The Politics of a Sophistic Rhetorician

TEJERA Victorino, The politics of a sophistic rhetorician: QUCC XLI 1992 ‘Ne 70 99-123. | La forme dudialogue dans le Politique et son contenu; l'art politique en tant que science pythagoricienne; l'isolation et la purification de la TESERA , | royauté; régime constitutionnel ou science sophistique; la Bao texvn du | sophiste en tant que peBogia ; le pythagorisme et l’idée de la monarchie y sl | av. J.-C. The Polities of a Sophistie Rhetorician Y, Tejera Plato's Dialogism and the Subject-Matter of the Politicus Any philologist, historian or thinker of sensibility must begin by rejecting HN. Fowler's philistine judgment that “in this dialogue, as in the Sophist. the drinnatie form is hardly more than a convention”!. On the contrary, any reading (not excluding ‘philosophic’ readings) of the Politicus conducted with what is now called ‘literary competence” has lo grant that the dialogical or dramatic form whieh Plato gave it is of supreme relevance. But if by a ‘philosophic’ reading we mean one that seeks only for ‘doctrine’, it follows that the doctrines which such readings come up with will simply be those of the Eleatic visitor in the fiction of the dialogue. Alternatively, if by philosophic readings we mean those that apply only a logical analysis to the arguments of the visitor, we will have neglected the rhetorical dimension of a discursive interaction in which the copious main speaker is a rhetorician, And we see that to call such readings ‘philosophic’ is a presumptuous impoverishment of the art and science of responsive reflection, because it is less than fully reflective and less than adequately responsive. This essay also has to begin with the suggestion that the title of M, Miller's book un our dialogue should have been “The Sophist in Plato's Politicus’, rather than “The Philosopher in Plato's StatesmanTM. This is because to call the subject-matter of the Eleatic visitors discourse ‘the statesman’ is (1) lo transpose ‘the political man’? (tov noitixdv vôou, 258B4) for whom the visitor says he will seck at the beginning of his discourse, into ‘the man of real knowledge’ {tig ... money Óviws Ov, 3OLB5) whom he invokes as a standard or ideal later in his dis- | Pulitiens Philebus, od. & tre HN. Fowler, 1952, je 2. “M. Miller, (he Philosopher in Platos ‘Statesman’, The Hague 1980,

Rhetorician V. Tejera Plato9s Dialogism the Subject-Matter and of the Politicus or thinker of sensibility must begin by historian philologist, as in "in that this H.N. Fowler's rejecting judgment philistine dialogue, form is hardly more than a convention"1. the Sophist, the dramatic On Any the contrary, of the any reading (not excluding 'philosophic' readings) now called Politicus conducted with what is has to 'literary competence' or dramatic form which Plato it is of that the gave grant dialogical a we mean one if relevance. But that supreme by 'philosophic' reading it follows that the doctrines which seeks only for 'doctrine', such read visitor in the ings come up with will simply be those of the Eleatic if by philosophic fiction of the dialogue. Alternatively, readings we mean to the arguments those that apply only a logical analysis of the we a the rhetorical of will have dimension discursive visitor, neglected is a rhetorician. in which interaction And we the copious main speaker a see that to call such readings is presumptuous impover 'philosophic' it is of the art and science of responsive because reflection, and less than adequately than fully reflective responsive. This essay also has to begin with the suggestion that the title of M. Miller's book on our dialogue should have been 'The Sophist in Plato's rather than 'The Philosopher in Plato's Statesman'2. This is Politicus9, to call the subject-matter because of the Eleatic visitor's discourse 'the ishment less statesman' 258B4) discourse, is (i) to transpose for whom the visitor orv, 301B5) 1 Politicus man' (t?v JtoXitix?v av?Qa, he will seek at the beginning of his says ... man into 'the of real knowledge' (tic EJti?Trjpxov ovxco? whom he invokes as a standard or ideal later in his dis Philebus, ed. & 2 M. Miller, The Philosopher 'the political tr. H.N. Fowler, in Plato's 1952, p. 'Statesman , The Hague

to do this is (ii) to beg the question of the whole dialogue. we mean one the visitor's true, kingly man of For, state the with and then it who benefaction, manages justice knowledge man sense in this cannot be to the political that Socrates junior applies course. And if by statesman the term itoXiXinovc a man of knowledge at 303C5-6, since the interlocutors agree that such on earth (275C). He also makes is not to befound it explicit at 303C6-7 (following the lead of the Eleatic) that quote: "this to fall upon round quite then comes the rightly 'sophist' man is it to the latter But neither that the terms oocp?? xai JtoXixixo?". are applied by the Eleatic, as we shall see; for these ?ycx'&o? (296E5) term are applied to the 'kingly' ruler whose in that passage 'science' obviates visitor's the need for laws. The sophistic between 'the equivocation so is that it subtly done, however, political man' and 'the kingly man' to be caught at its very beginning. He has just said that having needs the nature of the Sophist, it is now neces found out yesterday (258A4) to search out (?kx?tite?v) that of the politician (xov JtoXixixov some sort of thus between So them3. ovoqcx), implying kinship - as ? means mean course in the it will here of the dialogue JioXitixoc imitations administrator of one of the six of the true form of sary government4. We notice has become, was there 3 The at once that the Sophist's "our discourse by 268B10, characterization called true and what a masterful is excellent. search about for 'the political man' the king", and a dia in that dialogue the Sophist is not entirely he negative: or conterfeiter contriver and a knowing imitator is of what a rhetorical was it the himself, Being Sophist disputatious of or eristic he (with whom Sophists gated by him. The visitor's special "no pay" at all makes the allusion tacitly classifies with severity to Socrates the elder Sophists who who Socrates) "garrulously are dispute" dero for explicit. 4 We will see that he is called oocp?? xai ?yado? (296E) by the visitor as part of 'the political man' and 'the kingly man of knowledge who this earth that the Eleatic is bringing true form of govern off. The one, ance is the godlike of the 'scientific' are The monarch. lawful imitations rulership are tyran constitutional and democracy. The lawless imitations monarch, aristocracy, and demagogic In English, 'statesman' has an honorific ny, oligarchy, democracy. a as those who wish connotation and to translate T?V one; 'politician' derogatory just the equivocation exist on doesn't between use of it in which statesman claim there is a neutral it means ?tV?Qa with so those who to translate of polities', with is a say that there prefer 'politician' use term too. not to overcome this of Since it's the non-judgmental really possible connotation I use the latter to apply only to the man of favorable of'statesman', politics JToXlTlX?V 'man who Solon is supernally was. competent and above 'politics' (not just 'party') in the sense that

