the following reasons: first, spelling out the argument reveals the
key role of deilia (lack of spirit, faint-heartedness, cowardice—the
opposite of andreia) in the passage, a notion that is of importance
for Plato’s conception of justice in a manner not made clear in his
“classical” treatment of the topic in Republic IV; second, this is Plato’s
only explicit argument linking the notion of good gods who set the
cosmos at large in order (as shown in the Athenian’s anti-atheist,
“cosmological” argument, Laws 893b–899d), and gods who tend
to the execution of human justice.11
First stage:
1. The gods have the job of managing the cosmos as a whole.
(Previously established in the anti-atheist section; see esp. 900b–d.)
2. Properly taking care of something as a whole requires taking
care of the details or parts of the thing (as established by epagôgê
or “induction” from various crafts, all of which require attention
to detail.)
3. Human affairs, including reward and punishment of good and
evil, are among the details of cosmic management. (This is taken
for granted here, although not yet with emphasis on the smallness
of humans in the grand scheme of things.)
4. Therefore the gods have the job of caring for human affairs,
including reward and punishment of good and evil.
The interesting feature of this stage of the argument is its
assumption that managing the universe is a kind of craft. This
11
These additional aspects of the argument, and especially the last, deserve
serious attention; but that will have to take place “some other time,” as Euthyphro
said to Socrates.
— 444 —
Word and Image in Plato
12
In a manner reminiscent of Diotima’s geneology of erôs in the Symposium
(203b), the Athenian supports this premise of the sub-argument by giving
a comparatively more elaborate “lineage” of deilia: rathumia (negligence,
heedlessness) is the offspring of [hence presupposes] argia (laziness) and truphê
(softness); argia is the offspring of deilia; therefore rathumia is the grandchild of
deilia (901e).
— 445 —
Richard Patterson
— 446 —
Word and Image in Plato
the Laws, the point is not just that the gods ought to perform their
own proper job—which obviously fits the Republic definition of
justice—but that they have the requisite andreia to carry out their
work: they manifest none of the forms of deilia that might prevent
this.
— 447 —
Richard Patterson
power of the myth’s central image and the fact that the myth draws
its cognitive and emotive power primarily from the way in which
it visually captures, integrates, and focuses a series of philosophical
ideas and their underlying rational grounds—as opposed to simply
presenting pictorially and emotionally compelling images to the
philosophically naïve misbeliever.
The single most striking feature of the Athenian’s myth, consid-
ered in light of Plato’s other eschatological myths, is the repeated,
emphatic subordination of individual human fates to a much larger
and more important cosmic design.15 This is not inconsistent with,
say, the cosmology of the Timaeus, where newly-created human souls
“dart up” to their appointed stars and descend into bodies. And it
is true that human souls are left anonymous—as in the Laws—in
some of Plato’s other eschatological myths. But Timaeus devotes a
good half of his account to the design of the human body; moreover,
although the materials used in constructing the human soul are less
pure than those used in the World-Soul, he asserts that some few
humans can, along with the gods, attain to knowledge of reality
(51e). By contrast, although the Athenian adopts Timaeus’ view of
the gods as craftsmen, he radically deflates the Timaeus’ impression
of the role of humans in the grand scheme of things by a decisive
shift of emphasis: from a cosmic perspective, the oversight of human
affairs is only one small detail of the craft-gods’ cosmic duties.16
The myth symbolizes and drives home the point by representing
humans as faceless, nameless, utterly minute (pansmikron) specks
moving silently to their appointed locations in a kind of cosmic
moral space.17
15
Cf. Richard Stalley, “Myth and Eschatology in the Laws,” in Plato’s Myths,
ed. Catalin Partenie (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 198,
though with emphasis on the unified systematicity of the universe rather than
the smallness of the human role within that system.
16
This is not to say that there is no change from the Timaeus other than one
of emphasis. I leave that subtle question almost entirely aside in what follows.
17
The Athenian supports this central image with the strikingly Heracleitean
figure of the gods’ oversight of human justice as a kind of board game. As Charles
Kahn observes, The Art and Thought of Heracleitus (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, l979), 227, “the fundamental thought is not the childlike and
random movements of the game . . . but the fact that these moves follow a definite
rule.” The board game image also reinforces the conception of individual human
— 448 —
Word and Image in Plato
If this is the myth’s most distinctive feature, its most crucial and
probably most controversial assumption is that of individual survival
(and presumably, immortality; 903d, 904e) along with punishment
and reward beyond this world. Certainly our own misbeliever does
not accept any such thing. Having introduced self‑moving motion in
the preceding, anti‑atheist section, and identified such motion with
soul, the Athenian could now have appealed to the sort of argument
for the everlastingness of self-moving motion Socrates presents to
young Phaedrus in the Phaedrus (245c–246a). The Athenian offers
no such argument, but only a fragment of an argument (although one
that will for some readers recall the Phaedrus; see esp. Laws 904a).
In any event, Clinias and Megillus appear to regard this fragment
as convincing not because they understand it, but only because they
trust the Athenian. (Regarding this faith in the Athenian and his
reasoning, see 892d–893a.)
However, the larger context provides significant and more
readily grasped, even if indirect, rational grounds for accepting
individual survival. In short, survival of the soul should appear to
the misbeliever as a means of reconciling his longstanding belief in
the gods with 1) the conclusion which the Athenian’s argument has
just forced him to accept—that the gods oversee human justice—
and 2) his belief that wicked people sometimes escape punishment
in this life. Nowadays one might say that once his initial explana-
tion of the injustice he thinks he observes (“the gods don’t tend to
human affairs”) has been ruled out by the Athenian’s argument,
an alternative explanation based on individual survival and punish-
ment in the hereafter becomes for our misbeliever part of the “best
explanation” of how certain apparently irreconcilable statements
can after all be true together. Of course this is not to say that he
consciously frames the matter in terms of an “inference to the best
explanation.” The point is that the Athenian’s vision allows a basically
— 449 —
Richard Patterson
good person who does believe in the gods and their goodness to see
clearly how certain apparently conflicting facts of life can after all
add up coherently, and in such a way as to avoid the repugnant, but
previously inevitable-seeming, conclusion that the gods do nothing
to guarantee human justice.
But this does raise the question of whether he should accept
this as the best explanation. One important alternative would be
that wickedness is punished and virtue rewarded in this life, so
that individual immortality is simply not needed for the execution
of justice, and the apparent prosperity of the wicked in this life is
a mere illusion. Neither Plato nor the Athenian could blame our
misbeliever for finding this option dubious at best, since it flies in
the face of compelling first-hand evidence and the testimony of
weighty traditional authorities. In the Republic, where the position is
nonetheless explicitly advocated, Socrates gives it the kind of careful
and lengthy defense necessary to make it even remotely plausible.
Laws X, however, contains no such defense.
The Athenian does appear nonetheless to endorse precisely a
“punishment in this life” position in the course of his earlier descrip-
tion of the origin of our second type of impious belief: the lives of
the wicked are not really happy, no matter how extravagantly they
may be praised as such (899e). More important is a striking passage
from the myth itself:
— 450 —
Word and Image in Plato
18
No doubt the notion of reward and punishment in this life will appeal to
some readers of the Laws, and especially to readers of the Republic. This would
open up the possibility of taking metaphorically the Athenian’s talk of souls
moving up and down in the great hereafter, or as simply symbolizing the notion
that birds of a feather flock together. This, too, would be more congenial to
some readers than a story of literal survival of the soul. What the misbeliever
thinks, however, may be quite another matter. Notice in this connection that the
Athenian’s rewards in Laws X, are “consequentialist”; they are not the “intrinsic”
benefits of justice that are Socrates’ (and Glaucon’s) first order of business in the
Republic.
