Why Plato wrote: the insularity of Platonic studies | CHS Research Bulletin

Home

Articles

Contributors

Editorial Team

E-journal Archives

1/26/2015

Contact Us

Home Type Blog, Language/Literature, Philosophy Why Plato wrote: the insularity of Platonic studies

Why Plato wrote: the insularity of Platonic studies

February 14, 2012 Posted by Andrea Capra under Blog, Language/Literature, Philosophy

8 Comments

Why Plato wrote: this startling title caught my eye as I was walking by the new books on display at the CHS. I immediately grabbed the book and
brought it to my office, then I switched off my cellphone, closed the door. In sum: I disconnected myself from the world to devote all my attention to a
question that has been haunting me ever since I have started reading Plato. Who is the author of the book? Hardly a minor figure: Danielle Allen
(2010), Princeton, Cambridge background. When I asked my friends at the CHS, the answer was unanimous: not only is she a very clever scholar (I
could see this much by myself), but she has developed into an influential public figure. What was the outcome of my greedy reading? Mixed feelings.
At first I must confess irritation. Why? Well, the Prologue sounded very promising to me: I heartily agree with Allens idea that the primary goal of
Platos dialogues is to change peoples lives, the intended readership being not limited to a closed circle of philosophers but including, at least
potentially, a general reader (p. 5). Why be upset, then?
Allens book both reclaims what has been known and understood about Plato by earlier generations and introduces new ideas (p. 2). After this bold
claim, Allen reminds her readers of her previous scholarly achievements: through the electronic Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, she was able to detect
Platonic vocabulary in some 4th-century speeches, and this, in turn, resulted in her thesis that Plato managed to shape the mind of his fellow citizens.
According to Allen, Plato was enough of a sociologist to understand that literature, too, shapes peoples minds, which ultimately calls for her
conclusion that Plato wrote all his dialogues to displace the poets (p. 77). This is the key to penetrate the true Plato:
Happily, this question, Why did Plato write? turned out also to be the key to the appearance of Platonic formulations in the mouths of Athenians
politicians. Plato wrote, among other purposes, to effect political change. Yes, Plato was the worlds first systematic political philosopher, using text to
record technical philosophical advances, but he was also, it appears, the western worlds first think-tank activist and its first message man. He wrote
not solely but consistently to change Athenian culture and thereby transform Athenian politics. As Diogenes Laertius, one of the most important
biographers of Plato, put it, in his own city Plato did not meddle with political affairs, although he was a politician or political leader [], to judge from
his writings' (p. 4) [1].
A think-tank activist? The idea, Allen admits (p. 162, nt. 9), is not entirely her own: she borrowed the phrase from her executive editor, and a recent
article (Rowe 2002) uses it to characterise the Academy. At this point, I had to pinch myself: The editor? A 2002 article? Or even Diogenes? Was I
dreaming? The idea of a general reader for Platos dialogues is found as early as in Dicaearchus (ca. 350-290 BCE) and Allens approach closely
recalls, say, the interpretation Nietzsche advanced in 1871, when he described Plato if you pardon my anachronistic translation as a think-tank
activist, who wants to turn the world upside-down and who wrote, among other purposes, to pursue that goal [2]. Allen seems to ignore both, nor is
she familiar with the work of Konrad Gaiser (1984 and 2004) and Giovanni Cerri (1991), who make a similar (and very strong) case for Platos
sociological approach (Rowe himself, 2007, extensively discusses Platos art of persuasive writing).
To be sure, hardly any title written in any language other than English made its way into Allens bibliography, which possibly explains why she does
not mention Dicaearchus either. His testimony, as quoted in Philodemus Index Academicorum, is preserved by a papyrus from Hercolanum, but
unfortunately this is not yet included in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, and the relevant editions come in Latin, German and Italian (Mekler 1902;
Gaiser 1988; Dorandi 1991). It is a pity: whatever we make of Allens claim that Diogenes was one of the most important biographers of Plato and of
her (slightly biased?) translation from Diogenes Greek, Dicaearchus is easily a more important source. Here is one interesting passage:
[]
[]
[] []

[ ] []. []
By composing his logoi, Plato, as it were, led to philosophy () countless people; on the other hand, he caused some people to
philosophise superficially (PHerc. 1021, Col. I 11-17, ed. Dorandi).
Even before coming up with the above mentioned commented edition (1988), Gaiser had been long working on Philodemus and Dicaearchus. Among
other things, he used this passage as a starting point for his 1984 book on Plato as a philosophical writer, where he assembled and discussed
internal evidence as found in the dialogues to argue that at certain key junctures Platos work claims for itself nothing less than the status of a new
kind of philosophical poetry and art: the status, indeed, of the greatest music and even of the finest and best tragedy The notion of Platonic
writing as itself a kind of poetry has roots in explicit moments of self-consciousness in the dialogues as well as in their multiple literary qualities
[3].
Ok, I admit it: I am cheating. Gaiser rarely wrote in English, and these are definitely not his words, although they sound very much like his. The quote
is from a very recent article by Stephen Halliwell (2011, 241-242), who has reached this conclusion independently from Gaisers work on Plato and
Dicaearchus. Halliwell does a great job in bringing to the fore the subtle (and no doubt self-conscious) ambiguity of Platos attitude towards poetry in
the Republic, and he emphasises the novelty of his own approach and the corresponding deficiency of scholarship in English. Yet, ironically, his
otherwise splendid article is also an example of the very deficiency he denounces: long before Halliwell began tentatively to unravel Platos explicit
moments of self-consciousness, Gaiser had thoroughly discussed them. Gaiser 1984, later included in Gaiser 2004, is entirely devoted to this
fascinating subject, and yet neither time did he make it across the Channel. Why?
Unfortunately, Gaiser, as an exponent of the so-called Tbingen school, is commonly associated with the declining querelle (largely a continental
affair) about Platos unwritten doctrines, and if that were not enough the book on Plato as a philosophical writer was published in Italian (1984)
and German (2004). As a consequence, the book received a number of substantial reviews by distinguished Platonists such as Joachim Dalfen,
Michael Erler and Gabriele Giannantoni [4], but its English reception was limited to a very brief notice by Julia Annas [5]. The books main arguments,
http://wp.chs.harvard.edu/chs-fellows/2012/02/14/why-plato-wrote-the-insularity-of-platonic-studies-2/#comment-1966