of "a sort of kingly has forgotten gramming visitor sophistic out 'the kingly man' 101 Rhetorician (toy shape" at 268?6. the political man whose ?aoiXixov) the Already by 262C and is talking only ab art (xexvr) at 259B5, ?jtioxrj|iTiat 264A5) is kingly (?aodixrj) "if he is a true king". We also "the knowledge that the phrase at 264A5 (emcrtrj|jiT|) we are mean to more techne is (dr)Q8?O|i8v) for", hunting forcing something was in which than the 'knowledgeable classical politike practice' or It is pushing what we would call an 'art' the art of politics Athens. - to mean of applied and something more theoretical 'political science' more capable of certainty. And it is this that justifies the translation of observe episteme as 'science'5, ever, should not fall theoretical knowledge tivists is not a Greek word. We ourselves, how which on to into the Sophist's trap, by going privilege - as over the other kinds, and make it neoposi or standard for all other know do the model and pythagorists ledges. For, that would be sheer scientism. We see that the visitor (unnoticed by Socrates junior) has switched over from a search for 'the political man' to a search for 'those who are and kingly' by 291C (x v ovxco? ovx v JtoXixix v xai really political from the when he says that the latter have to be separated ?a?iXixc?v), who themselves with the of charlatans and affairs of troop busy sophists that at 259C1-4 the state. But now we have to remember he had said: it seems that all these are the scope of one knowledge (\iia ejtioxrjfXT]), whether we call it kingship (?aoiXixriv) or politics (jroXixixrjv) or man agement (otxovo^ixrjv). of "all these" under one 'scien Of course, with his subsumption a fundamental visitor is reinforcing in one breath, the sophistic a is practical and political 'science', management theory equivocation: ce', and But again, of governance. the critical is different from the practice or auditor ? unlike young Socrates - doesn't have to accept it. or auditors of the Politicus of in be readers course, will, Nonsophistic a in the dialogue, in the position that Plato has put his Socrates namely, or to about the for themselves decide cogency persuasiveness position reader of the Eleatic's a reader will which his quips Such arguments. the latter is tacitly directing 5 It also productive the other Aristotle's distinctions anticipates while knowledges unAristotelianly two kinds of knowledge. also against between elevating catch at the points the silent Socrates. the theoretical, practical, theoretical knowledge above

is what the author has done for his auditor with Plato this at he has put on exhibit before us a pythagorizing his sophist we on own in order that 'his9 words best, may judge him this dialogue: rhetorical our from Socrates. It should not escape prompting so fair and virtuoso is Plato about this, that we feel he is without dialectical notice that, than an arguments sharper formulations could have given them himself. original Sophist Let ut pause to note that just as Gorgias's words in the Gorgias are in their turn, sound like and Polus and Meno, idiolectically Gorgian so is of discourse the Plato's Eleate entirely in char Gorgian disciples, our acter and brilliantly in contrast Plato's The presentation. sophistic the visitor's giving probably confirms dialogue makes with the Euthydemus ness; for in that dialogue Plato puts on exhibit our sense of Plato's fair us two profession his Sophist and Poli before at their sophistic worst. But with and pythagorizing rhetorical, gives political Sophistic is his of. And the reader who ingenuity hearing capable al word-mongers ticus Plato fairest the can to take to the agree to this will be ready to agree that the right attitude in the Politicus is that which Plato's of the visitor discourse Socrates one of skeptical takes within detachment combined with a it, namely, not consciousness that when a sophistic rhetorician his listeners speaks the truth are his since targets. Also, of Socrates' presence display because Theodorus introduced him, Plato's course to be a defense of his own strategy of Plato's his dialogism, toyevsky, is what artistic the Eleate feels and the prideful can take reader himself manner to be on in which the visitor's and dis This profession assumptions. in the case of Dos Bakhtin called, to honor his characters' his ability namely, by having them speak out of their own worlds and their own are not simply con like Dostoyevsky's, Plato's characters, assumptions. an as the from structed observed but are experienced point-of-view valid centers of their own lives and concerns, whose voices are on a par subjectivity those with both with of the reader other not subjects consciousness. that confuses with 6 nesota or us. M. Problems Bakhtin, of Dostoyevsky's 1984; and The Dialogical U.P. and with Their voices are, thus, in dialogue and author6. They are is seen as in their the world the reader they speak objects; when It is this authenticity and their talking into taking them to speak for readers or to him ta U.P. and author. characters 1981. Poetics Imagination (1929), in the first person Plato, tr. C. Emerson, instead Minneso (1975), tr. Emerson & Holquist, Min

Art as a Pythagorist The Political now return We 103 Rhetorician 'Science9 to the text of our dialogue to the Eleatic visitor at 260C, of command" (?juxaxxixf|V by noting that, according the kingly man has to have is "an art what x?xvr)v). This art is quickly (and fallacious ly) distinguished by the rhetorical Sophist as a theoretical skill as fol at 259C10 lows: it is "rather more intellectual than manual" (xfj? ?f| Then at 259D7 it is simply Yvcooxixfj? \iaKkov f\ xfj? xeio0TeXVLX*??)to be plain "intellectual science" but by (xf|V yvcooxixriv); one of the intellectual it has become "most certainly arts" (xcbv v ye... Jtavxccjtaoi Yv oxix xexvcov). the kingly man to the art of commanding The visitor then assigns a as which "judges ruler" (?v xfj XQixixf]... ?eoJto?ovxa ye) rather than assumed 259E3 a spectator" xiv? fteaxrjv). Next the art of the king (xaMjteg is from that of the the (?a?iX,ixrjv) (260D-E) separated interpreter, herald and other the the such it because boatswain, craftsmen, prophet, ? is "the 'science' of giving orders of one's own" (xf|V auxemxaxxixiiv). "as are reminded by the downgrading of prophecy here, that just as the on were in with the the ground of having wealthy Sophists competition an expertise so were which most such eligibles lacked, they also as to the city-state in competition with the oracles7. advisors the kingly man is nobler (YEVvaioxEQOv) than the architect Again ever over is he holds because "the power (e.g.) living things" (261C) And we note that gennaioteros rather than inanimate materials. has a We such as esthlos or agathos synonyms dynastic flavor to it that available to a herdsman do not have. Next the kingly man is said to be analogous or shepherd a art his could be said to be "a rather than groom because xiva 261E3). kind of community management" On So (xoivoxQoqpixrjv name might go with it", the clever to names. the youngster's indifference the reader to see that the visitor is pleased this Plato is allowing that suit his rhetorical the youth is letting him give things the names to divide when his tractable respondent However, proposes purposes. into the care of men on one hand and that of beasts on the art of herding - even tells him he is in error the other, the Sophist abruptly though the of the inquiry, it's an acceptable divi reader can see that, for purposes crates visitor ? With 7 junior's agreeing takes a moment It's worth downgrading noting prophecy to "whatever to praise that, in contrast or the oracle. to the Sophists, we don't find Plato's Socrates

It becomes given that it dichotomizes according principle8. to divagate upon the subject of dichotomous that the visitor wants bear more on "dividing his objections division; through the middle" ? on virtuoso it about than and being (?xeooTOfJieiv) dividing according to a principle9. about how parts of a set aren't the great fuss he makes More, sion clear must be apt and how they must corres classes, how divisions serves to alert the reader that in the dicho in nature, pond to divisions to he does not follow his own which the tomizing Sophist now proceeds always are. It is he who goes clever as some of his classifications admonitions, is perfectly off track here, not young Socrates whose suggestion apt that one are to must art after is that applies humans. It the be, we they hypothesize of diairesis, wrong with can satirize the same that the visitor wishes and time, his doctrinal aries, reader while it. At practising with so light a persists to some contempor unnoticeable tendentiousness been for too many that young Socrates for instance, over "tame" sure, have of the method see how easy it is to go in the sense that he of the method his it. The Sophist is a master the Greeks (for ethnic chauvinism) that just as it would so it has remained touch to show off his mastery is letting that Plato of Plato's readers. agree that the kingly the Sophist animals, By making art holds is setting sway (dgeiipxx?iv, 264A) or grant, the right to rebellion aside the need to discuss, tyran against the one-man rule (povaQX^01) based ny. And he has to do this because on pythagorist is above the laws is, 'science' which he favors and which from a nonmonarchist That point of view, simply another form of tyranny. can make is shown by his virtuosity amusing to an of biped-herding comparison (jte^ovo|itxr|v) the visitor pythagorean-style even number, and by his characterizing the objects of the king's 'scien ce' as hornless that can't He protracts cross-breed. the humor bipeds ous note by suggesting that the division of the two species they haven't covered meter is a matter Theaetetus. of geometry requiring he explains, He means, the help of the young geo that they must cut them 8 A principle that can be stated but which the youngster fails to adduce, namely, that politics has to do, or should have to do, in the first place with human beings (as Socrates 9 lieved: 1867. 265A5. maintains it should As L. Campbell, in the Gorgias). taking the dialogue with total literalism, seems to have be II 17 ff. The Sophistes and Politicus text w. Rev. of Plato, Engl. Note the choice as at 265B3 of [Aeooiioiv subliminally echoing Oxford notes, u??otou?iv

