それから? : 『クレイトフォン』とその先への問い

概要

論文の詳細を見る
In the following, I would like first to clarify what Cleitophon actually demands from Socrates in the eponymous dialogue Second, I sketch how Socrates is depicted in it Third, I examine the legitimacy of Cleitophon's demands and, finally, take up the vexed problem of authorship 1 What does Cleitophon demand from Socrates? Cleitophon expresses his demands in various forms Though Cleitophon does not articulate the nature of their relationship, we could take him to demand two things, namely (i) to go beyond a mere exhortation and grasp the matter fully (cf 408d3-4), that is, to define what justice is by giving its peculiar ergon (cf 409b6-c1), and (ii) to give a concrete advice concerning the next step which corresponds to the nature of Cleitophon's soul (cf 410d1-5) 2 What features does Socrates have in the Cleitophon ? Socrates here should be differentiated into two figures the Socrates in the frame dialogue, who directly speaks to Cleitophon (Sc1), and the Socrates indirectly portrayed by Cleitophon (Sc2) Most of the thoughts put into the mouth of Sc2, except for Polemarchus' thesis, can be regarded as basically Platonic, whereas Sc1 shows both Platonic and non-Platonic traits This strongly suggests that the main target of the author is the Socrates of Plato, giving some hint as to the authorship 3 Is the demand made by Cleitophon legitimate? On this, there seem to be three options A Cleitophon's demand (CD) is legitimate because he rightly sees the dangerous consequence of being merely protreptic and leaving the young at a loss without giving any positive guidance B1 CD is illegitimate because he understands neither Socrates' role as a "midwife" nor the meaning of philosophizing in a Socratic sense B2 CD is illegitimate because Socrates actually gave a definite practical principle, namely the absolute denial of doing injustice (adikein) B1 appears to be convincing, but in view of the similar demand made by Glaukon in the Republic II, it is highly likely that Plato himself felt some uneasiness about the aporetic ending of the first book, which undoubtedly stands in close connection with the Cleitophon B2 deserves serious consideration Still, it seems to me that B2 cannot satisfy CD either, so long as Socrates offers no clear definition of injustice itself From all this, I am inclined to agree with A 4 Is the Cleitophon Plato's work ? Apart from other grounds for doubt, the problem of wrongly ascribing the "Harming enemies and helping friends" principle to Socrates still remains the fatal stumbling block to claims of authenticity The only possible way to avoid this would be to regard the Cleitophon as a draft conceived before the Republic I, which seems to me very improbable It is more plausible to assume, as some scholars have already done, that somebody other than Plato wrote the Cleitophon after reading the Republic I, and that Plato, having found Cleitophon's demand to be justified, then wrote the rest of the Republic
日本西洋古典学会の論文
2004-03-05

著者

三嶋輝夫
青山学院大学文学部史学科

それから? : 『クレイトフォン』とその先への問い

スポンサーリンク

概要

著者

関連論文

スポンサーリンク