19
There is little or nothing further to be gained by looking at Plato’s more
general use of “logos” and “mythos” in the corpus. See, e.g., Robert Zaslavsky’s
collection of passages in Platonic Myth and Platonic Writing (Washington, DC:
University Press of America, l981). His catalogue is not complete (it omits, for
— 451 —
Richard Patterson
example, our passage from Laws X), but he is right that there is no consistent
pattern of usage, even among passages that expressly contrast logos with mythos,
that might establish any one specific definition of “myth” or any uniform
distinction between myth and logos in Plato. Context is all.
— 452 —
Word and Image in Plato
— 453 —
Richard Patterson
— 454 —
Word and Image in Plato
— 455 —
This page has been intentionally left blank.
PART IV
PLATO AND BEYOND
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Aristotle on the Power of Perception:
Awareness, Self-Awareness
and the Awareness of Others*
Aryeh Kosman
This is an essay about Aristotle’s views on perception as a mode of
human awareness. I begin by offering a description of Aristotle’s
general views on the power of perceptual awareness, but then draw
attention to a feature of such awareness that my description has left
out. This feature is somewhat problematic in Aristotle’s own account;
but inspired by similarities to Plato’s Charmides, I suggest how his
remarks on self-perception help to characterize his understanding.
Finally I turn to Aristotle’s views of our perceptions of ourselves
and of one another.1
In this essay I use “objective” and “objectivity” differently from
the way it is used in most contemporary literature. In saying that
something is objective, I mean that it is like an object relative to
— 459 —
Aryeh Kosman
2
The words “perception” and the family of words that are forms of “perceive”
clearly has this sense of being aware. Think of its etymology in Latin percipere, to
grasp or take-hold of by something or other, that is, by sense or mind (compare
comprehend). And so its first definition in the Oxford English Dictionary: “To
take in or apprehend with the mind or senses,” and its second: “To apprehend
through one of the senses, esp. sight; to become aware of by seeing, hearing, etc.”
But it is easy to forget that fact; a project at Bard College’s Center for Science and
Computation is described in these terms: “We will program small Lego-based
robots to carry out simple tasks. Working as a group, we’ll program one robot
to move toward a light source and another to dance when it perceives sound,”
Mobile Robots at http://science.bard.edu/reem-kayden/opening/. In this essay,
whenever I use forms of “perceive” I mean, unless otherwise indicated (as for
example, in the third paragraph on page 466) being perceptually aware.
— 460 —
Aristotle on the Power of Perception
3
Meanwhile, in a nearby city, Plato’s Theaetetus points to a difference that hides
the complex similarities at which it hints.
— 461 —
Aryeh Kosman
4
The term ὀργανικός is often translated in English editions of Aristotle by
its false friend organic, particularly in its critical appearance in De Anima 2.1,
412b1–6, when the soul is said to be the first actuality of a body that is organic.
Hett, in Hett, Aristotle, De Anima, Parva Naturalia, On Breath, translated by W.
S. Hett (Cambridge MA: Loeb Classical Library, 1964) comes closest to a faithful
rendering with “a body which possesses organs,” and continues with Aristotle’s
listing of parts of plants, which are also said to be organs by virtue of their
functional or instrumental nature. But Aristotle’s point clearly is that the body
itself is an organ, that is, an instrument whose function it is to live. So the organs
of perception (the sense organs) are analogously instruments whose function it is to
enable our awareness of the world’s looks, sounds, tastes and so on.
— 462 —
Aristotle on the Power of Perception
— 463 —
Aryeh Kosman
5
This difference of interest is what perhaps becomes transmuted into our
canonic myth of the struggle between Plato and Aristotle, a struggle illustrated
by Raphael in his (in)famous painting of Plato who points upward and Aristotle
who points downward.
— 464 —
Aristotle on the Power of Perception
6
History of Animals 489a3; Parts of Animals 647a7.
— 465 —
Aryeh Kosman
7
Thinking this way sidesteps the battle between Sorabji and Burnyeat on
the proper articulation of Aristotle’s account. For Aristotle is not here revealing
anything about the nature of the causal physiological events that bring about
perception. He is merely drawing attention to the fact that perception involves
the subject being affected by an object—the object that the perception is a
perception of.
— 466 —
Aristotle on the Power of Perception
as he has just argued, that explaining what these powers are requires
first explaining each of their exercises—one needs to understand
seeing before one understands the power to see—and
3. WHAT’S MISSING?
But if we think of the first part of De Anima 2.12 as explicitly
weaving these features of intentionality and affection into an account
8
That is why the De Anima, as though it were an early version of Athenaeus’
Deipnosophistai (Philosophers at Dinner), turns first to a discussion of food, the
intentional object of an animal’s power of being nourished.
— 467 —
Aryeh Kosman
Deodorizer.
— 468 —
Aristotle on the Power of Perception
— 469 —
Aryeh Kosman
apart from being affected in some way (De Anima 2.12, 424b17–18)?
This just means, to recapitulate: what is there to smelling apart from
being affected by the fragrance of a lavender meadow as my house
can be affected. That question poses a challenge to what I have
called the Affection Theory; it calls into doubt the implicit claim
of the opening lines of chapter 12, the claim that what we have is a
theory of the power of perception, that is, an account of the animal
capacity for perceptual awareness and not merely an account of the
physical interactions between animals and the world.
Aristotle offers what appears to be no answer to this question,
but may perhaps be the most succinct and efficient of answers. He
merely reminds us of the central fact about perception with which
we began: ἢ τὸ μὲν ὀσμᾶσθαι αἰσθάνεσθαι (DA 2.12 424b18)—
is not smelling, after all, a form of awareness. These words make
succinctly clear that perception is not just being affected. It is being
affected in such a way that one is conscious of some object. My room,
in taking on a fragrance, becomes a certain object of smelling, which
is precisely what the makers of room odorizers promise me; I, on the
other hand, in smelling the fragrance, become aware of it, which is
precisely why the makers of room odorizers do what they do.
This response is deceptively simple; it makes clear that percep-
tion is being affected in such a way as to engender awareness; that is
the simple part. But understanding that fact, a fact often called the
hard problem of consciousness,10 understanding what it amounts to
and how to explain it, is not simple. That demands an explanation
of what it means for us that we have experience, or more precisely,
that there is for us a subjective character to our experience.
It is notable that Aristotle focuses on consciousness as a central
feature of his account of perception; discussions of “the problem
of consciousness” so frequently locate the initial discovery and
articulation of that problem, if we may call it that, in the modern
era, rather as though no one prior to that time had noticed that
there were no zombies in the room. But the fact that ὀσμᾶσθαι is
a form of αἰσθάνεσθαι, that smelling, like seeing, hearing, etc. is
— 470 —
Aristotle on the Power of Perception
— 471 —
Aryeh Kosman
— 472 —
Aristotle on the Power of Perception
12
I showed this in the earlier essay I referred to: Kosman “Perceiving.” The
edition I refer to is Torstrik, De Anima Libri III recensuit Adolfus Torstrik,
(Berlin: 1862). The superior manuscript reads οσμασθαιαιαισθανεσθαι.
Trostrik imagines a dropped kappa rather than a reduplicated alpha iota.
13
Torstrik, 160.
14
What that means is that Chalmers’ conceit of zombies who exhibit perceptual
and cognitive discriminations but have no conscious awareness, a conceit by which
Chalmers thinks to defeat “physicalism,” is not one that Aristotle would embrace.
Chalmers, D. J., The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory (New
York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996). It may be that we should wish
to develop an account for awareness roughly analogous to that of Putnam (in
one of his moments) according to which conscious beings are “compositionally
plastic.” But it is far more likely, as I suggest, that Aristotle thinks of perceptual
and cognitive awareness as an essential aspect of the processes of perception and
cognition, and these in turn as essentially the activities of a body of a certain sort.
He might be wrong about the sort, and it might turn out that our allegiance
to carbon, neurons and flesh is misplaced. If future generations develop highly
sophisticated robots (“organisms” may be what they would have to call them) of
silicon and chips, which robots not only behave as if conscious, but report having
conscious experience, would we come to think of them as being aware? Or would
skepticism or “the uncanny valley” experience prove stronger?
— 473 —
Aryeh Kosman
15
I argue further for this in Kosman, “Perceiving.”
16
I think that the argument I have given in an exchange with Thomas
Johansen, an argument appealing to Aristotle’s use of infinite regress, should be
convincing on this point. See my commentary on Johansen, “In Defense of Inner
Sense: Aristotle on Perceiving that One Perceives,” Proceedings of the Boston Area
Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy, vol. 21 (2005): 235–276.
— 474 —
Aristotle on the Power of Perception
— 475 —
Aryeh Kosman
20
All of this constitutes the main thrust of the argument in an essay on the
Charmides that also developed from my early thoughts on the occasion of
this gathering, “Self-knowledge and self-control in Plato’s Charmides,” Self-
knowledge: Proceedings of the Keeling Colloquium 2009, ed F. Leigh (Leiden: Brill,
forthcoming).
— 476 —
Aristotle on the Power of Perception
21
In an essay on Metaphysics 12.9, “Metaphysics L 9: Divine Thought,” in
Aristotle’s Metaphysics Lambda, Symposium Aristotelicum, eds. Michael Frede and
David Charles (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), I trace this reasoning as
part of the dialectic of intentionality and self-awareness in that chapter.
22
I try to set this out in an essay on friendship in the Ethics, “Aristotle on the
Desirability of Friends,” Ancient Philosophy 24 (2004): 135–154.
— 477 —
Aryeh Kosman
— 478 —
Aristotle on the Power of Perception
24
And in passages in the Ethics that I’ve investigated in Kosman, “Desirability.”
— 479 —
Aryeh Kosman
25
Et si aliquando sint suiipsius, sicut cum aliquis sentit se sentire, vel scit
se scire, vel opinatur se opinari, vel meditatur se meditari. Commentary on the
Metaphysics, 12.11.2617.
— 480 —
Aristotle on the Power of Perception
— 481 —
Aryeh Kosman
27
Here I mean the understanding of intention that G. E. M. Anscombe explores
in Intention (Oxford: Blackwell, 1957), rather than that of Michael Bratman in
Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1987), according to which intentions are most revealingly understood as plans
that we formulate in advance of actions. These accounts may not be exclusive
of one another; both may capture the notion of intention. It may be that one is
more revealing or for some reason of greater interest to the philosopher of action
than the other, but we can surely understand how each might capture some
feature of intentional action and therefore how both might lay legitimate claim
to constituting an appropriate account of our notion of intention. I’m interested
here in Anscombe’s because it serves my purposes.
28
This again is an argument of Anscombe, Intention.
— 482 —
Aristotle on the Power of Perception
29
G. E. Moore, “The Refutation of Idealism,” Mind 12 (1903): 433–453.
— 483 —
Aryeh Kosman
So let this be our perception; I see, say, a blue vase. The blue
vase is the object of my perception; if I look at it in a certain way, it
virtually fills the central area of my visual field. But my awareness
of the vase is no part of my visual field. That is of course too easy to
say, and therefore too easy to object to. One can hear the argument
that awareness is not the sort of thing that could be in one’s visual
field; but I mean that my being aware is no part of what I attend
to in the course of my visual experience. Once again, I’m much too
busy attending to the vase to be concerned with my awareness of it.
But now suppose you ask me, “Tell me, grandfather, what is the
content of your consciousness?30 And I answer you, “I am aware of a
blue vase.” (This exchange is taken verbatim from Feigel and Sellars,
Philosophers at Tea.) Notice that when I answer you, I do so with the
same immediacy and with the same lack of independent observation
that the King exhibited responding to the Queen’s question, what
are you doing? Neither the King nor I require such observation; in
both cases our knowledge is available without observation and in
both cases it is that knowledge that makes possible the immediacy
of our response.
I have offered these stories as a possible explanation of what
Aristotle means when he says that an act of ἐπιστήμη or αἴσθησις or
δόξα or διάνοια, although always of something else, is ἐν παρέργῳ
of itself, αὑτῆς. There is no indication, notice, that moments of
self-awareness are separate, or merely occasional, as Thomas’s
aliquando would have us believe. They are aspects of ordinary
awareness, present in a manner distinct from that of the object, but
which we have the power to call up at any moment of being asked,
at the behest of any Queen.
It would be a mistake to confuse the mode of self-awareness
Aristotle is here talking about with what he elsewhere refers to
as perception κατὰ συμβεβηκός; perception κατὰ συμβεβηκός
30
Or you might ask me: “what are you thinking of ” using thinking in the
sense of Descartes’ cogitare, so that the question means: what is the content of
your subjective experience? What are you immediately aware of? That use of
cogitare as most famously (but rarely correctly) noted in the Cogito of Meditation
2 corresponds to Aristotle’s broad use of αἰσθανέσθαι on which my argument
has depended. Does Aristotle sometimes also have this sense of awareness in mind
for nous?
— 484 —
Aristotle on the Power of Perception
But this presence is not objective (as I have used that term);
perception and thought and the like are not primarily about the self.
They are about the things that they are about, the proper objects
— 485 —
Aryeh Kosman
— 486 —
Aristotle on the Power of Perception
— 487 —
Aryeh Kosman
31
I have tried to explore this notion in Kosman, “Desirability.”
— 488 —
Aristotle on the Power of Perception
to Locke’s
— 489 —
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Sympathy, Awareness, and
Belonging to Oneself in Plotinus
D. M. Hutchinson
INTRODUCTION
Consciousness is a central theme in Charles Kahn’s writings on
Aristotle.1 In these seminal papers, he has expressed dissatisfaction
with contemporary theories of consciousness and has advocated a
return to Aristotle in order to avoid the Cartesian framework that
underlies contemporary theories. Kahn and I share a similar view
regarding Plotinus. We hold that Plotinus captures the complex-
ity of consciousness through his emphasis on different kinds of
consciousness taking place in different layers of experience, and
that this multi-layered approach permits us to analyze the concept
of consciousness outside of the Cartesian framework. I dedicate
this paper to him for the extraordinary guidance he offered me
while supervising my doctoral studies and for suggesting the topic
of consciousness in Plotinus to me.2
Plotinus holds that living beings possess a unique type of
consciousness in the sensible world that enables them to function
as structured and coherent wholes.3 This type of consciousness is
1
See Charles H. Kahn, “Sensation and Consciousness in Aristotle’s Psychology,”
Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 48 (1966): 43–81, “Aristotle on Thinking,”
in Essays on Aristotle’s De Anima, ed. Martha C. Nussbaum and Amélie
Oksenberg Rorty (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 359–379, and “Aristotle
versus Descartes on the Concept of the Mental,” in Metaphysics, Soul, and Ethics
in Ancient Thought: Themes from the work of Richard Sorabji, ed. Ricardo Salles
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005), 193–208.
2
See D. M. Hutchinson, “Plotinus on Consciousness: A Multi-Layered
Approach.” PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2009. ProQuest (AAI3381763).
3
“Living being” is a translation of to zoôn. It refers to both animals and humans.
— 491 —
D. M. Hutchinson
Plotinus holds that awareness is a kind—in fact, the only kind—of consciousness
that humans share with animals. See 1.1.11.8–15 for evidence of awareness in
animals.
4
See 5.8.11.32, 3.4.4.11, 4.4.24.21–22, and 5.3.2.4–5.
5
By “immediate” I mean taking place without images. Briefly, Plotinus holds
that apprehension occurs at the level above the qualified body, i.e., discursive
reasoning, and involves images that present psychic activities that occur in parts
of the soul to the attention of the whole soul and present bodily states to the
attention of the soul. For example, see 4.4.17.11–14, 4.8.8.9–12, 4.4.28.36–43,
and 5.3.2.3–6. For a similar view on sunaisthêsis see Pauliina Remes, Plotinus on
Self (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 92–105. Remes provides
a stimulating analysis of sunaisthêsis; however, she does not focus on the close
relationship between sunaisthêsis and sumpatheia.