Rhetorician by the diameter, of course, and again by the diameter of the square of the diameter (xfj ?iafx?tQCp ... xai Jt?Xiv xfj xfj? ?iauixQOU ?iapixeq), 266A). The joke is twofold; first, the Eleate has found a 'geometrical' way (?iJtou?) animals is felicitous. which maining (quadrupeds) species" two to nature twice have is their feet, are divided of distinguishing between biped and The "the latter, other re since it off from the point of view of their root (i.e. their 'power') [by] the diameter of the square of our root (or 'power') (xax? oi3vau.iv av xfj? i|[i?x?Qa? ?vvajxeco? ?iau?XQO?, e?jieq ?uo?v y? ?axi Jto?otv ?i? Jtecpuxma). this is well-derived Mathematically speaking, (bien tra?do, as we rather than far-fetched. For O?Ttovc means two say in Spanish), footed as well as the two-foot square whose root is the diameter V2. would But we cannot miss as the compresent and remember "power" "potency" means the organ marily sexual sexual innuendo if we think of not only that the "root" also custo of reproduction, but that bulls are a symbol of to these in the distinc has just been a reference There potency. tion between horny and unhorned both the reader raciness here animals. are distracted and young Socrates from on to a his is that there well say by going and amusing to his attached reputed (ei)ooxi|ir)o?vT?)v) corollary mathematics. This is that the human race has ended up in the same class as the race of placid porkers, because we share with it the attri However, the Sophist's of being The pun on which this depends is that evxsQ?oxaxo?l means eucherestatos both most 'dexterous' or 'easy-to-handle' and most 'licentious'. And just as pigs can be as gennaiotatoi (well-bred, 266C4) as men because so men they are carefully matched by their breeders, can be as licentious as are because dexterous (evxEQEcrtaxo?) pigs they bute (svx^Q^?) and easy to handle. That this also results in an equipairing of the life of a king with the lax life of a swineherd, to the that diairesis is a only proves Sophist "value-free" modern method of classification which (in terms) "always leads to the perfect truth" (267D). Because of the unseemliness of the the Sophist gives himself permission to take "the however, comparison, shorter road" to the definition of the king "without any asking" by his We ought at the beginning, he now says, to have divided respondent. walking animals into biped and quadruped and then the bipeds into

so as to get quickly to human beings and the and unfeathered feathered art of herding them (xfj? ?vdQomovofiixfj? We note that x?xvrj?)10. more not there could have young So gotten quickly by rejecting they care men the of and the care of beasts, between back crates' dichotomy at 262B-C. the art of herding human beings, And having reached the man insert the "we should continues, (xov kingly political Sophist as a charioteer into the division jtoXixixov xai ?aaiAixov) and turn over to him the reins as befits of the city-state the 'science' proper to him" (266E)11. that "this explanation this young Socrates has paid responds as in with the back and interest". These words full, [him] digression and tame (!) young Socrates confirm how very tractable and how is, To charismatic the digression visitor must be to him. For, and persuasive the sophistic was not logically more than young Socrates's justified we it could at most only be justified pedagogically, Since dichotomy. see that it is as much (which accomodates as it is plausible, Isolating and a result of authorial of the interaction structuring skills of the visiting Sophist) the readily-displayed dominance given the Eleate's over the youngster. the Kingship 'Purifying' On plaiting back together for purposes of a definition the several strands they have separated, the visitor finds that, as a definition of the own "the 'science' of one's in commands the art, political giving tending of human herds" (avdgc?jx?ov xoivoxQO(pix?|V ?jiioxrj[xr|v) is not in ev For, would not merchants, farmers, complete. grain distribu and a myriad others dispute the claim that the tors, trainers, physicians king is the only tenderer of the human herd? Our outline of the kingly the Sophist now says, until we have isolated shape will not be accurate, ery way 10 This distinction 'according encased and to nature' reason for in its relevance or non-armored. of diaresis. rate off humans arbitrary We've 'feathered/unfeathered' to the method from o?ov ?aadixov co? otxeia? xat a?xcp to the human that between seen the dramatic must be to show it makes Zoologically, or armored proboscis-owning 11 Kal t?t' fj?T]xfj? ?vdo xai as rjvioxov tolvt?)? is as little species horned and unhorned reason the no more for flipness sense or as much or shell the 'horned/unhorned'; of the Eleate's attitude than stopping to sepa species. jiovouxxfj? ?nXoydeiori? x?xvn?, qp?oovxaxov JtoXixix?v ei? atjxf|v ?vaxrjaavxa, oi3ot]? xfj? ETCiair\\ir\(;. jcaoa?oirvai x?? xfj? jioXeco? Tjvia?

Rhetorician around him for a share of him from the crowd pressing and purified12 a new must make and take a diffe the herdsmanship. We beginning our on it'll be into our which road rent, quite amusing duty to mix story until we part of a grand dichotomizing of our to the summit get search. The story the Sophist now tells "will be well ... of) the king" (xf|v xov ?a?decoc they draw from it is that (the nature The moral suited to delineating JtQ?ipei gnd?v, 269C). we see that our definition of the ruler is not only incomplete, but that we erred in confusing the political man with the Divine Shepherd. we were When asking ourselves about the king and the political man of the present cyclic and generation (xfj? vvv JteQiqpOQ??xai yev?oeco?) we spoke of the shepherd of the human flock at the time of the reverse movement (?x xfj? ?vavxia? JteQio?ov jroifi?va) and he was a God not a man. We also failed to describe the manner of his rule (275A). More, they find (275D-276B) that they would be misnaming the nor would they have separated him (?yEXaioXQoqpixriv); man the human herd, doesn't feed The his from competitors. political a care for it, says like some of the latter. But he does have (?jtipiXeia) as we must agree all the others do. Also no matter how the Sophist, the that there's an art of raising (flQ?Jtxixf|V x?xvnv) much we believed it kingship-and human herd (?y?Xr\?), "we ought not to have called ... xai so hastily" statecraft For, (276C8). JioXixixfiv) (?a?iX,ixf|V we have to a division Divine between the there's apply (xp^?ic) ... and the human herder (?v&QCOJXivov vofi?a) (x?v de?ov Shepherd ? auditors The great story just told has given the Sophist's ?jtip,eXT]xrjv). Their what they need to know about the Divine second, Shepherd. was that they didn't specify in any in the discussion lesser mistake man of politics detail the manner of ruling13. Next, the caring to be (ejti[ieX,r]Xixriv) has 12 connotations of xadao?v, into account the pythagorist Taking him". and pythagorized isolated would be "until we have clause 13 -komikes is between The pun here (from KO\iit,(?, superintend) Doesn't in phrases such as xov xfj? ?ve>.aioxouixf|? ?vofiaxo?. (comic), the subtext of this the Eleate which he is busy men? This that the clever posses practices here from distinguishing seems to confirm the an attitude imply of men the crowd - who advises the repeated toward for" earlier the Eleate's behind feeling like himself individual (?etvo?) with In connection the kingly 'science'. of superiority who "provide and and komikos the verbal play the very ruler or "feed" other assertion the ruler sometimes can be said to outrageous

into voluntary divided the king different. together Now if we call bipeds 'political' will who appear and involuntary, the tyrant: but with if it isn't we're because their modes of ruling putting are quite the use of force and the care of willing 'tyrannical', it's the man who has this art of caring (jioXixix?v), to be really xai (?aoiXea kingly-and-political jroXixix?v, 276E13). "But still I think our figure of the king is not yet we have used more of our like some statue-makers complete"; mythic that the use of grand illustra material than is proportionate, "fancying in the case tions was of the king" Our outline proper (277B). seems adequate; (jt?QiYQa(pr|v), however, does idea any great require examples; that the exposition of for, it seems that each of us knows all he knows as if in a dream, but when we awake seem again except unknowing. the visitor now", interrupts himself, into the current, absurd discussion of the pathology "There to be falling of knowledge" (xai "seem [i?X'?xojtco? eoix? ye ?v xcp Jtapovxi xivrjoa? x? Jte?i xfj? ?jtioxr|n,r|? JTOfto? 6V TT||jILV)14. to young Socrates, my example This is because, he explains itself an Please with the latter. The it, says requires exemplification. proceed so is that of the art of weaving which, invoked the Eleate says, example as the political art (?xov xr|V avxr\v involves the same sort of activities Here the thing to notice is the conclusion, and JioXixixfj JtQayiiaxeiav). its cola, which the visitor reaches after dichotomizing refer weaving by ence to the materials to the way in it works on as well as with reference it works them: "just as we called statecraft which (jtoXixixrjv) or politics ? or art state the concerned with the the (jroXe ?) city, so weaving is concerned with making clothes in greatest part of which differs name only from clothes-making" as in He adds the so, (280A). "just other case, the kingly 'science' differed (?aoiX,ixf|v) [in name only] of the sophistic the hypothesis itself that, with is rhetorician, it, Plato suggest or reader to perceive his auditor behind the veil of its virtuosity the helping essential of the Eleate's persuasive frivolity enterprise. 14 one means Since of example and explaining of explaining by means example by wordplay another being times are not problematic, and topical. we gather Allusions up-to-date more are so generalized) frequent to resist to let his unable the temptation that, like with this this (sometimes in other speakers the Eleate allusion, more is simply some particular, as well, that Plato dialogues be allusively topical. seems

Rhetorician it's going to be art (jioXixixfj?)". We see how difficult from the political to the track of auditors for the Sophist's continuing keep (or readers) and basilike; he sometimes between politike synonymizes equivocation them. and sometimes distinguishes After four with wordplay15 clear to everybody" more of dichotomizing fun and Stephanus-pages now the art of weaving, the Sophist "it is says, pretty that we may call weaving "the art which directs the of making woollen So why in the world, he asks him clothes". process "did we go around in circles making self at 283B, futile distinctions?". To my mind, good visitor, nothing said seemed the visitor replies. Let me propose your mind, cases of excess and says the visitor, deficiency, another round of dichotomies futile. You may change a principle to apply to as he plunges into still It is by now is both as from Elea size and measure. about clear that the sophistic rhetorician abundantly as anybody and that he is very much a master at the method of diairesis to his reader, as it is not to young conscious of it. But it is visible that he is either abusing or satirizing the method. But if he is Socrates, are some than the former, then his dichotomies to nature for reasons, and not from lack and not according Like other talented Sophists, this one is deinos in the the latter rather doing times shallow of intelligence. sense of "formidable", just because a not sincere pleader, knowledge-seeker this is to see why there is no question as a sincere sophistic a problem-solver art. To be believed is intelligent and a special like Plato's Socrates. To grasp left over of why he often comes on he for, (as at 286D-E)16; he must be indistinguishable it is part of his from the true Had he not said at the end of the Sophist that the imitates the man of knowledge from whom he (sophos), And the of (sophistes) paronymously? species Sophist he himself is (namely, the stricture does not escape rhetorical) even though it is eristic to the genus, the Eleate has applied knowledge-seeker. eristic Sophist gets his name which which that he had in mind. Sophists Now the purpose of his distinction-making or get agreement of the mean to, the postulation ses and deficiencies this, doing over the Sophist or under continues, it (283E). one by taking 15 Such as between Zyvegyuv andtyyyev?v; 16 of this Note the overtone simulation of defensiveness of sincerity. here was to establish, and the reality of exces There are two ways of them relatively to each or between JteQi?oX/rj and VJto?oXfi. that can be picked in a detached reading

to the standard of the mean the other by reference (jtQ?? akXr\ka), never must But take the first way without x? the you ji?xQiov). (jtg?? to to not and of relate too-much too-little the the standard second; for, other mean be to abolish the arts-and-sciences, given that in practice all these solve their difficulties by referring to what they consider prop ortionate. So, he now says, "just as in the case of the Sophist we were forced to assert that not-being exists", are we not forced now to categor would of the mean because without it ically assert the reality of the existence a as a "we could not say that there is such (jioXixix?v) thing politician or that there is anyone with knowledge of (?jtioxr)|jiova) practical or of practice then be no art of politics affairs" as there would (284C)? We notice practices no reference to basilike here, and that that the visitor makes are being assimilated to the knowledges And his epistemai. excesses so mean must exist and deficits the that if really reasoning, exist in the same mean to. But, of course, the sense, has not been objected sense excess in exist: the that and deficien categories only are things postulated whereas and, categories perceived, exists cy are things therefore, hypothetical. assert the contradiction sophistic But need to differ then between situational understanding Nor was the visitor that non-existence to in the (Sophist) "forced" exists, except by his own from Parmenides. 286D2 and 287A of brevity to a functional he switches and prolixity while also and asserting that the first and most important thing by far is to exalt the method being able to divide according to classes (e??rj). He politikos now the kingly art (?aoiX,ixf|) pronounces ? to mentioned have been distinguished just ? not itself of that of from most the of those to herding; but adds that what's left are the arts relating to the relating to distinguish between those that are these, city itself and, among are causative and those that (alxiorv) (?uvaixi auxiliary v). "Although without the latter", he says at 287D, "there would be no city and no art of politics (jtoAixixri) we will not grant that any of them are the job of the The detached reader has to ask, is this a lapse kingly art (?aoiXixri)". from the visitor's monarchist in so far as it implicitly recog apologetics nizes the art of the king (?aoiXixr|) to be a species only of the political art (jioXixixrj). We must note, moreover, that the distinction between instrumental the method or auxiliary of division (xax? (x?Xri). arts and causative down the middle arts forced them to abandon in favor of division "by joints"