1/6

Why Plato wrote: the insularity of Platonic studies | CHS Research Bulletin

1/26/2015

however, do not depend on the unwritten doctrines hypothesis (which, incidentally, I fully disagree with), and its virtual absence from the landscape
of scholarship in English is yet another example of what Francisco Gonzalez refers to as a growing insularity in Platonic studies, especially among
English-speaking scholars: extremely helpful and worthy work is ignored simply because it is not in the right language or school [6].
Speaking of wrong schools, the understandable hostility towards the unwritten doctrines may have momentarily led astray even the one English
scholar who has taken the effort of reading and discussing at length Gaisers work on Philodemus (1988). I am referring to a brilliant and movingly
sympathetic article (Gaiser had recently passed away) by Jonathan Barnes (1989), who reminds us that thanks to Gaisers genial conjectures and
supplements Philodemus (and Dicaearchus) text is now, comparatively, luminously clear and intelligible [7]. However, Barnes criticises Gaiser
precisely for his interpretation of Dicaearchus testimony, which may (but, I insist, need not) be used in support of the unwritten doctrines theory.
Whatever the case, Gaisers reading of the passage says Barnes is surely wrong. First, Dicaearchus is not talking about Platos intentions at all:
he is talking about the effects of the dialogues. He may have thought that Plato intended his dialogues to have a protreptic force; but he does not say
so. Secondly, and more importantly, Dicaearchus does not state or imply that Platos sole intention in writing the dialogues was protreptic. In my view,
Barnes objections, on this specific point, are misplaced. Dicaerchus uses a middle form () in a sentence where Plato (and not the
dialogues) is the subject: this is safe evidence that Dicaearchus is precisely highlighting intentions, i.e. why Plato wrote. This also affects Barnes
(otherwise convincing) second point: granted, Dicaearchus Plato might have had other goals as well, but the emphasis is definitely on protreptic
force.
*
As I mentioned at the beginning, my first reaction on reading Allens book was one of irritation, and I was even tempted to entitle this post Why did
Allen write?. By the end of the book, however, I came to feel much more sympathetic: it is in fact a very smart book, making a strong case among
many other things for Platos sociology of symbols [8]. I learned an awful lot from Allen, and I will not fail to give her ample credit for that.
Nevertheless, the story I told in this post and Allen or Halliwell are, of course, just an example is a disturbing one: are we really doomed to growing
insularity? Perhaps even a continental drift? This, in turn, would raise the usual questions: who are the islanders? Are we to believe that, due to
scholarly fog, the continent is isolated? And which continent, anyway? Whatever the case, it is sad that an insularity of sorts is affecting an author
such as Plato, who made dialogue his mission in life and emphatically acknowledged his debts towards different cultures and people. Let me
conclude, then, on a lighter note. Here are Barnes final comments on Gaiser:
It is a long book. It is in German. It is clogged with pernickety points. It doesnt say very much about philosophy. Must I really read it? Well, I do not
like long books. I do not read German with any great ease. Pernicketiness can bore. But I learned a vast amount from Gaiser. What is more, far more,
I found his argument gripping. It is that rare thing a book to be enjoyed. And I should hope that any amateur of ancient thoughts would enjoy it. If
you have a rich aunt, ask her to give it to you for your next birthday (148).
I fully subscribe to these words, even though Barnes hopes were hardly fulfilled: blame the crisis, but rich aunts seem to be rather thin on the
Platonic ground. And yet, as Socrates says in the Phaedrus, once they are written, books are trundled about everywhere, and can end up in
anybodys hands. Gaisers have ended up in mine, and although he uses Socrates very words to argue for a thesis I strongly dislike (the unwritten
doctrines), I fully enjoyed them. If every story needs the goodies and the baddies, then Konrad Gaiser is surely both the hero and, possibly, the
charming villain of my hoped-for book on Plato.

References
Allen 2010: D. Allen, Why Plato Wrote, Malden MA.
Annas 1985: J. Annas, review of Gaiser 1984, CR 35, 401-402.
Barnes 1989: J. Barnes, Philodemus and the Old Academy, Apeiron 22, 139-148.
Cerri 1991: G., Cerri, Platone sociologo della comunicazione, Milano.
Dalfen 1987: J. Dalfen, review of Gaiser 1984, GB 14, 298-302.
Dorandi 1991: T. Dorandi (ed.), Filodemo. Storia dei filosofi. Platone e lAcacdemia (PHerc. 1021 e 164), edizione, traduzone e commento a cura di
T.D., Napoli.
Erler 1987: M. Erler, review of Gaiser 1984, Gymnasium 94, 82-85.
Gaiser 1984: K. Gaiser, Platone come scrittore filosofico. Saggi sullermeneutica dei dialoghi platonici, Napoli, then in Gaiser 2004, 3-72 (in German).
Gaiser 1988: K. Gaiser (hrsg.), Supplementum Platonicum: die Texte der indirekten Platonberlieferung, Stuttgart.
Gaiser 2004: K. Gaiser, Gesammelte Schriften, hrsg. von T.A. Szlezk, unter Mitw. von K.H. Stanzel, Sankt Augustin.
Giannantoni 1985: G. Giannantoni, review of Gaiser 1984, Elenchos 6, 202-207.
Gonzalez 1998: F.J. Gonzalez, Dialectic and Dialogue: Platos Practice of Philosophical Inquiry, Evanston IL.
Halliwell 2011: S. Halliwell, Antidotes and Incantations: Is There a Cure for Poetry in Platos Republic?, in P. Destre F.G. Hermann (eds), Plato
and the Poets, Leiden-Boston, 241-266.
Mekler 1902: S. Mekler (ed.), Academicorum philosophorum index herculanensis, Berolini.
Nietzsche 1994: F. Nietsche, Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe, begrndet von Giorgio Colli und Mazzarino Montinari, weitergefhrt von Volfgang
Mller-Lauter und Karl Pestalozzi, II,4 Vorlesungsaufzeichnungen (WS 1871/72 WS 1875/75), Berlin.
Rowe 2002: C. Rowe, Two Responses by Isocrates to Demosthenes, Historia 51, 149-162.
Rowe 2007: C. Rowe, Plato and the Art of Philosophical Writing, Cambridge.
Back [1] . ,
. Is Diogenes really saying that Plato was a political leader?
Back [2] als agitatorischen Politiker, der die ganze Welt aus den Angeln heben will und unter anderem auch zu diesem Zweck Schrifsteller ist. Plato,
he adds shreibt, um seine akademischen Gefhrten zu besterken im Kampfe (Nietzsche 1994, 9, from his Einleitung in das Studium der
platonischen Dialoge).
Back [3] The references to the greatest music and the finest and best tragedy are to Phaed. 61a, Phaedr. 248d, 259d; Leg. 817b.
Back [4] Dalfen 1987, Erler 1987, Giannantoni 1985.
Back [5] Annas 1985. No review in English of Gaiser 2004 discusses Platon als philosophischer Schrifsteller (3-72), which is the German version of
Gaiser 1984.
Back [6] Gonzalez 1998, ix.

