Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Poetry, Rhetoric, and Fiction in Plato's Phaedrus

2010; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 84; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/00397679.2010.494021

1502-7805

Hayden W. Ausland,

Historical, Religious, and Philosophical Studies

Abstract Difficulties often felt when trying to identify a main theme for the Phaedrus or to explain the attitude it implies toward an art of rhetoric are reduced once one applies general categories of poetic and rhetorical discourse to a series of competitive erotic speeches constituting the first part of the dialogue. Positive results include a unified literary reading of the dialogue as offering a particular theory of fiction while suggesting a critical reconsideration of the usual modern delimitation of its philosophical significance. Notes For the ambiguity between later distinct genres, cf. Alcidamas, On Sophists 1f. For Socrates as the first to separate oratory from philosophy, see Cicero, de oratore 3 (16) 560 and Brutus (8) 31. On the complementary origin of philosophy as a newly distinct category, as well as the difference between the ancient understanding and our own, see Frede 2000 Frede, M. 2000. "The Philosopher". In Greek Thought. A Guide to Classical Knowledge, Edited by: Brunschwig, J. and Lloyd, G. E. R. 3–19. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar], 4 and 9 and cf. Hadot 2002 Hadot, P. 2002. What is Ancient Philosophy?, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar], 2 and 39. On the radically hypothetical nature of many seemingly settled categories, the problem of sedimentation, the assumption of certain categories or choices "as a matter of course", and the complex task of history, see Klein 1977 Klein, J. 1977. Plato's Trilogy, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar], 2 and 1985 (especially 72 and 84). Cf. Proclus, In Remp. I.11.9–12 Kroll with Steinhart 1854 Steinhart, K. 1854. Platon's sämmtliche Werke üb. von H. Müller, mit Einl. begl. v. K. Steinhart, IV, Leipzig: Brockhaus [Google Scholar], 21. For a review of the most important proposals extending into the 20th century, see Diesendruck 1927 Diesendruck, Z. 1927. Struktur und Charakter des platonischen Phaidros, Wien & Leipzig: Braumüller. [Google Scholar], 1–9. Cf. Heath 1989 Heath, M. 1989. The Unity of Plato's Phaedrus. OSAP, 7: 151–191. [Google Scholar] with Rowe 1986a Rowe, C. J. 1986a. The Argument and Structure of Plato's Phaedrus. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, 212: 106–125. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]. For a synopsis of their main differences, see Kastely 2002 Kastely, J. L. 2002. Respecting the Rupture: Not Solving the Problem of Unity in Plato's Phaedrus. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 35: 138–152. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar], 140f. Efforts to the contrary notwithstanding, Werner 2007 Werner, D. 2007. Plato's Phaedrus and the Problem of Unity. OSAP, 32: 91–137. [Google Scholar] stays mainly within the terms of the traditional debate; cf. e.g. Helmbold & Holther 1952 Helmbold, W. C. and Holther, W. B. 1952. The Unity of the 'Phaedrus'. University of California Publications in Classical Philology, 14.9: 387–417. [Google Scholar] and Plass 1968 Plass, P. 1968. The Unity of the Phaedrus. Symbolae Osloenses, 43: 7–38. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]. Brisson 1992 Brisson, L. 1992. L'unité du Phèdre de Platon Rhétorique et philosophie dans le Phèdre. in: Rossetti 1992, 61–76 [Google Scholar] follows a more novel path, emphasizing features of the dialogue recalling pre-Socratic concerns in the field of natural history. The dialogue was placed later than the ancient tradition allowed already by Tennemann (1792 Tennemann, W. G. 1792. System der platonischen Philosophie, 1, Leipzig: Barth. [Google Scholar], 117–19), but for minor reasons unrelated to any overall scheme. For criticism, with the view that the piece begins a methodical series of all Plato's dialogues, see Schleiermacher 1804 Schleiermacher, F. 1804. Platons Werke, 1.1, Berlin: Realschulbuchhandlung. [partially translated in Dobson, W. Schleiermacher's Introductions to the Dialogues of Plato, Cambridge: Pitt 1836] [Google Scholar], 35, 50, and 67–82 [Engl. 32, 44f., and 59–73] and cf. Suckow 1855 Suckow, G. F. W. 1855. Die wissenschaftliche und künstlerische Form der platonischen Schriften in ihrer bisher verborgenen Eigenthümlichkeit, Berlin: Dümmler. [Google Scholar]. Both ancient and modern views of it as an early philosophical effort were attacked by Socher, who associated it instead with a subsequent "Errichtung des philosophischen Lehr-Instituts" (1820, 299–326). A more thoroughly supported "institutional" reading soon became mainstream; see Stallbaum 1832 Stallbaum, G. 1832. Platonis Dialogos Selectos, IV.1 Phaedrum, Gotha: Hennings. [2nd. ed. 1857] [Google Scholar], xxif. (. . . Plato doctrinae copias … ita coepit explicare, ut et in Academia docere inciperet et novae conditor philosophorum familiae exsisteret) and Hermann 1839 Hermann, K. F. 1839. Geschichte und System der platonischen Philosophie, Heidelberg: Winter. 1 [Google Scholar], 514 ("Antrittprogramm für Platos Lehrtätigkeit in der Akademie"); cf. Steinhart 1854 Steinhart, K. 1854. Platon's sämmtliche Werke üb. von H. Müller, mit Einl. begl. v. K. Steinhart, IV, Leipzig: Brockhaus [Google Scholar], 40f. Munk combined these views by regarding the dialogue as introductory to the "eigentlich" Platonic philosophy, as carried on at a personal level within the Academy's inner circle (1857, 224–27). But by the 20th century, what had long been thought Plato's main late dialogue had been relegated to a "middle" period in a modified hypothetical development toward the end of which Plato somehow transcends his own ideas. Raeder could thus now find reasons to place the Phaedrus after the Republic (1905, 278f.), while Arnim went a step further, moving it after the (now also post-Republic) Theaetetus and Parmenides as well, relying partly on his own researches via "Sprachstatistik" (for criticism of which, see Pohlenz 1913 Pohlenz, M. 1913. Aus Platos Werdezeit, Berlin: Weidemann. [Google Scholar], 356–64) but also drawing conclusions from "wichtige Elemente seines dogmatisches Lehrgebaudes". (1914, 155–205) The related and still largely current thought that the Phaedrus introduces a stand-alone and late Platonic "dialectic" of collection and division derives from Stenzel (1917 Stenzel, J. 1917. Studien zur Entwicklung der platonischen Dialektik von Sokrates zu Aristoteles, Breslau: Trewendt & Granier. [Engl. from the 2nd. ed. of 1931 in: Plato's Method of Dialectic, tr. D. J. Allen, Oxford: Clarendon 1940] [Google Scholar], 105–12 [Engl. 149–56]). Diog. Laert. 3.38 and Dion. Halic. de adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 7 (cf. ad Pomp. c. 2), on which see Walsdorff 1927 Walsdorff, F. 1927. Die antiken Urteile über Platons Stil, Bonn: Scheur. [Google Scholar], 15f. Cf. Hermeias' partly esotericist defense of Plato (9.11–10.22 Couvreur) and the suggestion of an ironic interpretation already in Arist. Rhet. 3.7, 1408b11. The defense has been renewed in modern times by Schleiermacher and many others since. For the interpretation of μειρακιῶδές τι… πρόβλημα in Diogenes, see Tomin 1997 Tomin, J. 1997. Plato's First Dialogue. Ancient Philosophy, 17: 31–45. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar], 31–33, where a subsequent hypothesis concerning Plato's supposed motivations abstracts from the dialogue's larger ambitions. Similar holds in a different way for the effort to give it a concretely historical "political context" in Dušanić 1992 Dušanić, S. 1992. Athenian Politics in Plato's Phaedrus: Principles and Topical Themes. in: Rossetti 1992, 229–232 [Google Scholar] and (at greater length) 1981. See Biese 1882 Biese, A. 1882. Die Entwicklung des Naturgefühls bei den Griechen, Kiel: Lipsius & Tischer. [Google Scholar], 60; Schoenbeck 1962, 102–11; Ellinger 1975 Ellinger, W. 1975. Die Darstellung der Landschaft in der griechischen Dichtung, Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar], 288–90; and Vara 1992 Vara, J. 1992. The Sources of Theocritean Bucolic Poetry. Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, 45: 333–344[Crossref] , [Google Scholar], 342f. On the Phaedrus' affinities with the genre more generally, see Murley 1940 Murley, C. 1940. Plato's Phaedrus and Theocritean Pastoral. TAPA, 71: 281–295. [Google Scholar]; Pearce 1988 Pearce, T. 1988. The Function of the locus amoenus in Theocritus' Seventh Poem. Rheinisches Museum, 131: 276–304. [Google Scholar], 297–300, Gutzwiller 1991 Gutzwiller, K. J. 1991. Theocritus' Pastoral Analogies: The Formation of a Genre, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. [Google Scholar], 73–79; and Hunter 1999 Hunter, R. L. 1999. Theocritus: A Selection, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar], 14 and 145f. Parry 1957 Parry, A. 1957. Landscape in Greek Poetry. Yale Classical Studies, 15: 3–29. [Google Scholar], 15–20 usefully adduces some epigrams ascribed to Plato. For the terminus technicus, see Cicero, ad Att. 12.19.88, comparing de Leg. 2 (3) 6f. See Fortenbaugh 1966 Fortenbaugh, W. 1966. Plato Phaedrus 235C3. C. Phil, 61: 108–109. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar] and Pender 2007a Pender, E. E. 2007a. Poetic Allusion in Plato's Timaeus and Phaedrus. Göttinger Forum für Altertumswissenschaft, 10: 21–57. [Google Scholar], 3–8 and 2007b, 36–54. See Demos 1997 Demos, M. 1997. Stesichorus' Palinode in the Phaedrus. Classical World, 90: 235–249. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar] and 1999 Demos, M. 1999. Lyric Quotation in Plato, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. [Google Scholar], 65–86. Wright (2005 Wright, M. 2005. Euripides' Escape-Tragedies, Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar], 104–110) holds the conventional account untrue, arguing that Plato himself invented the lines Socrates attributes to Stesichorus. On the meager additional testimonia to a Stesichorean correlate, see Ercoles 2008 Ercoles, M. 2008. Stesicoro: testimonianze, Edizione critica, traduzio, e commento, Bologna (http://amsdottorato.cib.unibo.it/826/) [Google Scholar], 12–14 and 165–74. See Lebeck 1972 Lebeck, A. 1972. The Central Myth of Plato's Phaedrus. GRBS, 13: 267–290. [Google Scholar] and Slaveva-Griffin 2003 Slaveva-Griffin, S. 2003. Of Gods, Philosophers, and Charioteers: Content and Form in Parmenides' Proem and Plato's Phaedrus. TAPA, 133: 227–253. [Google Scholar]. See Motte 1963 Motte, A. 1963. Le pré sacré de Pan et des Nymphes dans le Phèdre de Platon. AC, 32: 460–476. [Google Scholar]. For an examination of the literary movement of the speech, see Krische 1848 Krische, A. B. 1848. Über Platon's Phaedros, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht 1848. [repr. from Göttinger Studien 1847, 930–1065] [Google Scholar], 33–36, comparing Ast 1817 Ast, F. 1817. Platon's Phädros