Rhetorician into a series of seven (!) dichotomizations reader now bumps in a riddling and punning from 287E to 289A performed to is of which finish the ostensible the auxili way, purpose eliminating arts from the poliical the reader art, but the real purpose of which, ary The kata mele is to distract from the failure of the previously exalted method of sees, a That they are so amusing, division by the middle. involving triple pun the reader in his suspicion and a bathroom that it is an joke, confirms exercise on the part of the in tergiversation The joke is that Sophist. both 'throne' and 'privy'; the triple pun is between perible to clas The series also allows the Eleate proboles and problema. dctoco? means mata, as and painting this is anoth Jia?yvi?v yet (jcaioi?, or er move characteristic of Pythagorean pythagorizing thought which clues us in to the intellectual affiliations of our Eleatic And rhetorician. we notice again that it is the kingly 'science' (?a?lAixfjc ejTtoxrjpr)c) sify the delight-giving amusement non-serious arts of ornamentation, music itov). And arts at 288E6-7, from responsibility that is exempted for the auxiliary art (jtoXixixrj) that is so exempted, it is the political that at 289A5 at 289D1 is to the practice while the reference (jtga^e ?) of both (xe but xai) king and politician. The Eleate points out next the slaves servants and the weaving itself. that there are going who will mob Bought servants to be some among the king over (a|i(pi??T)XOi)Vxac) are of course excluded from the kingly art (?aoiXixfjc t?xvT]?, 289E1). But do those who serve for pay have a claim to some sort of statecraft claim share laborers won't heralds and those are servitors These and (jtoXixixfj?)? Shopkeepers in bctsilike But what about any (290A6). or who serve in in writing skilled offices? public because too, ventures young Socrates, they are not or diviners in their city. Prophets have a (aQ/ovxac) (|iavxixf|) of ancillary 'science' for (?mcrtf|p,r]? ?taxovou); they interpret the Gods to men. And priests are knowing about the (?jticrtfjp,ov) attending Gods and have the art (t?xvr]?) of praying on our behalf. They are proud rulers kind and well-esteemed not? And in Athens are they of the majesty of their enterprise, most the Archon who performs the solemn and is he not called a King (fiaoikEVc)? These, and one because sacrifices, patriotic more group that I'll have to delineate, will have to be sorted out from the men and ? ?vxcov JtoXixixarv xai really political (?rc? x v ovx kingly we are we see to if seek. This troop is called by ?aaiAixcov) clearly what our rhetorical or sophists "of all the men-of-knowlege (?ocptoxcbv) the most and the in their art" greatest magicians (yorjxa) experienced not It will the non-snobbish reader in the that escape (x?xvT)). implicit

last set of distinctions Eleate's with is the feeling that service is incompatible governance. We or Sophistic Government Constitutional note next that the visitor the consensual distinguish from the cracy demagogic, of government: monarchy 'Science9 to has no name with which or lawful form of demo ?, 292A1) from Elea (?xovai when they rehearse the six recognized forms and and aristocracy oligarchy, and tyranny, He says here that there are only five the distinction between the coerced and (291D8), in the case of one-man rule and rule-by uncoerced forms that he makes the name [in this case]". the few; for, "no one ever habitually changes the two forms of democracy. not bothering with no one did in the pythagorized climate of opinion of such Well, perhaps as Western Greek cities who had en Elea; but the ordinary Athenian at the end of the sixth since the reforms of Kleisthenes joyed democracy not have omitted the distinction would and he would have century, ? to their decades remembered that the two exceptions of democracy the purportedly-moderate revolution of Antiphon and the oligarchal tyranny of the Thirty at the end of the fifth century Spartan-sponsored as disastrous to the lawful and moderate alternatives democracy by under the heading the majority abided of the 'ancestral constitution' 7. the visitor reminds "We said that royal rule" (?aoiXixf)v "?Q%r\v), ? one the 'sciences' "was of 292B5) (xc?v ?moxr\\i(bv, young Socrates, And it's a even though we haven't defined 'science'. yet sufficiently now if matter of judging and commanding. visitor announces, But, the which just reviewed ought to some 'science' (xiva we are to be consistent been have the forms-of-government on of the basis distinguished the 'scien E7tioxr\\ir\v). So we must ask which of these forms engenders to acquire. We must know the greatest and hardest ce' of ruling men, are to be separated from the wise this in order to see which men 17 Dramatically Athenian democracy 'one perfect, truly 303B (Athenian) democracy of government. But forms auditors without citly the long obtenance speaking, in the redefinitions Sophist's scientific form of government' by letting laws. When attacking the it be will, guest the best the Eleate 'ancestral naturally, that he is, available criticizes constitution' of the ancestral one which emerge the Elean form unwritten of the he as will among constitution lawful imitations makes of the in the At sequel. the lawful among his Athenian compensate deploys the worse governments observances, 'patriotic' JioXixe?a. r\ jt?xQioc when he is impli

Rhetorician for many king, who are not. And claim or to be political a city of ten thousand statesmanly could never (jtoXixixot) even a it to produce don't expect 150 expert draughts players, produce the Sophist specifies, those who lesser number of kings: I'm including, or not. the whether rule have 'science' they kingly (ejtioxT?|iY|) among we So have "to look for the right kind of rule wherever it occurs must And these be sup among one or two or very few men" (293A). some to to art rule We posed (xax? x?xvT]v ?|VXivo?v). according an notice is still, or again, here that our Sophist with operating ? same are between In the way equivocation episteme and techne. physi ((pQ?vijxoc) since called physicians whether they cut or burn, with or without writ or not, and whether ten rules, whether is willing the patient they are us by art or 'science' rich or poor. As long as they purify (xaflmQOVxe?) (?mcrxaxovvxe? x?xvfl) and do us good and make us better. Only in this or any other kind of regimen be rightly identified way can medicine cians whatever. The Eleate now reaches his grand conclusion (293C6-D2): It necessarily follows, it would seem, that among differing forms-of government (jtoXixei v) the one and only right polity is that in which the rulers are found truly to have 'science' (?moxrj^ova?)..., whether they rule according to laws or without them, with or without consent, and whether they are rich or poor, these things being no way relevant to an account of the most right method. with the analogy of bee his medical comparison strengthens as act in with 'science' accordance "so they organization, long ... to must be be that said the only right form of (&iioxr\\ir\) and justice JtoXixetav). AU other forms", he continues, government (fi?vrjv ?g9f|v He hive must be said to be not legitimate (yvrjoiac) or real but to be imitating this form; and we call [states] well-governed (eirvojiovc) or more de success to in imitating this form their formed (aioxiova) according (293E3-6). that there should be finds it hard to accept young Socrates answer is that the art of legisla The visitor's without laws. government not is for the laws to the best "but tion is part of kingcraft (?aaiXixfjc); But to be" (294A). but for a kingly man of wisdom (ioxveiv), life and the differences of human the ehangefulness Because Why? cases men and any art (x?xvr]) from among prevent (?vo|ioioxT]X??) in power