http://wp.chs.harvard.edu/chs-fellows/2012/02/14/why-plato-wrote-the-insularity-of-platonic-studies-2/#comment-1966

2/6

Why Plato wrote: the insularity of Platonic studies | CHS Research Bulletin

1/26/2015

Back [7] Barnes 1989, 142.

Back [8] I.e. the idea that Plato uses language in a self-conscious attempt to shape peoples minds, in a way that different significantly from that of the
poets while at the same time appropriating their force.
Share this:

Tags: Platonic scholarship

About Andrea Capra

Andrea Capra (Ph.D. Milan) is a lecturer of Greek Language and Literature at Milan State University. His research focuses on
Plato, Aristophanes, early Greek lyric poetry, and the Greek novel. His publications include a book on Plato's Protagoras and a
commentary on Aristophanes' Assemblywomen. At the CHS he will be exploring Plato's reception of early Greek epic.
View all posts by Andrea Capra

8 Responses to Why Plato wrote: the insularity of Platonic studies

Barbara Graziosi

February 21, 2012 at 6:31 am

I enjoyed this, and the (modern, scholarly) political point is surely right: rather than complain about scholars failing to read all the books, we need to
facilitate dialogue across linguistic and scholarly frontiers and this blog is a good example of that border-crossing facilitation. On the ancient
political point, could you summarise for me where you and Allen differ in your reading of Plato? I take your point that her book is a little
opportunistic in presenting Plato as a think tank and in using echoes of Plato in 4th century political discourse to back that presentation of Plato
with scholarly credentials; but beyond that where do you disagree on Why Plato Wrote? Is it that Allen is reductive in her emphasis on practical
politics? What does Dicaearchus add? Leading people to philosophy rather than politics?
Reply

Stephen Halliwell

February 23, 2012 at 8:06 am

Having complained (fairly) that Danielle Allan cites hardly any scholarship not in English (and, I might add, she ignores a great deal of relevant work
in English itself), Andrea Capra goes on to mention my own silence about Gaiser and then sweeps up this point into a general deprecation of those
who dont cite work that isnt in the right language or from the right school of thought. A casual reader might be left with the impression that I dont
cite much non-English scholarship in my own work. That is the reverse of the truth. The longer version of the piece of mine mentioned by Capra is
Chapter 4 in my new book *Between Ecstasy and Truth*: the footnotes to that chapter cite a great deal of work in German, quite a bit in Italian, and
some in French; the book as a whole, like all my other work, refers copiously to scholarship not written in English. Andrea Capra needs to learn to
complain about others work in a less rhetorically undiscriminating manner. My reasons for not citing Gaiser have nothing to do with language or
even school of thought: he did *not* anticipate the main line of argument, let only most of the key details, which I pursue in the piece/chapter in
question.
Reply

Stephen Halliwell

February 23, 2012 at 12:42 pm

My apologies to Danielle Allen for misspelling her surname in my previous comment.

