The Classical Quarterlyhttp://journals.cambridge.org/CAQ

Additional services for The Classical Quarterly:

Email alerts: Click hereSubscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here

DRAMATIC ASPECTS OF PLATO'S PROTAGORAS

M.F. Burnyeat

The Classical Quarterly / Volume 63 / Issue 01 / May 2013, pp 419 - 422DOI: 10.1017/S0009838812000547, Published online: 24 April 2013

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009838812000547

How to cite this article:M.F. Burnyeat (2013). DRAMATIC ASPECTS OF PLATO'S PROTAGORAS. TheClassical Quarterly, 63, pp 419-422 doi:10.1017/S0009838812000547

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAQ, IP address: 148.61.13.133 on 17 Nov 2013

Examples of the singular in place of the plural do not occur before thefourth century C.E.7 The singular in this phrase is thus without parallel in Classical andHellenistic Greek and I suggest emending the text of Wealth 229 to read Confusion between and (and and ) is, of course,frequent in the Aristophanic manuscript tradition,8 but in this case the scribes eyeperhaps caught sight of the singular (or one of the MSS readings R, V, AKL) in line 227 leading him to write a singular for whatwas originally a plural.9

Loyola University Maryland DAVID J. JACOBSONdjjacobson@loyola.edu

doi:10.1017/S0009838812000687

7 e.g. Lib. Or. 12.68.7, Ep. 375.6.2; Julian. Or. 8.2.39; Himer. Or. 46.43; Georgius Pachymeres,Quadrivium 1.40.15. In Libanius we also find governing a singular demonstrative in the geni-tive: Ep. 868.4.1 (), 883.2.2 (). Dielss text of the first-century C.E. AnonymusLondiniensis, Iatrica 2.30 (() [] [] () ) has now been supplantedby that of Daniela Manettis new Teubner edition: () [ < > ] () . Dr.Manetti has informed me per litteras that is preferable to because in the manuscriptone can see on the upper right side of the first letter the start of the ligature mark common with but not .

8 Ach. 652, 755; Eq. 572; Vesp. 119; Lys. 514; Ran. 143, 695, 1010; Plut. 472, 573, 678.9 The appearance of (226) in nearly the same position in the line may have also contrib-

uted to the mistake.I would like to thank Jason Aftosmis, Mark Griffith, Daniela Manetti, Donald Mastronarde and the

anonymous referee of CQ for their helpful comments.

DRAMATIC ASPECTS OF PLATOS PROTAGORAS

In the course of its 53 Stephanus pages Platos Protagoras uses the verb 32 times: a frequency considerably greater than that of any other dialogue. The next lar-gest total is 21 occurrences in the Theaetetus (68 Stephanus pages). In the vast bulk ofthe Republic occurs just 20 times over 294 Stephanus pages. The ratios arestriking. In the Protagoras the verb turns up on average once every 1.65 Stephanuspages; in the Theaetetus once every 3.25 pages; in the Republic only once every14.7. The statistics reflect a fact evident to any reader of the Protagoras andTheaetetus, that the first of these dialogues is Platos most sustained treatment of thecomparative merits of the many different forms of , the second his mostambitious exhibition of the type of dialectic (as he has taught us to call it) withwhich Socrates there wins his contest against Protagoras. It is the former dialoguethat interests me here.

The verb, and hence the question of merit, comes up in Protagoras very first speechin reply to Socrates approach and introduction of young Hippocrates: , , ; (316b3). It is hard to find atranslator who renders this right.1 W.K.C. Guthries Do you wish to speak to me

1 I examined in vain 30 translations: 15 English, 7 Italian, 3 German, 2 French, and 1 Russiandirectly, plus 1 Bulgarian and 1 Japanese through the kind offices of Ivan Christov and NoburuNotomi respectively.

SHORTER NOTES 419

mailto:djjacobson@loyola.edu

alone or with the others? can be matched over and over again.2 But see how Socrateswill formulate the same question at 316c24: , , . Socrates employs thepresent infinitive where Protagoras had used the aorist infinitive. In the second passage Guthrie translates, So now it is for you to decidewhether you think this calls for a conversation between ourselves or with others. Wrongagain. Do you wish for a conversation between ourselves or with the others? wouldhave done for Protagoras original question. But not for the later passage whereSocrates throws the question back at him to decide. Let me explain.