In this re about everything18. unconditionally naive and unknowing. Socrates True, says young ? us atechnos, treats with If we each of indistinction. the law plain ly, we note the punning between atechnos and techne, also have antithesis to note that it undermines is a part of king the claim that law-making anything proclaiming spect law is stubborn craft if kingcraft that when implies the consequence is an art (techne) or 'science'. the antithesis Or else, he is being But the king legislates 'unscientific'19. can no be if of this is that there Pythgorean legislation, reason is a 'science'. In contrast the Sophist's explicit Pythagoreanism cannot to it is then is con is if what that law unconditional, ing apply an as are to is affairs There indi human ditional, (294C6-7). appeal vidualism law with ?lite in this part of the Sophist's it also associates the discourse; to the it (he hopes) distasteful the herd of "the many", making few. He unchangeable, change a law. argues further and (at 296A) that writing the laws down makes them to it difficult that Greek procedure makes if like a physician with correct art (?xcov ... ?Q$ ? ... x?xvr]v) a cure or improvement that be called upon a patient, would you forced ... an "unscientific error" (naga xf|v x?xvnv and ?p?Qxrip,a, 296B9) error Is not unscientific harmful? xfiv JXoXixixf)V x?xvrjv (jtaca But evil, injustice and shamefulness (x? aloxQ?v)? And if peo apxxQXTifxa) are to do what is juster and nobler contrary to written laws or tradi ple to say that they've suffered unjust or evil tion, it would be ridiculous or force does what's for the good, treatment. So, if a man by persuasion won't this be the truest form of right administration "with (?ioixr|o8co?) the affairs of the ruled" which the good, wise man will administer the law for the ship, (296E)? Just as the navigator makes his science men a establish the strength may right polity (jtoXixeia) by making 'science' (x?xvn?) greater so of than the laws. as long as And whatever the wise rulers do there can be no mistake, one to defend this distribute (?iav?fxovxe?) full jus they thing: always tice with intelligence and 'science' (\iEx? vov xai x?xvTj?) and both safeguard the citizens and bring them the better out of the worse as far as possible (297A-B). 18 ?vouia ?vouo? or 19 And the Eleate's "scientific law-maker" (? \iex? x?xvr]? YQatyac;, 295E8) is a Note the (lawless, contradiction echo which tacitly allows ?vonoioxnxE? to resonate with lawlessness). in terms.

Rhetorician but in character, Socrates young says to this: Astonishingly, to the "there is no refuting what you have just said". It's astonishing reader because he has just approved of one-man rule or oligarchy unli or as as can mited by law the rulers claim to pos long accountability, sess true 'science' (x?xvT]). The (?jtiaxr|p,?]) or a kind that such of professional expertise rule be administered "with proviso Sophist's his escape-clause; is, of course, for, won't any kind of a success acts be that and with full justice intelligently intelligence", administration and that knows how to maximize the (?ixaioxaxov), good and minimize worse in The the defense of and (297A-B)? fallacy Sophist's monarchy here is that it is also a defense of any form of government. It oligarchy would be non-refutable, but its for factual claim that i.e., tautological administrators. And as poli large numbers of men cannot be intelligent tical philosophy overlooks Aristotle's it completely point that, as with some productive arts and practices, the judges of quality are the users of the product not the makers of it. The Sophist's of this point is neglect a of the principle of his abolishment of the accounta corollary simply of rulers. bility now proceeds to make good an omission, and clarify for means imitations of the he form of a polity. young by is the the that described only right form, you see Granting polity just laws if they are to survive that other forms will have to employ written even though, as I've said, obeying written laws isn't the best thing to do. The Eleate Socrates what the latter is the option, he says. But for us readers, we in will call the the first contrast, option; 'utopian' option or speculative it is mythopoetic and perfectionist20'. We notice, that as the Sophist evaluates kinds of polity, his usage (from is never to mention the demos by itself, but always in counter It's only the second 'existential' because further, 298 on) poise with the wealthy: he lacks the constitutional Athenian notion that the demos includes all the people (298C4, 298E7, 299A1-2, 300E8). all who take part in existential govern Sophist now excludes are to imitations him and unreal) from being real men of (which The ments 20 To redefine and distinguish all the kinds of polity by the idea of how well they is circular; the xf|v xov ?v?? \iex? x?xvrj? cxqxovxo? it makes all JioXixe?av, one. to this The also mask the of perfection polities Sophist's speeches fallacy ism or utopianism: to 'best'. But to best' that both good and bad are inferior 'inferior or unattainable isn't necessarily is speculative when the best in fact bad, especially approximate inferior or by definition, as here. The Eleate's "seventh" kind of polity (302C10), delegitimates as well as explicitly revises the standard Greek implicitly list of six polities.

party-men jtoXtxixou?). They are just partisans, head "the counterfeits" up greatest (oxaotaoxixou?). They (ei? taov are themselves and the illusionists [xeyioxcov) biggest (yor)xa?) and su v v "This term [soph oocpiox oocpioxa?, preme sophists (x 303C1-4). seems come to have round", agrees young Socrates, ist] "rightly to app (d)? otix ovxa? politics men of politics". This seems to exclude (\syo\i?vov?) ly to the so-called whether all earthly politicians (jtoXixixoi) they are good and know or and pleaders from being partisans (oxaoiacrtixoi) ledgeable sense of 'kingly' and 'scientific' in the Sophist's 'statesmen' (?aoiXixoi) (?mcrcrjfx v). As he goes on to say "all that is other and counter and not to the akin 'science of politics' (jtoXixixfj? has ?morrj/uri?) now been refined out" (303E8-10). This for elimination science, only military jurisprudence, in the kingly of oratory that shares science it because leads to justice and helps to steer the state". Since rhetoric serves the and military science is ruled over by power (?uvajiL?, 304D8) political "and leaves the kind kingcraft politics dence they themselves Nor, the Sophist (jcoXixixrj, 305A8-9). since it the takes laws be, existing (?aoiXixr|, 305A6), cannot be the science of can jurispru continues, from the king lawgiver (vojxoflixov ?aodeooc, 305B6): the power of judges is not kingly (oi) ?aaiXixrjv, 305C6) either. At 305C10-E6, finally, we get the Sophist's between 'science' equation political (politike) and kingcraft In a short but interesting coda to the equation, he concludes are quite properly called that the special knowledges 'special' because over one nor neither rule another themeselves Moderns they (305E). to read this as a reminder to positivists and physicalists may be allowed ? that no single special not sociology, not physics or mathema science ? over the rest of tics is regulative knowledge. outright basilike. The Sophist's Kingly Craft as Methoria In the Eleate's sophistic then, basi style of pythagorized thinking, like is the 'science' which governs all other arts and As poli practices. tics or political its to weave is the web of the 'science', responsibility as as it is described in the last five political community, just doing of our dialogue we But as reflection, Stephanus-pages (305E-311C). see how idealist how in it the art-and is, (i.e., pythagorist) turning ? ? science of reflective and all the other arts and sciences into politics or subservient technes rather true than ancillary (technai) knowledges because what they (epistemai) they cannot grasp the relation between

