Table Of Contentfi
Conversation and Self-Suf ciency in Plato
This page intentionally left blank
Conversation and
fi
Self-Suf ciency
in Plato
A. G. Long
1
3
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP,
UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,
andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof
OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
#A.G.Long2013
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2013
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin
aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe
priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted
bylaw,orundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics
rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe
aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe
addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform
andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
ISBN 978–0–19–969535–5
PrintedbytheMPGPrintgroup,UK
For Jess, my parents, and my sisters
This page intentionally left blank
Contents
Acknowledgements viii
Introduction 1
1. TheAdvantagesofConversationinthePhaedrus 10
2. ConversationandConfirmationintheProtagoras 26
3. Socrates’HousemateintheHippiasMajor 46
4. ConsolationandSelf-SufficiencyinthePhaedo 64
5. RepresentingOpponentsintheRepublic 87
6. InternalDialogueintheTheaetetusandSophist 109
7. ForeignPracticesandPerspectivesintheLaws 139
Bibliography 161
IndexLocorum 171
GeneralIndex 181
Acknowledgements
I first explored the central question of this book when I was a graduate
studentatCambridge.Thebookisnotstraightforwardly‘thebookofthe
PhDthesis’,asthesayinggoes,butIwouldstillliketobeginbythanking
Malcolm Schofield and David Sedley, who supervised me when I was
writing my thesis. In the book’s second, third, and fourth chapters (my
discussionsoftheProtagoras,HippiasMajor,andPhaedo)Ihavereused,with
revisions, material from thethesis, but for the rest of the book I set aside
thethesisandtriedanewapproach.Allthesame,thebookisverymuch
the better for the advice and suggestions I received from Malcolm and
Davidwhen working onthethesis,and fromM. M.McCabe and James
Warren during its examination. Stephen Halliwell, Melissa Lane, Basil
O’Neill,andFrisbeeSheffieldreadpartsofthebookasittookshape;Iam
grateful to them all for helping me see where further work was needed.
AconversationwithRachelBarneyhelpedmedevelopthemaincontrast
of the third chapter. Sarah Broadie generously read a full draft and gave
me some very helpful suggestions in her comments on the draft and in
subsequent conversations. Individual chapters were presented and dis-
cussed at seminars and conferences in Cambridge, Edinburgh, Glasgow,
London, St Andrews, and York; my thanks to friends and colleagues at
those occasions. Two readers for Oxford University Press then gave me
encouragementandveryvaluablecriticism.
Anolderversionofthebook’ssecondchapterwaspublishedin2005by
the Cambridge Classical Journal (or the Proceedings of Cambridge Philological
Society, as the journal was then called) under the title ‘Character and
ConsensusinPlato’sProtagoras’.
Introduction
Plato, like some other major philosophers, wrote dialogues. What is
remarkable about Plato is that all the works unanimously agreed to be
his,withthesingleexceptionoftheApology,1taketheformofadialogue.
Some of his works, such as Menexenus, Timaeus, and Critias, contain a
longuninterruptedmonologue,butthemonologuesareintroducedbyor
encased within a short conversation and are delivered by one participant
in the conversation to the other participant or participants. In this basic
formal respect these works are still dialogues. Plato’s almost exclusive
commitmenttodialogueformsuggeststhatreflectioninaconversational
formatheldaparticularsignificanceorfascinationforhim.
Plato’s choice of form looks a little less remarkable when we consider
someaspectsofthehistoricalcontext.2MostofPlato’sworkshaveSocrates
as their protagonist and, perhaps to varying extents, are about Socrates
himself as well as about Socrates’ interlocutors and whatever they and
Socrates end up discussing. Plato was not at all alone in writing about
Socrates or indeed in writing about Socrates in this particular manner.
Onthecontrary,thefourthcenturybcsaw,andforallweknowthefifth
century may already have started to see, the arrival of a large body of
literature,composedintheformofprosedialogues,inwhichSocrateswas
the principal character.3 Judging from the surviving evidence, Platonic
andotherwise,Socrates’mainroleinthesedialogueswastoquestion,and
to show the ignorance or errors of, (a) self-styled experts, (b) politically
ambitious young men, and (c) his own loyal followers. We should not
pressthisgroupingtoohard,forafurtherfeatureofSocraticdialogueswas
ablurringofdistinctionsbetweenthesethreegroups.InSocraticliterature
Alcibiadeshoversontheboundarybetweengroups(b)and(c),andoneof
Socrates’ devices is to show young men in group (b) that they belongto
group(a)too,hisargumentbeingthattheirambitionsofapoliticalcareer
showthattheymustregardthemselvesasexpertsinthesphereofpolitics.
1 TheApologycontainsdialogueat24c–28a,whereSocratesquestionsMeletus.
2 SoWolfsdorf1998andNehamas1999,xvii.
3 ForsurveysofSocraticliteratureseeKahn1996,ch.1andFord2008.