Reply

Danielle Allen

February 28, 2012 at 11:29 pm

Dear Prof. Capra,

Thank you for your interesting piece. Youre quite rightand I am embarrassed about itto call attention to the absence of non-English language
sources in my bibliography. The bibliography of my book, The World of Prometheus, tells a very different tale. Why the change, then, from that
project to this? I realize as I reflect on your post that I now begin all of my searches for sources online. Only at this moment do I now realize that this
method dramatically reduces the quantity of non-English language material that I find. Thank you for calling my attention to that.
Best wishes, Danielle Allen
Reply

Andrea Capra

March 6, 2012 at 8:55 am

Here are my replies to the comments by Danielle Allen, Barbara Graziosi and Stephen Halliwell.
Danielle Allen
Let me begin by thanking Danielle Allen for her graciousness: if, as we hear in Platos Gorgias, being criticised is a greater benefit and joy
than refuting other people, then Allens words are truly Socratic in spirit, as much as her book sounds very Platonic to me, in a way that is
rarely found in more narrowly philosophical readings of Plato. The only thing I might add is a question. As Allen points out, her World of
Prometheus really tells a different story (it was a pleasure for me to consult that book too), which suggests that technology, supposedly
designed to promote dialogue and reduce distances, sometimes backfires. So what are we to make of Prometheus ? Is clever
necessarily synonym with dangerous, as the Greek adjective , covering both meanings, ominously suggests? How can we revert this
trend and have technology do what it is supposed to?
Barbara Graziosi
Ill now switch to Italian, partly because my post advocates multiculturalism, ma soprattutto perch mi sento sempre un po in difficolt nel
rivolgermi a Italiani in altre lingue, specie quando li ho conosciuti di persona (e poi, confesso, per pigrizia: quel che segue contiene un po di
taglia-e-incolla). Dove sta la differenza fra me e Allen di fronte alla domanda perch Platone scrisse? Allora: anzitutto la risposta non la
http://wp.chs.harvard.edu/chs-fellows/2012/02/14/why-plato-wrote-the-insularity-of-platonic-studies-2/#comment-1966

3/6

Why Plato wrote: the insularity of Platonic studies | CHS Research Bulletin

1/26/2015

conosco per certo, e infatti ho scritto nel post che il problema mi assilla da quando ho cominciato a leggere Platone. Rispetto a Danielle Allen,
quindi, mi sento molto pi dubbioso. Comunque, direi che s, sono vicino alla posizione di Dicearco. La tradizione aneddotica, da questo punto
di vista, interessante. Dopo aver letto il Gorgia, si racconta, un contadino di Corinto si precipit ad Atene per conoscere Platone e si fece
membro dellAccademia (Temistio, Or. 23.295c-d. Cfr. D.L. 2.125). Forse questa storiella, nella sua semplicit, indica come Platone voleva
fossero letti i dialoghi: devono innescare quel processo di conversione dellanima che lessenza della filosofia, come suggerisce lallegoria
della caverna.
Il sapere dice Socrate nel Simposio non si trasmette come un liquido da un recipiente pieno a uno vuoto, e la lettura dei dialoghi non deve
tanto comunicare una serie di dottrine, quanto favorire, anche attraverso il trauma dellaporia, un cambiamento di vita, un nuovo ; questo
in perfetto accordo con quanto Platone dice nella VII lettera: nel cosiddetto excursus filosofico, la filosofia fatta consistere non in una serie
di dottrine scritte ma nel dialogo fecondo fra discepoli che accende la scintilla della verit (344b-c). In questo quadro, il lavoro di Gaiser per
me fondamentale perch sposta il problema a un livello pi alto e socratico: invece della solita domanda perch Platone ha scritto dialoghi
o anche della domanda perch Platone ha scritto e punto, Gaiser di fatto si chiede: cos un dialogo platonico? E la risposta la ricava da
Platone stesso, attraverso uno splendido studio comparato di quesi passi in cui Platone implicitamente parla dei suoi dialoghi (vedi anche
sotto la mia risposta a Halliwell).
Per Platone, il dialogo indubbiamente una forma di poesia, e per Platone la poesia importante da un punto di vista sociologico, nella
misura in cui orienta il sentire della polis. Proprio per questo, i dialoghi sono, in effetti, anche politici. Tornando a Danielle Allen, la sua tesi
che Platone avrebbe voluto, attraverso i suoi dialoghi, influire sulla politica politicante, in particolare ad Atene. Argomento interessante, non
c dubbio, e in parte congruente con quel che osservavo ora. Non bisogna per dimenticare una cosa: sappiamo da Ateneo, se accettiamo
almeno in parte la tradizione riportata in 11.508f ff., che lAccademia fu una fucina di politici, anche di aspiranti re e tiranni. Quindi laspetto
politico, ancor pi che nellazione diretta dei dialoghi sui lettori (uninfluenza che non saprei quantificare: le indagaini lessicali di Allen sono
interessanti ma forse un po rischiose. Cf. la recensione di D. Murphy su BMCR, 2011-11-44), va forse cercato nel comportamento dei
convertiti alla filosofia: questi accademici non erano certo avulsi dalla societ o disinteressati alla politica e come del resto fece Platone a
rischio della propria vita cercarono come poterono di cambiare il corso degli eventi. La politica c, insomma, ma a me sembra soprattutto
una conseguenza della conversione alla vita filosofica, con tutto ci che questultima comporta anche in termini di impegno civile e perfino
politico.
Stephen Halliwell
I re-read my own post with Halliwells words in mind, and I must say he is right: a casual reader might be left with the impression he cites little
non-English scholarship, thereby promoting insularity. As a long-time admirer of Halliwells work, I, for one, know very well that this is not the
case: I just took it for granted, and in so doing, at least potentially, I misrepresented his work and his contribution (inter alia) to Platonic
studies. Fortunately, once we discard my closest relatives and friends, the possibility of a casual reader who ignores Halliwells work but
happens to read my Platonic post amounts to a remote and fantastic scenario, and yet this does not excuse my misleading account. Of course
one could question Halliwells tone (Andrea Capra should learn etc.) or his choice of defending his article by attracting attention to the
existence of a longer version (how could I know?), but this would be unfair, given that I am to blame for the misunderstanding. So let me just
apologise and state my point more clearly.
After reading Halliwells longer version (namely ch. 4 of Between Ecstasy and Truth. Interpretations of Greek Poetics from Homer to
Longinus, OUP 2011), I still think that Halliwells failure to cite and discuss (in either version) Gaisers work is relevant to the problem of
insularity. Only, as I should have made clear in my post, this is hardly a matter of individual choices: one may be very open-minded and
willing to entertain a dialogue with other approaches, and Halliwell is well-known for being precisely this kind of reader (this is what I mean
when I say that I took him for granted). And yet life is short, scholarship is an ocean, and if the reception and the dissemination of a
fundamental book is hampered by its association with a wrong school and with wrong languages, which I think is precisely what happened
to Gaisers work, then one is much less likely to read or (as I bet is the case with Halliwell) remember it. That said, we are left with a more
specific question: would it make the difference for Halliwell (and more generally for Platos readers) to take Gaisers work into account?
My first answer is yes. Halliwell argues the very unorthodox view that Republic 10 does not banish the poets in any definitive way, the text
being far more nuanced and open-ended than scholars usually assume. To this effect, Halliwell is interested in those passages where Plato
seems close to break the dramatic illusion and refer to his own work. One such example, it seems to me, is the focal point of Halliwells
argument: I am thinking of Republic 608e, where Socrates mentions an incantation designed to protect Socrates from the temptation of
falling back to his love for poetry. Scholars usually equate the incantation with knowledge as mentioned at 595b, but Halliwell puts forward a
number of good arguments against this interpretation. Socrates love for poetry is real, and his (and Platos) attitude is that of someone who
does not intend to abandon poetry for good, but would rather like to put poetry to a good use and to move beyond the ancient quarrel
between poetry and philosophy: If poetry can seduce the soul with a sort of rapture in words and images it has a psychagogic power which
Platonic philosophy itself would ideally like to make its own. Accordingly, Socrates incantation is a metaphor (though hardly a metaphor at
all) for the reading of Platos own work (Between Ecstasy and Truth, 206 and 203).
Now, Platos self-conscious passages are precisely the subject of Gaisers book: he offers powerful readings among other dialogues of
the Ion, the Symposium, the Phaedrus, and the Laws, and argues for the general thesis that Plato (indirectly) refers to his own work as
a form of incantation and/or purification, in a never-ending dialogue with poetry. To this effect, he uses a strategy that can be compared to
Halliwells: according to both scholars, for example, Plato at times puts forward unilateral or dialectical arguments, which cannot be taken at
face value but imply complementary tenets. As for the Republic, at some point Gaiser argues that the banishment of poetry cannot be taken
as final (la condanna che qui rappresentata a modo di una sentenza, certamente limitata da due punti di vista, Gaiser 1984, 118, cf.
Gaiser 2004, 52-53), and even suggests that the incantation found at 608e should be equated with Platos dialogues (Socrate designa la
propria argomentazione contro la poesia dannosa con il termine di canto magico-terapeutico []. Con tale espressione egli rimanda a
una comunanza tra poesia e filosofia Platone ebbe consapevolezza di se stesso come poeta-filosofo, Gaiser 1984, 119, cf. Gaiser 2004,
53).
Let me now give my second answer, which, as one should expect, is a big no. True, Halliwells premises and assumptions are similar to
Gaisers, and, in point of fact, Gaiser even hints at Halliwells conclusion (incantation = Platos dialogues). And yet the Republic is definitely
not Gaisers focus, and his references to it are comparatively brief and uninformative. Halliwells discussion is much more deep and
persuasive, and his arguments against Platos (allegedly) unqualified banishing of poetry are by and large different. This is true of Halliwells
shorter version, and even more so of the longer one, namely the fourth chapter of his book Between Ecstasy and Truth. My hope is that this
book will help scholars radically revise standard interpretations of the ancient quarrel between poetry and philosophy, not to mention many
more interesting things (the chapter, which I guess is representative of the whole book, is remarkable for its overall argumentative force as
well as for its detailed and illuminating readings of individual passages).
After my big yes and no, let me conclude with a qualified yes: Gaiser can make some difference. I would like to share this conclusion
with Halliwell, insofar as the story is relevant to his work as well as to my own. All in all, Gaisers book, with its emphasis on self-consciousness,
provides a very powerful interpretative paradigm, which can nicely accommodate Halliwells intriguing and compelling discussion of one
specific (if crucial) instance of Platos self-consciousness. Much in the same vein (I hope!), my own work also discusses other such
instances, and I think that Gaiser, once we disentangle his arguments from the question of the unwritten doctrines, provides a very
comfortable umbrella for me, as well as I hope for Halliwell, Allen and others. Needless to say, this does not detract from the originality and
relevance of our readings: on the contrary, it can offer a shared horizon, and even help us all to cure some cases of Platonic insularity.
Reply