themselves do and 117 Rhetorician the good of the political The valid core community. under indeed, be subsumed is that the special sciences must, - as thinkers the study of ethics-and-aesthetics of this and known. have from Aristotle to Peirce But it is Sophistic because 'science' has been regulative the always as the inclusive, vali invests dated as such by an unfalsifiable its practitioner story which with unchallengeable divinity. We will see that as only the 'professor' of or practitioner, our rhetorician this theory rather than its implementor - a own own terms to in is not but his his claim, contrary kingly Santayana it offers alternative craftsman basilike, phy and politics, wiliness methodic but only a borderliner (p,eft?Qioc) between philoso term at Euthydemus in Socrates' all his 305C. With (p,e<k)???a) his craft is only [ie??o?ia. is his craft the limits of the Politicus itself either, it for the these the Eleate validated by the results city-state: produces as the of basilike from 306A to for Socrates young consequence deploys to be is declared the end. At 31 IB "the end of the web" of its practice But not within the good weaving (or knowledgeable interbreeding) together of hardy characters characters with courageous (?v??eicov xai prudent-decorous of with the implantation ao)(pQ?va)V av&Qcimcov r?ftoc) simultaneously that will produce the best-textured the friendship and concord possible to cover and watch over all in the happy city whether mantle with which is not only promissory, and based on a theoretical slave or free. This mere analogy, but its two central kingly technes are the inexact 'scien Most of all, in of eugenics and group indoctrination. ironically which with the of the mantles process city, the free point "happiness" from the slaves. become indistinguishable we find Plato's Socrates If we go now to Euthydemus 290A-D, ces' on, through a question leading Kleinias ? and geometry tion of it and calculation to the rejec generalship - as the master and astronomy in that dialogue's art that governs the special Further, knowledges. word to Kleinias and the with of his Crito Sophistic report exchanges art of includes the and Socrates mongers, explicitly knowingly smilingly monarchy happiness. could it be, science (xr\v ?aoiXixr|v) had Socrates as the Gods of speechmaking about did not produce among those they decided at asked 289C9-10, ironically, just perhaps are my witness, that if we learnt the art-and this art would make us happy? When to use the arguments Kleinias they them says no, speechwriters with them that when confesses Socrates make selves they impress up, their art seems a branch him as superwise (?JteQ?Ocpoi), out-of-reach; and sway mass juries, and they're able to spellbind of the enchanter's, don't know how

If these words deliberately echo those of and other crowds. as a word-wizard in the Sophist, visitor about the Sophist the Eleatic order in which the latter dialogue, they are a due clue to the dramatic should be read. And this would the Politicus and the Euthydemus imply is not only an exchange of Euthydemus about educa that the epilogue tion with Crito, but also one in which Plato gives his Socrates "equal assemblies to respond time" to the impressive pretensions statesman in his and man-of-knowledge is read before Euthydemus to alert the reader The fact strengthens tion of the two by at 305C, continued Eleatic But dialogues. its epilogue and Politicus, Sophystes to pretensions of the brilliant visitor that Socrates 291C6 of the would-be two identifes the hypothesis Prodicus from Elea. at techne with politike to the identifica is alluding the basilike that he in Politicus. the Eleatic if serves called them That's why, "inbetweeners" Socrates had on the bor and politics. (?leftOQia) between knowledge They think themselves so if it weren't be accounted for the the wisest, and believe they'd men whom therefore But when they philosophic downgrade. they meet a refutationist like Euthydemus, It's natural they are silenced21. ders to believe continues for these inbetweeners, themselves Socrates, wise, some philosophy and some political for they've absorbed knowledge. But since they take no risks (i.e., do not practice and avoid politics) the benefits of their knowledge. Still, says they enjoy only competition, in their account of Crito, you can't deny that there's some propriety ? themselves. Here the reader will remember the effort it took (without to see through the impressive of the Eleatic Socrates rhetoric help) he kept his bright and how well-persuaded Sophist, Yes Crito, says Socrates it's a question of appearing young seemly respondents. rather than of holding to the truth (306A). Pythagorism There and the Idea is no doubt of Monarchy that the Politicus in the Fourth is somehow Century related B .C. to the as well as to a new century, in Athens in the idea of monarchy. interest The idea of legitimating or 'science' did exist among sovereignty by knowledge probably state of the their school) and others before Pia (whatever Pythagoreans renewal 21 someone Sophists of Pythagoreanism in the Fourth the reader has just been However, cares who for knowledge really and not be silenced by them. shown rather that (in the Euthydemus) by Socrates can match a than display, pair

to's time. But the passages of Pythagorean doctrine and logue, pretation could have 119 Rhetorician which Stobaeus about monarchy been influenced of it22. But what has preserved (5th c. A.D.) are all later than Plato's dia inter by it or the Academic it might development or Sophists, have received among of Plato's dia independently is undocumentable. in the cli readers can be sure that tensions presocratic Pythagoreans, the Academy and logues In matters political, in any work before them. Given of opinion will also be operating is treating the same topics as the Eleate and 284C-285C that at 276D-E at and with the the end of the Oeconomicus, in his Hiero and Xenophon mate same obliviousness becomes to the relevance the question of law to rulership, in his own unintellectual is reformulating whether Xenophon way views similar to those of the pythagorizing rhetorician or whether is using this Eleatic Plato and understated Sophist to make from Elea, these behind the rationale reflection of critical for purposes explicit Plato and between the chronological views. Whatever priorities - not exclu farmer of the it is the ruling-class conception Xenophon, that is being played with by the Ischomachus sive to Xenophon's visitor. The initial tip-off to this is the idea of the ruler as man-herd. it is clear and the Eleate are both antidemocratic, But, while Xenophon ? is ? intel claims to knowledge with his pythagorizing that the latter held his common idea. the Secondly, Xenophon oligarchal lectualizing views in the context of a laid-back paternalist paideia, must operate by results-getting as a paid professional where the Eleate (and covered-up) persuasion. have would reader or auditor of the Politicus contemporary or reoccurrence the of occurrence of the the image (at 293D) 24-26. V in is also found which 1, Cyropaedia Xenophon's King-bee at 260E1, of the the Eleate's mention, He would also have recognized A noted as not a commander but only a transmitter of orders, as more boatswain versus un at Oeconomicus XXI 2 to knowing exact than the reference ? is talking practice; characteristically, Xenophon, knowing boatswains I mean of must the the Eleatic appearance theorizing. give persuader of know his dissociation but 'more exact' in his pythagorizing parlance, more as comes If Plato out expected oligarchal. ing from lowly practices then we knew Xenophon's that the Eleate his readers to assume work, can take this speaker's on views Xenophon's 22 Florilegium project by in the dialogue intellectualizing as an attempt them. But to improve if Xenophon's (2 vol. in one), Tauschnitz ed. of 1838; Peri Basileas

