Philosophical Review

Plato's The Sophist and the Statesman by A. E. Taylor; Raymond Klibansky; ElizabethAnscombeReview by: J. M. E. MoravcsikThe Philosophical Review, Vol. 72, No. 1 (Jan., 1963), pp. 122-124Published by: Duke University Press on behalf of Philosophical ReviewStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2183074 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 18:23

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Duke University Press and Philosophical Review are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Philosophical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.238.114.210 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:23:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS

"abstraction." This ambiguity surely infects Whitehead's view of metaphysics as "descriptive generalization." For part of the difficulty in his cosmology is that he seems to be linking together in the same system notions drawn from physics, logic, biology, psychology, which are at different degrees of abstraction. One merit in the "philosophical scene," for all its limitations, is that nowadays we are more uneasily aware of this kind of distinction. DOROTH EMMET

University of Manchester, England

PLA TO'S THE SOPHIST AND THE STATESMAN. Translation and introduction by A. E. TAYLOR. Edited by RAYMOND KLIBANSKY

and ELIZABETH ANSCOMBE. Edinburgh, Thomas Nelson and Sons, I 96 I. Pp. vii, 344. 30s.

This is the second posthumously published volume of Taylor's work on the later Platonic dialogues. Like the first volume, it contains long introductory essays along with the translations. In recent years there has been a revival of interest in the later dialogues. Yet, unfor- tunately, for the Greekless reader only a meager selection of English translations is available. Thus the appearance of Taylor's work is especially welcome at this time. With regard to the "Sophist" we have only the Jowett rendering and Cornford's translation and commentary, incorporated in his volume, Plato's Theory of Knowledge. Cornford's work is widely used in American universities, despite the deficiencies both in the translation and in the commentary. It is thus important to note that Taylor's rendering and interpretation is far superior to Cornford's.

Among the many interesting points and suggestions made in the introductory essay to the "Sophist," the following stand ou-. Taylor makes an attempt to relate the "Sophist" to the other dialogues, and in the course of doing this he makes some judicious and temperate remarks about the problem of unity in Plato's thought (p. 7). He rightly regards the discussion of negativity as crucial and makes an interesting comparison between this dialogue and the "Republic" on that point (pp. i6-17). Addressing himself to the question of the unity of the dialogue, he suggests ways in which one might regard the several divisions as becoming more and more adequate (pp. 15-16),

and in a philosophically illuminating way he explains what so many others have failed to explain, that is, the connection between the task of defining sophistry-pursued in the "outer shell" of the dialogue -and the clarification of negation and falsehood which is contained in the middle portion of the dialogue (p. 33; also note, p. 157).

I22

This content downloaded from 91.238.114.210 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:23:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS

Concerning this middle portion of the dialogue, Taylor maintains that the doctrine known as the Communion of the Forms involves the predication of some Forms to others (pp. 58 ff.) and that in the course of demonstrating this Plato distinguishes the several senses of "is" (pp. 8i-82). All of this is philosophically sound and stimulating. Taylor's interpretation-unlike Cornford's-places the "Sophist" in an important role with regard to the development of logic in Western philosophy.

On the negative side, one might mention a few of Taylor's points which at the very least are in need of additonal support. Taylor holds that the way Forms are treated in this dialogue would be totally acceptable to Aristotle (p. 9). This seems dubious, for according to Aristotle Forms can exist only as instantiated, whereas no such restric- tion is implied anywhere in the "Sophist." Taylor holds also that false- hood is explained via the notion of nonidentity (p. 63) and that Plato failed to distinguish properly the different senses of"is not" (pp. 8i-82). Both of these claims are open to objections. It should be emphasized, however, that even when Taylor's suggestions are less than convincing, they are always thought-provoking and lead one to a deeper examina- tion of the text.

Turning to the translation, the fine quality of Taylor's work can be appreciated perhaps by noting a few passages where Taylor's version is clearly better than Cornford's. In the passage containing the exami- nation of Being, the aim of rival philosophers is described, and Cornford translates this as "to . . . set out to determine how many real things there are" (p. 2i6) and subsequently Cornford interprets the whole debate as centering around this issue. Taylor gives a different version of these lines (242c5-6). He sees that the issue is the identification and definability of Being, rather than the numerical determination of the extension of this concept. He translates, accordingly: "to determine the number . . . of the forms of being" (p. 135). Again in 25ib-c, opponents of the Communion are described as holding that one can only name things and that statements of subject-predicate form are impossible. In translating this passage it is crucial to distinguish words from entities which words designate, that is, man from "man," good from "good." Taylor does this better and more consistently (p. 152) than Cornford (p. 253).

Finally, a crucial difference occurs in the translation of 253a, where Forms are compared to vowels and consonants. Cornford writes: "and the vowels are specially good at combination. . ." (p. 260). This gives the misleading impression that both vowels and consonants can

123

This content downloaded from 91.238.114.210 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:23:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS

connect-and likewise with the corresponding kinds of Forms-but that vowels are simply better at it. This is clearly not what Plato intends to say. What Plato intends can be gathered much. better from Taylor's rendering " 'tis the vowels which stand out most conspicuously... they form a sort of linkage. . ." (p. 155). The crucial point is that only the vowel Forms connect and that, without these, combinations of semantic and ontological types are impossible.

To keep the record straight, it should be added that there are a few passages which Cornford translates more felicitously than Taylor. Such is 256e5-6, where the Greek exhibits an important similarity to 263bi I-12. Cornford's translation (p. 288) reflects this much better than Taylor's (p. i64).

The second half of the book contains Taylor's essay and translation of the "Politicus." The translation is as good as that of the "Sophist." In the introductory essay Taylor devotes most of his energy to clari- fying issues of political philosophy which are central to this, in some respects less important, dialogue. He compares carefully the political thought of this dialogue with what is contained in the "Republic" and the "Laws," and he avoids the pitfalls of making Plato either a modern authoritarian or a nineteenth-century liberal. He does consider Plato's political thought in relation to some of Plato's successors. These com- parisons are interesting and philosophically useful. Less useful, but rather amusing are efforts to bring the "Politicus" to life for the modern reader by relating it to what were contemporary issues for Taylor. For example, he complains of the "lamentable amount of law-breaking in the United States" (p. 194), and with reference to widespread gangsterism suggests that Americans need a well-organized police system.

There are two issues of metaphysical importance in the "Politicus." One is the question of negative Forms, the other the theory of measure- ment. To be sure, these are not treated by Plato with the same thor- oughness as the political issues, but still, one might have hoped that Taylor would devote more space to the discussion of these passages than he does.

In summary, this is the best translation and commentary of the "Sophist" and it is as good as any other version of the "Politicus," among those available now in English. Both philosophers and students will do well if they use this volume in their study of Plato's later dialogues.

J. M. E. MORAVCSIK

University of Michigan

I24

This content downloaded from 91.238.114.210 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:23:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions