The Charmides of Plato: Problems and Interpretations

114 Pages·1985·4.04 MB·English

by  Nico van der Ben

THE CHARMIDES OF PLATO
PROBLEMS AND INTERPRETATIONS

N. VAN DER BE N
THE CHARMIDES OF PLAT O
PROBLEMS AND INTERPRETATIONS
B.R. GRÜNER PUBLISHING CO.
AMSTERDAM 1985
No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print,
photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from
the publisher
© 198 5 by G.R.Grüner
ISBN 90 6032 274 6
Printed in The Netherlands
Contents
Introduction 1
Summary of the contents of the Charmides 4
Discussion of passages 9
Select bibliography 10 0
Index of passages cited 10 2

Introduction
There is no full-scale commentary on Plato's Charmides. Th e reasons
for this regrettable fact are, it would seem, twofold. In the first
place, the range of subjects mentioned or discussed, mostly in an
inconclusive and aporetic manner, is extremely wide: matters logic-
al, epistemological, moral, ethical, political, religious, includ-
ing questions of poetry, popular religion, (popular) medicine,
education, and others. In the second place, the dialogue is diffi-
cult on almost every level of its expression. Particularly, the run
of its many arguments, both on the short and the long range, and
its overall structure are not easy to discern: mock-reasonings,
misunderstandings, ironies, paradoxes, and perplexities abound.
These must not be seen as hindrances but rather as integral parts
of the dialogue, if it is to be fully and correctly interpreted.
The present monograph does not aspire to the status of a full-
scale commentary. In the main, it is restricted to the level of
expression with an occasional venture into the perspective of
Plato's thought. The chief aim of these 'notes' is to facilitate
the understanding of the text. Although, in principle, problems
have been singled out for treatment as are of wider interest over
and above the passage in question, the decision to deal with a
particular passage has in many cases been determined by the
existence of disagreement in scholarly literature. Other passages
have been passed over because a satisfactory communis opinio
existed. In all matters of interpretation, much attention has been
paid to defining the exact place of the passage within the run of
the argument. The result of this attention can also be observed in
the 'Summary of the contents of the Charmides'. Th e present study
owes much to the example of W.J. Verdenius, whose celebrated
1
'Notes' o n man y a Platoni c dialogu e an d passag e bea r witnes s t o th e
need fo r carefu l examinatio n o f th e tex t fo r a bette r understandin g
of Plato . Th e preliminar y remark s i n hi s 'Bemerkungen zu r Einlei -
tung de s Protagoras', FS. Gundert (Amsterda m 1974), 41-48 , ar e
particularly relevant; what i s argue d an d demonstrate d i n th e cas e
of tha t dialogu e applie s a t leas t a s muc h t o th e Charmides .
Although th e dialogu e require s muc h furthe r examination , th e
present studie s see m t o allow , albei t provisionall y an d hypothetic -
ally, th e followin g genera l conclusions .
(1) Th e Charmides i s o f a protrepti c nature ; i t no t onl y touche s
on a wid e rang e o f subject s whic h wil l receiv e prope r treatmen t
only i n Plato' s late r works , bu t als o doe s s o i n a trul y aporeti c
and often , i t seems , deliberatel y perplexin g manner , especiall y
when i t come s t o th e subjec t o f knowledge .
(2) Th e investigatio n int o formall y th e subjec t o f th e
dialogue a s a whole , i s i n fac t abandone d a t a n earl y stage , viz .
at Charmides ' retiremen t fro m th e discussion ; significantly , Char -
mides is , i n an y case , portraye d a s muc h to o youn g t o exemplif y th e
virtue i n an y develope d form , ful l o f promis e thoug h h e ma y be .
(3) T o b e sure , th e wor d continue s t o b e use d t o th e end ;
formally, therefore , th e dialogu e remain s a serie s o f attempt s t o
define th e virtue . However , variou s notions , presente d a s defini -
tions, ar e examined , o f whic h th e relationship s bot h t o eac h
other an d t o remai n les s tha n full y clarified ; althoug h
they ma y al l b e considere d t o som e exten t preliminar y t o th e
initial problem . Scholar s d o no t alway s see m t o hav e bee n suf -
ficiently awar e tha t th e ter m a s use d i n th e systemati c
part doe s no t denot e th e definiendum , bu t rathe r refer s t o th e
particular definien s examine d i n an y give n passage .
My thanks are due to Mr H. Mulder and Dr A. Rijksbaron for their
acute criticism on many points; all errors remaining are mine.
I am much indebted also to the Fondation Hardt pour 1'étude de
l'antiquité classique at Vandoeuvres/Geneva, Switzerland, whose
hospitality enabled me to write a substantial part of this book
during a visit in July 1984, and to the Netherlands Organization
for the Advancement of Pure Research (Z.W.O.) fo r making that visit
possible. Finally, I am most grateful to Hetty de Schepper who com-
bined speed, extreme accuracy and considerable patience in typing
the text as it is here reproduced.