In the dependent moods of a Greek verb (subjunctive, optative, infinitive, imperative)the contrast between aorist and present generally has nothing to do with time. It is adifference in aspect.3 The aorist has perfective meaning, the present imperfective mean-ing. That is to say, the aorist views an event as a complete whole, whereas the presentfocusses on the internal stages leading up to completion. A good way to illustrate forAnglophone readers the difference between perfective and imperfective meaning is tocompare Next year I will write a book on Plato (perfective) and Next year I willbe writing a book on Plato (imperfective). The first assumes completion, the seconddoes not. It could matter quite a lot which form you used in your grant application.

Now look at Protagoras 310e23: , . Guthries I have come to you, to persuade you to speak to him on my behalfis not wrong, but it hardly conveys the urgency of the aorist subjunctive (perfective).What Hippocrates wants Socrates to do for him is best put into English as I havecome to you to get you to have a word with him on my behalf. The speaker is interestedin the result, not the process. His impatience has been manifest since the very start of thedialogue, where he bursts into Socrates bedroom to get himself taken to ProtagorasNOW, even though it is not yet daylight and Protagoras will certainly not be up andabout for a good while. The nuance is the difference between speak to him, whichmight go on and on, and have a word with him, which foresees a quick closure.We can convey the perfective aspect in English (as, conversely, French can do ourimperfective continuous future by je serai en train de ). But it often takes a con-scious effort which, sadly, Platos translators have been reluctant to launch upon.

I say sadly because aspect is part of Platos rich vocabulary of dramatic character-ization. Protagoras perfective shows him foreseeing an end to the conver-sation before it has even begun; it will in fact end when he bluntly announces that it istime to stop and do something else (361e6).4 Socrates , by contrast,focusses on the ongoing process of discussion, which he is still anxious to continue

2 W.K.C. Guthrie, Plato: Protagoras and Meno (Harmondsworth, 1956). I choose Guthrie as myexemplary translator because of his command of Greek and his good, flexible English style.

3 The exceptions involve indirect discourse or the presence of . For a full elucidation, see W.W.Goodwin, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb (London, 1897), 2247. Although hedoes not use the term aspect, that is what he is describing. A helpful study, which does speak ofaspect, is C.M.J. Sicking, The distribution of aorist and present tense stem forms in Greek, especiallyin the imperative, Glotta 69 (1991), 1443 and 15470. Aspect is a strongly marked feature of theverb in Slav languages (cf. n. 6 below).

4 Compare Socrates ironical use of the same form at Gorgias 447c1, as if all he wantsfrom Gorgias is that he answer a couple of utterly straightforward questions that wont take a minute todeal with. In context the verb refers to question and answer dialectic as contrasted with rhetorical epi-deixis of the type that Gorgias has just delivered, so an apt rendering might be, Would he be willingto join us in a spot of dialectic? In the event, of course, the two straightforward questions give rise toa major discussion, the first of a lengthy three-part dialogue.

SHORTER NOTES420

at 361cd, shortly before Protagoras calls a halt. Socrates can be translated It is for youto decide whether we should talk alone or with others. But Protagoras needs somethinglike Do you want us to have our talk alone or with the others?5

Eventually, at 317c45 Protagoras gives his decision:

, , .

This time Guthrie scores a triumph:

[If] there is anything you want of me, I should much prefer to say my say in front of the wholecompany.

Say my say is brilliant. Yet the infinitive is present, i.e. imperfective. What now foreseesclosure is the definite article in . Guthrie can respond to that because it is closer tothe way English expresses aspect (compare have our talk and have a word with above).

Another character-revealing aorist from Protagoras is 333b8c5:

, ; , , , , . , , ; , , .

For which Guthrie produces the following translation:

Do you think that a man who commits an injustice acts temperately in committing it? For mypart I should be ashamed to agree to that, he replied. Of course many people do agree. Well,shall I direct my argument against them or against you? If you wish, he said, argue firstagainst the proposition of the many.