http://wp.chs.harvard.edu/chs-fellows/2012/02/14/why-plato-wrote-the-insularity-of-platonic-studies-2/#comment-1966

4/6

Why Plato wrote: the insularity of Platonic studies | CHS Research Bulletin

Phillip Horky

1/26/2015

March 16, 2012 at 2:56 am

Hi Andrea,
I dont have anything substantive to add here, except to reiterate an old dictum that my dissertation adviser Greg Thalmann once told me. With
regard to your adoption of Gaisers theory (lets call it that) of the as Platos designation for dialogue, you say (in your response to
Barbara) Per Platone, il dialogo *indubbiamente* una forma di poesia. As my adviser used to say, we tend, when we are making some claims,
to qualify them unconsciously with adverbs like undoubtedly, clearly, or obviously, precisely because those claims we are making are doubtful,
unclear, or not obvious. Anyway, this is what came into my head this morning when I read your blog.
Cheers, and my best wishes,
Phil
Reply

Andrea Capra

March 16, 2012 at 10:55 am

Hi Phil, thank you! This post is becoming a kind of novel, both for its length and because, as its author, I now even have a critic who fathoms my
unconscious! Jokes aside, youre of course right: sometimes we say things like undoubtedly precisely to qualify things that are far from obvious.
Yet I would not say that Gaisers (and Halliwells: I find his arguments on very persuasive) position is unclear: rather, it is true that they have
to work out something that is implicit, given that in the dialogues Plato never openly comments on his writings (precisely as the tragedians never
openly comment on their plays: does this suggest that they did not conceive of their works as poetry?). Moreover, in the Greek world poetry has a
much wider (and different) meaning than in ours (e.g. the poets are sophoi). In the Phaedo, we hear that poetry is definied by the presence of
mythos, although Socrates claims he is not good at creating myths. And yet the Phaedo itself concludes with a myth! What are we to make of that?
To me, this is sufficiently clear (I wont say undoubtedly!): Plato is suggesting (or implying) that his own work is a form of poetry, and this is one nice
example of self-disclosure, whereby Plato implicitly refers to his written work (I wouldnt use the term designation). Now, Gaiser fully discusses at
least five such instances in the corpus. Halliwell adds one in his book (Republic). I add at least four in the book Im writing. Then there are external
points, e.g. Platos association with the Muses (these things were obvious for Platos contemporaries as they are remote from our mind). So I think
that the burden of proof is firmly on those who assume (unconsciously?) that the dialogues are *not* poetry!
Reply

David J. Murphy

September 16, 2014 at 2:58 pm

Dear Prof. Capra, I too thank you for your provocative comments on Danielle Allens and Konrad Gaisers works. I already know Allens book; you
stimulated me to read Gaisers Platon als philosophischer Schriftsteller. One issue I do not see confronted above, however, is the increasingly
widespread claim that because they consist of characters speeches and are not treatises, Platos dialogues by definition do not express any view
of Platos. In them, as John Mulhern says, Plato chose to portray, not to say. It would follow that even if we can agree with Allen that Plato was a
message man, the dialogues do not contain any message of his at least when message is understood to consist in assertions. And it would
follow that Gaiser cannot with justification talk about Platos dialogues as die massgebliche Grundlage fuer das Verstaendnis seiner Philosophie,
since in them, Plato would not be articulating elements of his philosophy but only portraying other people philosophizing.
Do you have a view on this hermeneutical question?
Reply

Leave a Reply
Enter your comment here...
On the norm of the polyp in early Greek epic

Recent Articles

On the function of the sphere simile in Parmenides poem

Recent Comments

A New Historical Grammar of Demotic Greek:

Reflections on the in the 19th and
20th Centuries as Seen through Thumbs
Handbook of the Modern Greek Vernacular
November 28, 2014

Maureen Coffey on Trojan War by Homer:

Retaliation, Narrative Order, and Cretan Focus

AbstractPoetic Authority and the Utility of

Reproduction in the Theogony and Works and Days
November 26, 2014

gabrielalf on Early Reperformances of Drama in the

Fifth Century

David J. Murphy on Why Plato wrote: the

insularity of Platonic studies

AbstractSilence and Rumor as Rhetorical

Strategies in Basils Letters November 26, 2014

David Beatty on The Establishment of the CityStates of Eastern Crete from the Archaic to the
Roman Period

AbstractThe Control of Emotion: Rhetorical

Education and Civic Oratory in the Greco-Roman
East November 26, 2014

Gabriele Alfinito on AbstractEarly Reperformances

of Drama in the Fifth Century: A Fallacy or an
Underestimated Tradition?

Follow us on Twitter

Ctr Hellenic Studies

@HellenicStudies
: ,
Expand

Ctr Hellenic Studies

@HellenicStudies
CHS Greece Event: Dimitris Dimiroulis, The ghosts of science: The c
Expand

Ctr Hellenic Studies

@HellenicStudies
W eaving Truth: Essays on Language and the Female
Expand
Ctr Hellenic Studies
@HellenicStudies

AbstractMinoan Communities and

Commemorative Practices: the Late Prepalatial to
Protopalatial Tholos Tomb A at Apesokari/Crete
November 25, 2014

http://wp.chs.harvard.edu/chs-fellows/2012/02/14/why-plato-wrote-the-insularity-of-platonic-studies-2/#comment-1966

5/6

Why Plato wrote: the insularity of Platonic studies | CHS Research Bulletin

1/26/2015

CHS Research Bulletin powered by WordPress and The Clear Line Theme. Site hosted by the Center for Hellenic Studies.

http://wp.chs.harvard.edu/chs-fellows/2012/02/14/why-plato-wrote-the-insularity-of-platonic-studies-2/#comment-1966

6/6