works we then themselves have to or indifferent see to them as a to Plato's, responses or or Sophistic of pythagorist a as real oligarch remember that, lectualization must indirect de-intel 'depythagorization' defenses of monarchy23. We he would not spartanizer, or Pythagoreans. to favor either Sophists have been predisposed It is as to take our Eleatic rhetorician also not implausible speaking against of tyranny by Antisthenes the semi-Socratic, the condemnation if use a to him of condemn has historical Xenophon's predatory despots In any case, one of the common beliefs basis (Symp. IV 36-37). that the is combatting Eleate This brings and is that of the inevitable us gentleman-militarist Socrates, Xenophon's and the significant rhetorician from atMemorabilia entirely on his ability of the tyrant. that the conceptions unhappiness to the two or three Elea do share. the arete of the kingly II3, makes to make his followers general depend happy. The at the end of the Oeconomicus of the tyrant who rules condemnation over unwilling is a matter shows that this consentingness of subjects, a to in And the the difference between Hiero, importance Xenophon. on a to be of his subjects the willingness monarch tyrant and depends as it did in the discourse ruled by him. This of course blocks, of the of the place of law in reflective visitor, any development poli in whether tics, episteme. But as to Xenophon's praktike or the Eleate's the happiness of the monarch the Eleate's Divine possessed Shepherd, as he is of basilike knowledge and a happy kingdom, he can be pre Eleatic as not to lack it. Nor is Xenophon's Hiero kept from happiness as to consent he the of his knows how long keep subjects. we find Hiero's Nonetheless interlocutor Simonides agreeing to the need of the monarch for a mercenary guard which, strongly sumed however, will be put to uses that are good for his subjects to maintain is "forced Hiero well knows that the despost while an army, or at least, in Xenophon is that the implication, not to is human sustain a nature) (given enough monarch (IV 11). The of the subjects who has it, even it is his 'science' perish" consent Aulus Gellius if it seems to legitimate him. For the Sophist, that legitimates the one-man ruler; and of the latter's inclusive 'science' (which has in or knowledge success the presumed cluded the supervision 23 suggests of generals, that Xenophon's Republic or part of it. Attic Nights Mil, Note as well; that if Xenophon it in a sense inimical was to his judges, Cyropaedia administrators was his response and other to Plato's Text & Tr. J.C. Rolfe (Harvard 1948-1954). Plato's Republic, he must indirectly countering own for oligarchy and monarchy. preference have taken

Rhetorician of force from functionaries) keeps the subject of the monopoly a in of his discourse. non-constitutional course, But, arising only will believe that the kingly man's monarchist and great intelligence city-state store of 'scientific' ability is enough to legitimate with a militarist like Xenophon, paternalist a would rationalize tion, tacitly dominationist to those dominated. consented lingly by only a of state administra model system as something wil his rule. And auditors find some allusiveness should any of the Eleate's to the pan-Hellenic of Isocrates, we know that the politics not for the individual in monarchy, cities of Hellas latter was interested a but for purposes of and defensive alliance unifying foreign-policy only Finally, in his words or confederation. orator and man century The normative of politics democracy was conception critized implicitly constitutional: "the of which this by means the weaknesses of fourth constitution is the soul of the city, the life of the state" (?oxt y??>tyvxv) t?oKe??co???v ?xegov f\ use of the 14, Panathenaicus JcoXtxe?a, Areop. 138). His repeated of our city" instead of the the "administration (?iobcr)oi?) phrase to mediate his constitution' standard 'ancestral ability protected was much-used in and the all like well-chosen dioikeo, among parties, of the city's affairs. For, he knew its connotation of 'home-governance' more were appealing conservative and the that extremists, oligarchs to the new-fangled notion of the constitution' away from the 'ancestral and elegantly in satirizes which Plato extensively 'ideal constitution' to be But the king Isocrates had in mind was a war-leader the Republic. not with entrusted with the supreme command over a Hellenic alliance, the governance of any cities but his own. And of the the purpose faction at home and avoid hegemonic alliance was not only to prevent the potential among the allies, but also to actualize greatness disputes vis-?-vis It does strike us, however, of the Greeks the rest of the world. to provide a rationale for the taking wished that had some contemporary over all of Greece, a of power by such supreme commander regardless have done better he could hardly than the in the virtuoso discourse from Elea does, that Pla to invented for him and for our response. And we remember that young loud objection, Socrates' among his many easily-muted only noticeably of home-constitutions, rhetorician sophistic was to just this proposal difficulties, ten or traditional. S.U.N.Y. New York at Stony Brook to do away with constitutions writ

Bibliography & References ed. F. Decleva Caizzi, Milan 1966. Fragmenta, M. Bakhtin, Problems of Dostoyevsky s Poetics (1929), tr. C. Emerson, sota U.P. 1984; The Biological (1975), tr. Emerson Imagination quist, Minnesota U.P. 1981. Antisthenes, E. Bikerman & J. Sykutris, 'Speusippus richte S?chsische Akad. 80/3, 1928. W. Burkert, Lore and Science Harvard 1972. P. Cloch?, A. Delatte, Isocrate Essai Brief an K?nig Philipp', in Ancient Pythagoreanism et son Temps, Paris 1963. sur la Politique Pythagoricienne, u. die Sogenannten Pythagoreer, E. Frank, Platon K. von Fritz, Pythagorean (1962), Minne & Hol Sitzungsbe tr. E. Minar, 1922. Halle 1923. in Southern Italy, N.Y. 1940. Politics A. Fuks, The Ancestral Constitution, London 1953. Aul. Gellius, Attic Nights Mil, Ed. & Tr. J.C. Rolfe, Harvard 1948-1954. Isocrates, Orations 1928-1945. B. Levitt, 1943. and Letters Mil, Supreme Political Power Text & Tr. Norlin & Van Houk, Harvard in the Fourth Century B .C., Philadelphia V.G. M?autis, R?cherches sur le Pythagorisme, 1922. Neuch?tel in Plato's 'Statesman , The Hague 1980. M. Miller, The Philosopher E.L. Minar, Early Pythagorean Practice and Theory, Baltimore Politics, 1942. Spartiate, Paris 1933-1934. and Early Pythagoreanism, Toronto 1966. J.A. Philip, Pythagoras ed. L. Campbell, Text & Notes, Oxford 1867; Plato, Sophistes and Politicus, Politicus Philebus, Text & Tr. H.N. Fowler, Harvard 1921; Theaetetus Sophist, Text & Tr. Fowler, Harvard 1921; text Dies, German tr. Schleier Werke VI, Theaitetos Sophistes Politikos, ed. Staudacher, Darmstadt macher, 1970; ed. E. Gifford, Text, Introd. & Notes, Oxford 1905; Euthydemus, Ma. Euthydemus Protagoras Meno, Ed. & Tr. Lamb, London-Cambridge 1924. F. Oilier, Le Mirage and Eleatics, Cambridge 1948. Utopie, Munich 1921. C. Sankey, The Spartan & Theban Supremacies, London 1883. vom Ende des Peloponnesischen Sie vers, Geschichte Griechenlands G.R. zur bei Schlacht Kiel bis 1840. Mantinea, Krieges J.E. Raven, Pythagoreans E. Salin, Die Griechische

Rhetorician Stobaeus, Florilegium (2 vol. in 1), Leipzig 1838. V. Tejera, Plato's Dialogues One By One, N.Y. 1984; The City-State Foundations of Western Political Thought, Lanham 1984; 'Parmenides: To Be or Not To Be', Papers of the Society for Ancient Greek Boston 1972; Sophist on Polities', Philosophy & Social Criticism 5 1, 1978; Intl. Studies in Philos. 10, 1978. 'Methodology of a Misreading', Philosophy, 'An Eleatic H. Thesleff, Introduction to the Pythagorean Writings of theHellenistic Period, Helsinki 1961; Texts of the Hellenistic Period, Testimonianze Timpanaro-Cardini, Pitagorici. rence 1958-1964. The Pythagorean M. Helsinki 1965. e Frammenti I-III, Flo Assen 1966. J.C. de Vogel, Pythagoras & Early Pythagoreanism, u. Griechenland in der Jahren von 346-338 F.R. Wust, Philipp v.Makedonien B.C., ed. Gunter, Meyer, Muller, Xenophon, Works I-VII, C.L. Brownson Ma. 1918-1925. repr. Arno 1973. et al. Text & Tr., London-Cambridge zur Griechische G. Zunkel, Untersuchungen B.C., Diss. Univ. Jena 1911. Geschichte der Jahre