Again, this is not exactly wrong, but it does not do justice to the perfective meaning ofthe aorist imperative. In effect, Protagoras is saying, If you wish, get done arguing withthe many first, and then come back to me and my views. I read this as yet anotherexpression of the aloof disdain for the masses that he exudes at several points in the dia-logue (317a46, 352e34, 353a78).

Finally, an intriguing passage at 336bc, where Alcibiades supports Socrates in hisprotest at Protagoras insisting on his right to make long speeches:

, . , .

For which Guthrie writes,

Socrates admits frankly that long speeches are beyond him and that Protagoras has the better ofhim there, but in discussion and the intelligent give and take of arguments I doubt if he wouldgive any man best. If Protagoras in his turn admits to being weaker than Socrates in discussion,Socrates will be satisfied.

5 The difference between Protagoras and Socrates mayalso be significant.Socrates does not carewho is listening, but at 317cd he suspects that Protagoras wants to put on a display note the perfective infinitives in front of Prodicus and Hippias.Congratulations to Jowett for noticing the perfective verbs and translating, As I suspected that he wouldlike to have a little display and glorification in the presence of Prodicus and Hippias.

SHORTER NOTES 421

Close comparisonwith theGreek shows that Guthrie is no literalist. Hewill write in awordlike frankly if it brings out the tone of the original, and he is not afraid to use the mostidiomatic English he can find. All he needs to convey the force of the aorist here is a change at 336c34 from beats him in discussion to beats him in a discussion.What matters is that Plato has Alcibiades represent what Protagoras might agree to byrepeating the contrast we first met at 316bc between the sophists perfective infinitiveand Socrates imperfective. These aspects are clearly part of the drama.

Socrates focus on the ongoing process of discussion does not mean that he valuesdiscussing solely for its own sake. One unusual feature of this dialogue is that discussingis said to have a goal:

, , , , , .

(314c37)

When we found ourselves in the doorway, we stood there and continued a discussionwhich had arisen between us on the way. So that we might not leave it unfinished but have itout before we went in, we were standing in the doorway talking until we should reach agreement.

(tr. Guthrie)

The imperfect has imperfective meaning (we were discussing), yet it ishere said to have agreement as its goal or : , where notethe aorist optative with perfective meaning, i.e. in order that the discussion should notturn out incomplete; compare the perfective in line 7. The idea of a recurs at 347c2 and 348a9. At the close of the dialogue they have failed to reachagreement on the question of the teachability of virtue when Protagoras calls a halt, say-ing it is time to do something else. Socrates, however, would have preferred to see itthrough to the end: (361d6; cf. 349a8). In this compound the imper-fective meaning of the present optative combines beautifully with the prefix toexpress the idea of an ongoing process directed towards a definite goal. Protagoras isplainly relieved to break off, but Socrates is sorry they have not reached agreement.From his point of view the discussion was an incomplete failure.

Yet he did have one striking success that day, and we were able to read him doing it.This was the opening discussion with Hippocrates in which Socrates queried thethoughtless haste with which the youth wanted to rush off to study with Protagoras.By the time they arrive in the doorway to Callias house, Hippocrates is no longer ina rush. He is a model of calm who shares Socrates desire to reach agreement on what-ever it was they were discussing along the way. And the last word of the dialogue is firstperson plural: we went away, implying we went away together.6

All Souls College, Oxford OX1 4AL M.F. BURNYEAT

doi:10.1017/S0009838812000547

6 It was Heda egvi who first alerted me to the aspectual contrast between Protagoras and Socratesat 316bc. I dedicate this piece to her memory. Pavel Gregori tells me that in her native Croatia tea-chers of Greek make a point of emphasizing the aspectual difference I have been labouring here, andhe found me two Croatian translations of the Protagoras (Rac 1915, thoroughly revised by Sironi1975) which give a faultless rendering of all the passages discussed in this note. She would applaud.The same passages are equally well rendered in the recent Slovenian translation of all Plato by GorazdKocijani (Celje, 2004).

SHORTER NOTES422