6
See 4.4.20.22–36 and 4.4.28.
7
See 1.1.10.6–15, 2.3.9.31–32, and 4.4.18.11–21.
8
See 3.4.2.3–5, 4.4.45.40–48, and 6.7.6.18.
— 492 —
Sympathy, Awareness, and Belonging to Oneself in Plotinus
9
Plato writes, “[r]ather let us lay it down that the universe resembles more
closely than anything else that Living Thing of which other living things are
parts, both individually and by kinds. For that Living Thing comprehends
within itself all intelligible living things, just as our world is made up of us and
all the other visible creatures” (Timaeus, 30c5–d1).
10
See 4.7.3.14–35, 4.9.3.24–28, and 5.2.1.18–29; cf. 4.3.23.36–42, 4.4.20.22
–36, and 4.4.28.
11
See 4.4.45.28–30, 2.9.7.28–33, 4.3.12.32–39, 6.4.15.1–29, and 6.7.7.6–
17. For an excellent discussion of this see Pavlos Kalligas, “Eiskrisis, or the
Presence of Soul in the Body: A Plotinian Conundrum,” Princeton Colloquium
in Ancient Philosophy (Princeton University: New Jersey, 2006), 1–32.
— 493 —
D. M. Hutchinson
12
See 2.1.5.21–24; Cf. 1.1.7.14–18 and 5.3.3.
13
References to the Stoics and Epicureans are taken from A. A. Long and D. N.
Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1987; hereafter, LS).
14
See Alexander, On mixture 216,14–218,6 (SVF 2.473; LS 48C).
15
See Galen, On incorporeal qualities 19.483,13–16 (SVF 2.381; LS 45F), and
Galen, On bodily mass 7.525, 9–14 (SVF 2.439; LS 47F).
16
See Nemesius, On the nature of man 70,6–71.4 (LS 47J), and Galen, On
muscular movement 4.402,12–403,10 (SVF 2.450; LS 47K).
17
See Philo, Allegories of the laws 2.22–3 (SVF 2.458; LS 47P) and Philo, God’s
immutability 35–6 (SVF 2.458; LS 47Q).
18
See Nemesius, On the nature of man 81,6–10 (SVF 2.790; LS 45C), and
Alexander, On mixture 216,14–218,6 (SVF 2.473; LS 48C).
— 494 —
Sympathy, Awareness, and Belonging to Oneself in Plotinus
19
This is the Epicurean view. See Julia Annas, Hellenistic Philosophy of Mind
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 47 and 147.
20
See Alexander, On mixture 216,14–218,6 (SVF 2.473; LS 48C).
— 495 —
D. M. Hutchinson
21
I am thankful to Susan Sauvé-Meyer for pointing this out to me.
22
Hierocles makes this point clear at Elements IV.32–53.
23
Breath, tensile movement, and sympathy function similarly on a cosmic
scale, since the Stoics hold that the cosmos is a living being modeled on an
organism.
24
See 4.2.2 and 4.7.6–7. Cf. E. K. Emilsson, “Plotinus and Soul-Body
Dualism,” in Companions to Ancient Thought 2: Psychology, ed. Stephen Everson
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 148–165.
25
See 3.6.1–5. Cf. John Dillon, “Plotinus the First Cartesian?” Hermathena
149 (1990): 19–31.
— 496 —
Sympathy, Awareness, and Belonging to Oneself in Plotinus
not even exist without souls, whatever unity, structure, and coherence
bodies possess must come from a higher level.26
26
See 4.2.1 and 4.7.3. It should be noted that the world soul is a transcendent
organizing principle. The image it projects onto matter, i.e., nature, is the
immanent principle involved in the formation of bodies. See 4.3.4.22–30,
4.3.11.8–13, 4.4.13, 2.2.1.39–40, 2.3.1.8–25, and 3.8.1–5.
27
See 4.5.1, 4.5.3, 4.5.5.28–31, 4.4.40–41, and 4.9.3.1–9. Cf. E. K Emilsson,
Plotinus on Sense-Perception: A Philosophical Study (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1988), ch. 3.
28
Cf. 4.4.35.8–10 and 4.5.8.17–19.
— 497 —
D. M. Hutchinson
bodies in the same way a living being feels what happens in its
toes and fingers. Each is sympathetic to itself (sumpathes heautô).
Similarly Plotinus holds that awareness unites the parts of the All
in the same way it unites the parts of living beings. In other words,
the All is aware of its bodily parts and activities just like we are
aware of ours. He writes, “we must grant [the All] self-awareness
(sunaisthêsin), just as we are aware (sunaisthanometha) of ourselves,
but not sense perception (aisthêsin), which is of something different”
(4.4.24.21–24).29 Sense-perception requires a sense organ capable
of being affected by an external object different from the organ.
Since the All is a whole that contains all living beings within it
and nothing exists outside of it, it cannot perceive external objects.
However, the All can perceive itself or be aware of itself because it
is united in sympathy.
Sunaisthêsis and sumpatheia are so closely related that Plotinus
occasionally uses them in a nearly indistinguishable manner. This
occurs patently in a discussion of magic and prayer at 4.4.40–45.
In chapters 40–44 Plotinus claims that the efficacy of magic and
prayer lies in the natural agreement between like things and natural
disagreement between unlike things brought on by the sympathy of
the All. For example, magicians can join one soul to another due to
the fact that souls are like, love is a force that naturally binds souls
together, and spells and charms are naturally suited to attracting
souls to one another due to the forces of attraction present in them.
Were the magician outside of the All, the spells and charms of his
magical art would no longer work due to the lack of attraction
between parts of the All. In chapter 45 Plotinus draws an analogy
between the All and individual living beings, and states that each
part of the All contributes to the whole according to its nature and
disposition in the same way that each part of an individual living
being contributes to the whole according to its nature and disposi-
tion. Then instead of saying something like “all is sympathetic to all,”
which is what we would expect Plotinus to say, he says, “kai hoion
sunaisthêsis pantos pros pan” (8–9). Why would Plotinus suddenly
mention sunaisthêsis in a context where we would expect sumpatheia?
29
Cf. 3.8.4.14–22.
— 498 —
Sympathy, Awareness, and Belonging to Oneself in Plotinus
— 499 —
D. M. Hutchinson
agree that Plotinus uses these terms in a way that supports their
view in other contexts. For example, in 4.5.1–5 Plotinus explains
how sight and hearing depend upon the universal sympathy of the
All. Neither vision nor hearing depend upon a physical medium
for their occurrence because the world soul constructs the sense
organs in such a way that they are in a community of affection
(homopatheia) with sense objects (4.5.1.4–12). In the context of
sight Plotinus says, “it looks as if any kind of perceiving depends
upon the fact that the living being—this All—is in sympathy
(sumpathes) with itself” (4.5.3.19–21; cf. 36–38). And in the context
of hearing Plotinus says, “the line of enquiry has been much the
same here as in the case of sight, since the experience of hearing is
a type of awareness (sunaisthêseôs tinos) of the sort that occurs in
a living being” (4.5.5.27–31). Plotinus is clearly using sunaisthêsis
interchangeably with sumpatheia here, since there is no substantial
difference between seeing and hearing that would require him
to use sunaisthêsis with respect to the latter and sumpatheia with
respect to the former. However, I disagree that Plotinus is doing
this in 4.4.45.8–10.
F. M. Schroeder disagrees with Schwyzer and Graeser and
proposes an alternative view. He claims that Plotinus employs two
vocabularies to explain the relationship between sensible and intelli-
gible reality, an ontological one characterized by sunousia and an
epistemological one characterized by sunaisthêsis and sunesis. In the
context of the passages I have commented on, such as 4.4.24.21–
24 and 4.4.45.8–10, Schroeder states “sunaisthêsis is the cognitive
equivalent of sumpatheia.”32 It appears that he means two things
by “cognitive equivalent”: (i) that the sunaisthêsis of individual
living beings is grounded in the sumpatheia of the cosmos; (ii) that
sunaisthêsis does in individual living beings what sumpatheia does in
the cosmos, i.e., it provides unity and coherence. I fully agree that
the awareness living beings have is grounded in the sympathy of the
cosmos. However, I disagree that sunaisthêsis does in individual living
beings what sumpatheia does in the cosmos because sumpatheia and
— 500 —
Sympathy, Awareness, and Belonging to Oneself in Plotinus
— 501 —
D. M. Hutchinson
— 502 —
Sympathy, Awareness, and Belonging to Oneself in Plotinus
— 503 —
D. M. Hutchinson
— 504 —
Sympathy, Awareness, and Belonging to Oneself in Plotinus
39
Cf. 6.4.2.18–20 and 6.4.4.22–32.
— 505 —
D. M. Hutchinson
being and bodies; souls, however, are more unified than inherent
forms.40 What does this have to do with the quoted passages?
The significance of the first passage lies in its denial that
common feeling can belong to inherent forms and bodies. As I
outlined above, Plotinus holds that both souls and inherent qualities
are “divisible in the sphere of bodies” (4.1.1). The key difference,
for our purposes, is that souls are present as a whole in all the parts
of bodies because souls are unitary substances, whereas inherent
qualities are divided into as many parts as bodies because inherent
qualities are mere images of the formative principles (logoi) in Soul.
Consequently, souls have a “community with respect to common
feeling” because they are present as a whole in all the parts of the
body, whereas colors and shapes lack a “community with respect
to a common feeling” because they differ in each part of the body
in which they are present. For example, the soul that is present in
all five of my sense organs is the same in form and one in number.
This explains why I can have a common feeling that involves all the
sense organs. By contrast, the color brown that is present in all my
hair is the same in form but not in number. Each instantiation of
brown is distinct, and is as unrelated to the other instantiations as
the individual hairs are to each other. This explains why the browns
in each hair lack a “common feeling” with each other (6.4.1.18–29).
This deficiency of inherent qualities holds for bodies, too, since they
are even lower on the scale of divisibility (4.1.1). So bodies lack a
“community with respect to common feeling” even more so than
inherent qualities.
The significance of the second passage lies in its denial that
common feeling could be explained bottom-up. Plotinus is consid-
ering an objection to his view that soul delivers formative princi-
ples into matter, which organizes it into qualified bodies.41 The
imaginary objector is an Epicurean philosopher. The Epicureans
maintain that the soul is corporeal and is constituted by a blend
of the types of atoms that are constitutive of heat, air, wind, and
a fourth type that is ultra-fine and responsible for sensation, the
40
I am thankful to Pavlos Kalligas for helping me understand Ennead 4.2.1.
41
See 4.7.2.16–26 and 4.7.3.13–35.
— 506 —
Sympathy, Awareness, and Belonging to Oneself in Plotinus
42
See Lucretius, On the Nature of Things 3.262–322 (LS 14D).
43
See Lucretius, On the Nature of Things 2.865–990.
44
See Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus 63–67 (LS 14A1).
45
Lloyd Gerson also notices this. See Gerson, Plotinus, 129.
— 507 —
D. M. Hutchinson
sensible world like rays of light (6.4.7–9). In this context, the “true
All” refers to intelligible being, whereas “the All” refers to the image
of intelligible being, “the nature of this visible universe” (6.4.2.2).
Plotinus often uses light as a metaphor to describe the presence of
intelligible being to the sensible world or the presence of soul to body.
This is because he views light as an incorporeal activity that is present
as a whole in the all the parts of a given space of air without itself
being divisible or affected, and illumines bodies without taking on
bodily affections.46 However, he rejects the idea that intelligible being
is present to the sensible world along the lines of individual powers
being present to individual bodies, like rays of light. The problem with
the analogy between powers and rays of light, for Plotinus, is that it
implies (i) that the powers in the sensible world are weaker than their
source in the way that rays of light are weaker than their source, (ii)
that intelligible being is not present in all the powers everywhere as a
whole, and consequently (iii) that the powers are subject to divisibility.
On this supposition, there would be no room for awareness, since the
powers would be subject to divisibility and therefore not united in
common feeling. Although this passage specifically concerns the true
All, there is no harm in applying its central claim to the case of living
beings given the numerous analogies he draws between living beings
and the All. These three passages enable us to conclude that awareness
can only inhere in living beings whose parts display a community with
respect to common feeling. Without sumpatheia there would not be a
unified subject in which sunaisthêsis could occur; without sunaisthêsis
there would not be the recognition that the bodily parts and activities
that constitute this subject are one’s own or belong to oneself.
Plotinus holds that all living beings strive towards the One
and even strive to be the One rather than what they are.47 The
One is primarily self-sufficient because it does not stand in need
of being completed by anything external to itself.48 What living
beings strive towards and strive to become is self-sufficient, which
46
See 1.1.4.13–18 and 4.5.6–7.
47
See 6.2.11.21–29, 6.6.1, and 6.8.13.12–15.
48
See 6.8.13.12–13, 6.9.6.16–26, 5.4.1.11–15, 5.6.2.15–17, 5.3.17.6–14,
5.4.1.12–25, and 6.7.38.23–25.
— 508 —
Sympathy, Awareness, and Belonging to Oneself in Plotinus
CONCLUSION
I claimed at the beginning of this paper that sumpatheia is an
objective phenomenon because it involves a multitude of bodily
parts and activities becoming a unified whole, whereas sunaisthêsis
is a subjective phenomenon because it involves recognizing that the
bodily parts and activities that constitute this whole are one’s own
or belong to oneself. The distinction is subtle, but important. What
I mean by this is that being a unified whole is something that can
be understood by appealing to the facts of living beings (Plotinian
“facts,” of course): a living being is a compound of soul and body;
an ensouled body is unified due to the unity of soul; the soul that
informs the body is an image of a higher soul that exists in the
intelligible world; the causal process by which the higher soul casts
an image of itself onto body is double activity, where double activity
means that for every being there is an internal activity that belongs
to the being and constitutes its nature, and an external activity that
flows from the being and communicates its properties on a lower
level in the form of an image; and so forth.
49
See 4.4.18.21–22 and 5.3.13.19–22.
50
See 5.6.5.1–2, 5.3.13.12–22, and 6.7.41.22–29.
51
After writing this I came across Gary M. Gurtler, Plotinus: The Experience of
Unity, (New York: Peter Lang, 1989), chs. 2–3. Although I arrived at my view
independently, it should be noted that Gurtler provides an analysis of sumpatheia
and sunaisthêsis similar to my own.
— 509 —
D. M. Hutchinson
However, being aware that the bodily parts and activities that
constitute this whole belong to oneself or are one’s own is not
something that can be understood by simply appealing to the facts
of living beings. Nothing from the above list of facts will help one
understand why the bodily parts and activities of which I am aware
are mine or why the cosmic parts and activities of which the world
soul is aware are its. These are experiences that necessarily belong
to the world soul and to me respectively, and can be understood
only by undergoing its and my experiences.
— 510 —
Moral Conscience: Contributions to
the Idea in Plato and Platonism
Richard Sorabji
It is a great pleasure to write in honor of Charles Kahn, from whom
I first learnt when he wrote a seminal paper about Aristotle in
1966, and who invariably brings out the very general interest of
whatever he discusses across a huge range of topics and authors, so
that conversations with him are always of the highest value. In the
present book, his work on the Presocratics and Plato has been chosen
for celebration, so I shall select the Platonist aspects of some work
I have been doing on the idea of moral conscience.1
I think that the Greeks and Romans played a vital role in the
development of the concept of conscience which Christianity took
over and developed differently for its own purposes. Although the
Hebrew Old Testament provides thrilling examples of what we
should call conscience, notably in King David’s remorse for acquir-
ing Bathsheba by arranging the death of her husband, these use for
conscience only the general word for heart, the seat of many different
emotions. The few references to conscience in English versions of
the Old Testament come from the ancient Greek translation of the
Hebrew. This is not necessarily to say that the Hebrew writers lacked
the concept. They could have had it without the word, but it was
the Greek word that stimulated Paul’s discussions of conscience in
the New Testament. It has been suggested that it may have been the
1
I am drawing on Richard Sorabji, “Graeco-Roman Origins of the Idea of
Moral Conscience,” delivered to the Oxford Patristics Conference of 2007, in
Studia Patristica 44-49 (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 361–384. I also hope to write
a book to include the development of the concept of moral conscience in later
centuries up to the present.
— 511 —
Richard Sorabji
2
C. A. Pierce, Conscience in the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1955).
— 512 —
Moral Conscience: Contributions to the Idea in Plato and Platonism
— 513 —
Richard Sorabji
— 514 —
Moral Conscience: Contributions to the Idea in Plato and Platonism
9
E. R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1956), ch. 2, “From shame culture to guilt culture.”
— 515 —
Richard Sorabji
10
Plato, Apology 21b4 and 22d1 (Socrates’ claim to know nothing in the sec-
ond passage supports my interpretation of the first as expressing awareness of not
being wise, rather than mere non-awareness of being wise. I thank Christopher
Taylor for the query); Phaedrus 235c7 (aware of own ignorance in all three pas-
sages so far); Symposium 216a3; b3 (aware of self-neglect and mistaken disobedi-
ence to Socrates); Republic 331a2 (aware of no injustice in self ); Republic 607c6
(aware that seduced by poetry [reading: hautois]); Laws 773b1 (aware that undu-
ly hasty and precipitate); Ion 553c5 (aware that others say I speak well only about
Homer, in which case I may lack the art of literary criticism); Theaetetus 206a2
(aware of youthful attempts to distinguish letters [a weakness, not a fault]); Laws
870d2 (sharing someone else’s guilty knowledge, which he also shares with him-
self, of cowardice or injustice).
11
Plato, Apology 34b5; Euthyphro 4c; Symposium 193e4; Protagoras 348b7.
— 516 —
Moral Conscience: Contributions to the Idea in Plato and Platonism
12
Plato, Apology 31d–32a (a voice, only opposes); Apology 40a–c; Phaedrus
242b–c (opposition).
13
Xenophon, Recollections of Socrates 1.1.4 (orders to do or not to do). Vlastos
sees Xenophon’s account as differing in this from Plato’s, in his Socrates, Ironist
and Moral Philosopher (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991).
14
Xenophon, Recollections 1.3.4.
15
Seneca, On the Shortness of Life 10.3; Olympiodorus, On Plato’s First Alcibiades
23, 2–7, ed. L. G. Westerink.
16
Euripides, Hippolytus 380–387, as analyzed by B. Williams, Shame and Ne-
cessity, 95; Galen, On the Errors and Passions of the Soul, Scripta Minora, Vol.
1, ed. J. Marquardt, ch. 2, 4.11–5.2; ch. 3, 6.17–7.1; Pseudo-Aristotle, Magna
Moralia 2.15, 1213a13–26.
— 517 —
Richard Sorabji
17
Apuleius, On Socrates’ Daemon 16; Olympiodorus, On Plato’s First Alcibiades
23, 2–7, ed. L. G. Westerink.
18
Plato, Timaeus 90a–d.
19
Plutarch, On the daemon of Socrates 591e–592b.
20
Roslyn Weiss, Socrates Dissatisfied (New York: Oxford University Press,
1998), 17–23.
— 518 —
Moral Conscience: Contributions to the Idea in Plato and Platonism
merely thinking that one hears them. The statement contacts one
simply through what is indicated (to dêloumenon) by the thinker
and by what is thought (to noêthen). The air signals (ensêmainetai)
the statement by means of what is thought (to noêthen). These
thoughts do not need verbs or nouns. Rather, like light, they produce
a reflection in the receiver.21 Later Platonists agree. Calcidius in
the fourth century ce says that in dreams, when we think we hear
voice and speech, there is in fact only meaning (significatio) doing
the duty of voice, and that is how, when awake, Socrates divined
the presence of the daemon, by the token of a vivid sign.22 Both
authors suggest that the daemon communicates pure meaning (to
dêloumenon, to noêthen, significatio), although the meaning is not
yet said itself to be a language. Proclus in the fifth century returns
to the analogy of light, saying that light is received in the tenuous
material (not flesh) that provides a vehicle for our souls, and by
that route reaches the fleshly sense organs and is recognized by
self-perception (synaisthêsis).23
Augustine, who could have had access to Calcidius’ Latin,
discussed how God speaks to us and denied that the process involves
figures appearing (this is all he meant by denying the comparison
with dreams). On the other hand, there is no ordinary hearing
either. Rather, God speaks to those who can hear with the mind
(mens) by means of the truth itself (ipsa veritate).24 Truth here does
the work of meaning in Plutarch and Calcidius.
21
Plutarch, On the daemon 588b–589d.
22
Calcidius, Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus, ch. 255, p. 288.
23
Proclus, Commentary on Plato’s First Alcibiades 80.
24
Augustine, City of God 11.2. I thank David Robertson for first drawing my
attention to this discussion.
— 519 —
Richard Sorabji
25
“Philoponus,” On Aristotle On the Soul, Book 3, Commentaria in Aristote-
lem Graeca, Vol. 15, 465, 7–17. For Philoponus and Damascius on the attentive
faculty, see Richard Sorabji, The Philosophy of the Commentators, 200–600 AD, A
Sourcebook, Vol. 1, Psychology (London: Duckworth, 2005), ch. 4 (c).
26
Damascius, Lectures on Plato’s Phaedo I, para. 271, ed. L. G. Westerink,
162–163.
— 520 —
Moral Conscience: Contributions to the Idea in Plato and Platonism
emotion that the union actually purifies the priests from emotion
(katharsis pathôn). As regards our appeasing (exhilasis) God’s wrath
(mênis), Iamblichus uses the analogy of our stepping out of the
light.27 Appeasement is not to be seen in a conventional way. It is
our stepping back into the light. Simplicius, the Neoplatonist of
the sixth century ce, goes even further. He asks why it is thought
that God is persuaded to change his mind (metapeithesthai) and to
pardon those who go astray (sunginôskein hamartanousin) by means
of gifts, votive offerings, prayers, benefactions, and supplications.
Simplicius denies that this is what happens. God is not even angry
(orgizetai), nor does he turn away from us when we go astray, or
turn back when we repent (metamelomenôn). Rather it is we who
have turned away. The analogy is with a man who allows his boat
to slip away from the rock to which it had been tethered. Acts of
repentance help to bring him back again to the rock, and assimi-
lation to God (ideally even union) was the Platonist ideal. But the
rock is meanwhile unmoved. The goal of our repentance is to be
purified (katharsis) and embrace virtue. Those who are genuinely
repentant are corrected more quickly because of the sharp wounds
of conscience (to suneidos).28
An earlier Christian view had gone only some of the way in
this direction. Lactantius in the fourth century ce had said in On
the Anger of God that God’s anger is not an emotional disturbance
like ours, but he can be angry (irascitur), and we can give him
satisfaction (satisfactio). He can be appeased (placabilis, placatur),
but “he is appeased not by incense, not by a sacrificial victim, not
by precious gifts, which are all perishable things, but by a reformed
way of life (morum emendatione).” In his Divine Institutes, Lactantius
sees reform as one of two benefits deriving from repentance. The
other benefit is God’s remission of sins, where remission is unlike
forgiveness, in that it erases sins from the ledger, instead of continu-
ing to acknowledge them. This is more suitable to an unemotional
27
Iamblichus, Mysteries of the Egyptians 1.12–13, pp. 40, 16–43, 15, ed.
E. Des Places, replying to Porphyry’s fragmentary Letter to Anebo (quoted here
and edited by A. R. Sodano).
28
Simplicius, Commentary on Epictetus’ Handbook, ch. 38, lines 674–703, in
I. Hadot = ch. 31, 107, 15–22, ed. F. Dübner.
— 521 —
Richard Sorabji
God, and it calls only for the Stoic virtue of mercy or clemency,
which is not an emotion. God, he says, with his great indulgence
(indulgentissimus) and mercy (clementia), will remit, obliterate, and
condone sins and abolish the stain (remittere, obliterare, condonare,
labem abolere). Hence we should purify our conscience (conscien-
tia) by opening it to God.29 The Platonists would not think that
Lactantius went far enough with his idea that God’s anger involves
no emotional disturbance. God for Simplicius is free from anger,
and it is up to us to re-assimilate ourselves to God.
29
Lactantius, On the Anger of God 21; Divine Institutes 6:24 1–5 and 20–29.
30
Cicero, On Ends 2.16.53, 2.22.71; Seneca, Letters 97, 15–16; Lucretius, On
the Nature of Things 3.1010–1024.
31
Cicero, On Ends 1.16.51.
— 522 —
Moral Conscience: Contributions to the Idea in Plato and Platonism
32
Seneca, On Benefits 7.1.7; frg. 24 Haase (=Vottero 89) from Lactantius,
Divine Institutes 6:24.12; Letters 41, 1–2; 83, 1–2.
33
Epictetus, Discourses 1.14.11–15.
34
Seneca, Letters 6.5–6; 52, 1–4.
35
Seneca, Letters 11.8–10; 25.5–6; 32.1; 83.1–2.
36
Seneca, Letters 95.72; 104.21–2; On Leisure 1.1, On the Shortness of Life
14.5; Epictetus, Handbook 33.12.
37
Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Part III, ch. 1.
38
Philodemus, Rhetoric II, frg. 11, lines 1–9, (Sudhaus), 139–140.
39
Philodemus, De morte 34. 35 (Kuyper). I thank David Armstrong and
Benjamin Henry for showing me this text and the latest emendations of it.
40
Philodemus, On Frank Criticism, frg. 41.
41
Philodemus, On Frank Criticism, col. XIIa, line 5.
— 523 —
Richard Sorabji
sor quickly turns away from assisting the student who is slipping
up, the student’s swelling (sunoidêsis) will subside.42 Why should
professorial neglect make a swelling subside? This makes no sense,
and an emendation suggested a long time ago by C. J. Vooys should
be accepted. Suneidêsis (conscience) differs from sunoidêsis (swelling)
by only the one letter “e,” which, in Greek as in English, looks very
like an “o.” Moreover, four short lines later the related verb syneidenai
appears. It makes perfect sense that the student’s conscience will
become less intense, if the professor does not attend to criticism and
help of the right sort, and this gives us a picture of the Epicurean
school in Athens at the time of Philodemus’ teacher, Zeno of Tarsus,
in the second century bce, wanting to develop the consciences of
its students through a process of confession and carefully tailored,
but frank, criticism.
42
Philodemus, On Frank Criticism, frg. 67. I thank David Sider for showing
me the emendation.
43
Heraclitus, frg. 114 (Diels-Kranz).
44
Sophocles, Antigone 450–457.
45
Aristotle, Rhetoric 1.13, 1373b4–17.
— 524 —
Moral Conscience: Contributions to the Idea in Plato and Platonism
46
Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods 1.14.36.
47
Cicero, On Laws 1.6.18; 1.7.23; 1.12.33; 2.4.8. On the Republic 3.22.33.
48
Cicero, On Duties 3.19–21; 23; 27–28; 52–53; 69.
49
Seneca, Letters 95.51–53.
50
Lactantius, Divine Institutes 6.24.20–29.
— 525 —
Richard Sorabji
51
Romans 2:14–15.
52
Isaiah 51:7a; Jeremiah 38:33 (LXX). I thank Josef Lössl for the references.
— 526 —
Moral Conscience: Contributions to the Idea in Plato and Platonism
53
1Corinthians 8:7–13.
54
1Corinthians 4:4.
55
Philo, Every good man is free 46. Von Arnim Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta 3.
360 gives this as a Stoic fragment, but the Stoic human mind was not immortal.
56
Origen, Against Celsus I 4; On Romans VI 8 (PG 14, 1080A–81A).
— 527 —
Richard Sorabji
of reason, but he certainly has the idea that people may have the law
in their hearts and in their conscience but be unwilling to read it.57
57
Augustine, Letters 157.15 (PL 33, 681); Enarratio in Psalmos 57.1 (PL 36,
673).
58
Origen, Commentary on Romans VI 8 (PG 14, 1080A–81A).
59
Seneca, On Anger 3.36, cf. Letters 28.9–10; 41,1–2; 83.1–2.
60
Epictetus, Discourses 4.6.35.
61
Origen, frg. On Psalms IV, from René Cadiou, Commentaires inédits
des Psaumes (Paris: Société d’Edition “Les Belles Lettres,” 1936), 74; Origen,
Selections on the Psalms IV (PG 12, 1144B–45B), drawing on the Pythagorean
Golden Verses, lines 40–44.
— 528 —
Moral Conscience: Contributions to the Idea in Plato and Platonism
62
Epictetus, Discourses 2.11.1–15.
63
Origen, Against Celsus 1.4.
— 529 —
This page has been intentionally left blank.
About the Contributors
— 531 —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
— 532 —
About the Contributors
— 533 —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
— 534 —
About the Contributors
— 535 —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
— 536 —
About the Contributors
Ancient (with Julia Annas), and The Cambridge History of Greek and
Roman Political Thought (with M. Schofield).
— 537 —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
— 538 —
BIBLIOGRAPHY
— 539 —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
— 540 —
Bibliography
— 541 —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
— 542 —
Bibliography
— 543 —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
— 544 —
Bibliography
— 545 —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
— 546 —
Bibliography
— 547 —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
— 548 —
Bibliography
— 549 —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
— 550 —
Bibliography
— 551 —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
— 552 —
Bibliography
— 553 —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
— 554 —
Bibliography
— 555 —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
— 556 —
Bibliography
— 557 —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
— 558 —
Bibliography
— 559 —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
— 560 —
Bibliography
— 561 —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
— 562 —
Bibliography
— 563 —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
— 564 —
INDEX LOCORUM
Aelian Thesmophoriazousae
Varia Historia 477, 514n7
X 13 = Fr. B44 DK, 121 Wasps
703–712, 354
Alexander 999–1002, 514n7
On Mixture
216,14–218,6: 494n14, Aristotle
494n18, 495n20 Fragments
194, 136n31
Anaxagoras (DK59) 195, 140; 141
B6, 95 201, 101
B12, 95
Eudemian Ethics
Anaximander (DK12) 1244b24–26, 487
A10, 90 History of Animals
489a3, 465n6
Anonymous, 3rd century CE Metaphysics
De viribus herbarum, 45 I 5, 987a15–20, 198n36
I 6, 987b19–21, 199
Antiphon
I 6, 987b29–33, 414n2
Orations I 6, 988a14–15, 199
6. 47, 122 I 9, 991a20–22, 390n41
IV, 1005b6ff., 195
Apuleius
IV, 1003b19ff., 198n37
On Socrates’ Daemon VII 15, 1040a31, 34
16, 518n17 XII 7, 1072b19–20, 485
XII 9, 477n21
Thomas Aquinas XII 9, 1074b34, 477
Commentary on the Metaphysics XII 9, 1074b35–38, 480
12.11.2617, 480n25 XI, 1061b34ff., 195
XIV, 1091b14–15, 199
Aristophanes
Meteorology
Knights
II 2, 354b33ff., 5
184, 514n7
— 565 —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
— 566 —
Index Locorum
— 567 —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
— 568 —
Index Locorum
— 569 —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
Helen Olympiodorus
57, 365 On Plato’s First Alcibiades
Panegyricus 23, 2–7: 517n15, 518n17
150, 353–354
Origen
Lactantius Against Celsus
Divine Institutes I 4, 527n56, 529n63
6:24. 1–5, 522n29 Commentary on Romans
6:24.12, 523n32 VI 8, 527n56, 528n58
6:24. 20–29, 522n29, 525n50 fr. On Psalms IV, 528n61
6:25.12–17, 513n3 Selections on the Psalms IV,
On the Anger of God 528n61
21, 522n29
Orphica, Hymni
Lucretius 54.10, 34
On the Nature of Things (De Rerum
Natura) Ovid
1.62–79, 70n15 Metamorphoses
1.84–101, 70n15 15. 98, 137–138
1.726–733, 69 15. 113–115, 138
1.726–740, 76n31
2.865–990, 507n43 Parmenides (DK28)
3.262–322, 507n42 A37, 37
3.894–908, 69 B1.10, 55
3.933–949, 69 B1.3, 55
3.955–962, 69 B8.51, 392n3
3.1010–1024, 522n30 B8.56–58, 39
5.91–104, 69n12 B8.59, 39, 55n61, 103–104
5.226, 70n15 B9.1, 37, 55
5.662, 14n27 B9.3, 44, 55
6.92–95, 69 B10.2–3, 56
B10.4, 54
Marcus Aurelius B12.3, 37
Meditations B12.4–5, 37
VI 30, 514n6 B14, 25, 26, 27, 28–30, 32, 33,
35n28, 39, 40, 48, 54n58, 56,
Nemesius 57, 57n63
On the nature of man B15, 25, 26, 27, 27n7, 28n8, 33,
70, 6–71.4 (LS 47J), 494n16 40n40, 48, 50, 52, 57, 57n63
81, 6–10 (SVF 2.790; LS B15a (dubiously attested), 40n40
45C), 494n18 B16.1, 37
B18.1, 37
B18.3–5, 37
— 570 —
Index Locorum
— 571 —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
— 572 —
Index Locorum
— 573 —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
— 574 —
Index Locorum
— 575 —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
— 576 —
Index Locorum
— 577 —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
— 578 —
Index Locorum
— 579 —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
— 580 —
Index Locorum
Seneca Thucydides
On Anger The Peloponnesian War
3.36, 513n5, 528n59 3.38.5, 354
On Benefits 5.100, 358n16
6.69, 481n26
2.33.2–3, 513n5
4.11.3, 513n5 Xenophanes (DK21)
4.12.4, 513n5 A32, 9
7.1.7, 523n32 A33, 9
On Leisure A38, 9
1.1, 523n36 A41a, 9
Letters B7, 71n17
6.5–6, 523n34
11.8–10, 523n35 Xenophon
25.5–6, 523n35 Memorabilia
28.9–10, 528n59 1.1.16, 356
32.1, 523n35 1.2.1, 355
41.1–2, 523n32, 528n59 1.5.4, 355n10
47.17, 351 1.5.5, 357
52.1–4, 523n34 4.5.2–5, 356
71.76, 513n5 Recollections of Socrates
83.1–2, 523n32, 523n35, 1.1.4, 517n13
528n59 1.3.4, 517n14
95.51–53, 525n49
95.72, 523n36 Pseudo-Xenophon
97.15–16, 522n30 Constitution of the Athenians,
104.21–22, 523n36 118–123
On the Shortness of Life 1.1, 120
10.3, 517n15 1.12, 121
14.5, 523n36 3.1, 120–121
3.4–6, 122
Sextus Empiricus 3.12–13, 123
Adv. Math.
IX 54, 116
— 581 —
This page has been intentionally left blank.
GENERAL INDEX
— 584 —
General Index
— 586 —
General Index
— 587 —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
— 589 —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
— 590 —
General Index
— 591 —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
— 592 —
General Index
— 593 —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
— 595 —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
— 596 —
General Index
— 597 —
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift in Honor of Charles Kahn
— 599 —
This page has been intentionally left blank.
• ALSO AVAILABLE FROM PARMENIDES PUBLISHING •
PRE-SOCRATICS
By Being, It Is: The Thesis of Parmenides by Néstor-Luis Cordero
To Think Like God: Pythagoras and Parmenides. The Origins of Philosophy.
Scholarly and fully annotated edition by Arnold Hermann
The Illustrated To Think Like God: Pythagoras and Parmenides. The Origins
of Philosophy by Arnold Hermann with over 200 full color illustrations.
The Legacy of Parmenides: Eleatic Monism and Later Presocratic Thought by
Patricia Curd
Parmenides and the History of Dialectic: Three Essays by Scott Austin
Parmenides, Venerable and Awesome: Proceedings of the International
Symposium edited by Néstor-Luis Cordero
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Charles Kahn edited
by Richard Patterson, Vassilis Karasmanis, and Arnold Hermann
The Route of Parmenides: Revised and Expanded Edition, With a New
Introduction, Three Supplemental Essays, and an Essay by Gregory Vlastos by
Alexander P. D. Mourelatos
The Fragments of Parmenides: A Critical Text with Introduction and
Translation, the Ancient Testimonia and a Commentary by A. H. Coxon.
Revised and Expanded Edition edited with new Translations by Richard
McKirahan and a new Preface by Malcolm Schofield
PLATO
God and Forms in Plato by Richard D. Mohr
Image and Paradigm in Plato’s Sophist by David Ambuel
Interpreting Plato’s Dialogues by J. Angelo Corlett
One Book, the Whole Universe: Plato’s Timaeus Today edited by Richard D.
Mohr and Barbara M. Sattler
The Philosopher in Plato’s Statesman by Mitchell Miller
Platonic Patterns: A Collection of Studies by Holger Thesleff
Plato’s Late Ontology: A Riddle Resolved by Kenneth M. Sayre
Plato’s Parmenides: Text, Translation & Introductory Essay by Arnold
Hermann. Translation in collaboration with Sylvana Chrysakopoulou with
a Foreword by Douglas Hedley
Plato’s Universe by Gregory Vlastos
Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Charles Kahn edited
by Richard Patterson, Vassilis Karasmanis, and Arnold Hermann
A Stranger’s Knowledge: Statesmanship, Philosophy, and Law in Plato’s
Statesman by Xavier Márquez
ARISTOTLE
One and Many in Aristotle’s Metaphysics—Volume I: Books Alpha-Delta by
Edward C. Halper
One and Many in Aristotle’s Metaphysics—Volume 2: The Central Books by
Edward C. Halper
Reading Aristotle: Physics VII.3 “What is Alteration?” Proceedings of the
International ESAP-HYELE Conference edited by Stefano Maso, Carlo Natali,
and Gerhard Seel
HELLENISTIC PHILOSOPHY
A Life Worthy of the Gods: The Materialist Psychology of Epicurus by David
Konstan
ETHICS
Sentience and Sensibility: A Conversation about Moral Philosophy by
Matthew R. Silliman
AUDIOBOOKS
The Iliad (unabridged) by Stanley Lombardo
The Odyssey (unabridged) by Stanley Lombardo
The Essential Homer by Stanley Lombardo
The Essential Iliad by Stanley Lombardo
FORTHCOMING
Aristotle’s Empiricism: Experience and Mechanics in the Fourth Century BCE
by Jean De Groot
Plotinus, Ennead V.5: That the Intelligibles are not outside the
Intellectual-Principle; and on the Good. Translation with an
Introduction & Commentary by Lloyd Gerson
Plotinus, Ennead IV.7: On the Immortality of the Soul. Translation with an
Introduction & Commentary by Barrie Fleet