und Gastmahl übersetzt, erläutert und verbessert von F. A., Jena: Cröckerschen Buchhandlung [Google Scholar], 208–9. For the tension between enthusiasm and reason in the Phaedrus, see Meyer 1956 Meyer, H. W. 1956. Das Verhältnis von Enthusiasmus und Philosophie bei Platon im Hinblick auf seinen Phaidros. Archiv für Philosophie, 6: 262–277. [Google Scholar], who is mainly concerned to explain away the former (versus the synthesis in Gundert 1949 Gundert, H. 1949. Enthusiasmos und Logos bei Platon. Lexis, 2: 25–46. [Google Scholar]). For the dangers attending nympholepsy in the Phaedrus, and their connection with the dialogue's topography outside the city walls, see Connor 1988, 158f. For the topical imagery of seduction and (attempted or feigned) resistance, see Switzer 1994 Switzer, R. 1994. The Topology of Madness: Philosophic Seduction in Plato's Phaedrus. Alif: Journal of Comparative Poetics, 14: 6–36. [Google Scholar], but cf. Cole 2000 Cole, M. 2000. Admiration's Double Labor: Phaedrus in the Mirror. American Imago, 57: 121–140. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]. For the dialogue's multi-dimensional "topology", see Philip 1981 Philip, A. 1981. Récurrences thématiques et topologie dans le Phèdre de Platon. Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, 86: 452–476. [Google Scholar]. See Aristotle fr. 73 Rose; Lucian, Bis Acc. 33; Sidney, 1595 Sidney, P. 1595. An Apologie for Poetrie, London: Henry Olney. [Google Scholar], 21 (for whose own familiarity with the Phaedrus, cf. Pickett 1976 Pickett, P. 1976. Sidney's Use of Phaedrus in The Lady of May. Studies in English Literature, 1500–1900, 16.1, The English Renaissance: 33–50[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]); Geddes 1748, 180–200; and Shelley 1891 Shelley, P. B. (1891), A Defense of Poetry, ed. A. S. Cook, Boston: Ginn. [Google Scholar], 9. Thompson (1868 Thompson, W. H. 1868. The Phaedrus of Plato, London: Whittaker & Co. [Google Scholar], 26) terms Socrates' first speech a "dialecto-dithyrambic σκέψις". On the question more generally, see Norden 1898 Norden, E. 1898. Die antike Kunstprosa, Leipzig: Teubner. 1 [Google Scholar], 104–113. In one of several later attempts to maintain Schleiermacher's initial placement of the dialogue, Volquardsen 1862 Volquardsen, C. R. 1862. Platon's Phädros. Erste Schrift Platon's, Kiel: Schröder & Comp. [Google Scholar], 1–32 argues that it incorporates "vier sprachlich-stilistische Studien des jungen autors", identifying these as Aesopian, mock-Pindaric, Sapphonic, and Herodotean. Thesleff 1967 Thesleff, H. 1967. Stimmungsmalerei oder Burlesque? Der Stil von Plat. Phaidr. 230BC und seine Funktion. Arctos, 5: 141–155. [Google Scholar] argues to this effect. See Vicaire 1960 Vicaire, P. 1960. Platon, critique littéraire, Paris: Klincksieck. [Google Scholar], 371. A pioneering scholarly monograph devoted to the dialogue (Ast 1801 Ast, F. 1801. De Platonis Phaedro, Jena: Goepferdt. [Google Scholar]) interpreted the Phaedrus as an effort parallel to Horace's Ars Poetica – itself understood as an outgrowth of a Roman satirical tradition stemming from classical Greek comedy. Burger regards the speech attributed to Lysias as both epideictic (a "praise of non-love") and deliberative (1980, 19 and 26). Griswold more carefully notices its properly forensic character (1996, 45f.). For the status quaestionis more than a century into the debate, with some supplementary references to earlier literature on the question, see Darkow 1917 Darkow, A. C. 1917. The Spurious Speeches in the Lysianic Corpus, Diss. Bryn Mawr [Google Scholar], 90–94. For a summary with some more recent bibliography, see Boas 2002 Boas, E. v. E. 2002. Anti-Plagiaat in de Phaedrus. Opdracht Argumentatief Schrivjen. Giekse en Latijnse Taal en Cultuur (http://www.evertvanemdeboas.nl/Anti.pdf) [Google Scholar]. For ancient allegations of Plato's plagiarism, see Riginos 1976 Riginos, A. S. 1976. Platonica, Leiden: Brill. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar], 178f. Griswold (1996 Griswold, C. 1996. Self-Knowledge in Plato's Phaedrus, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. [Google Scholar], 59) notices the term boule, but fails to draw a conclusion about the general form of the speech. Thucydides 1.34–43, especially 37. See Schiappa 1999 Schiappa, E. 1999. The Beginnings of Rhetorical Theory in Classical Greece, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. [Google Scholar], 185–206. For problems in defining epideictic, and the breadth of the term's application in antiquity, see Burgess 1902 Burgess, T. C. 1902. Epideictic Literature, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar], 91–113. For an animated criticism of the traditional understanding of Aristotle's θεωρός at Ars Rhet. 1358b4 as a spectator of the orator's technical capacity or virtuosity, rather than of the μέγεθος ἀρετῆς or other moral quality reflected in his speech (cf. 1367b27), see Kraus 1905 Kraus, O. 1905. Über eine altüberlieferte Missdeutung der epideiktischen Redegattung bei Aristoteles, Halle: Niemeyer. [Google Scholar] and 1907 (where cf. 16–23 and 86f. on Plato's contribution to Aristotle's conception). See Trimpi 1983 Trimpi, W. 1983. Muses of One Mind, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar], 28–34. See Riddell 1877 Riddell, J. 1877. The Apology of Plato, Oxford: University Press. [Google Scholar], xx. Further in Ausland 2002a Ausland, H. W. (2002a) "Forensic Characteristics of Socratic Argumentation", in: G. A. Scott (ed.), Does Socrates Have a Method?, pp. 36–60. University Park, PA: Penn. State University Press. [Google Scholar]. See Burgess 1902 Burgess, T. C. 1902. Epideictic Literature, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar], 92f. and 96. For the competitive milieu, see Arnim 1898 Arnim H., von. 1898. Leben und Werke des Dion von Prusa, Berlin: Weidmann. [Google Scholar], 4–114 and Jaeger 1955 Jaeger, W. (1955) Paideia. Die Formung des greichischen Menschen, vol. 3, 2nd. ed., Berlin: De Gruyter 1955 [Engl. tr. of 1st. ed. by G. Highet, Paideia: the Ideals of Greek Culture, vol. 3, NewYork: Oxford University Press 1944]. [Google Scholar], 105–30, 199–225, and 255–70 [Eng. 46–70, 132–55, and 182–96]. Cf. Republic 414b1-c2, 476d8-e3, and Phaedo 70a7-b7. See Isocrates, Helen 3f. and cf. Parmenides 127d6–128e7. See Sealey, 1973 Sealey, R. 1973. The Origins of Demokratia. California Studies in Classical Antiquity, 6: 253–295. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar], 262. Benardete may be alone in having noticed the complementary rhetorical form of all three speeches (1991, 117, 120, and 129), although Weaver comes close (1953, 6). See Cole 1991 Cole, T. 1991. The Origins of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. [Google Scholar], 75f. See Barwick 1963 Barwick, K. 1963. Das Problem der isokrateischen Techne. Philologus, 107: 43–60. [repr. in Seck, , 275–95][Crossref] , [Google Scholar]. Kennedy (1963 Kennedy, G. 1963. The Art of Persuasion in Greece, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar], 74) notices the two parts without, however, explicitly unifying them into a whole. See O'Sullivan 1993. Cf. Phaedrus 247c-e with Parmenides 7 DK, and see Slaveva-Griffin 2003 Slaveva-Griffin, S. 2003. Of Gods, Philosophers, and Charioteers: Content and Form in Parmenides' Proem and Plato's Phaedrus. TAPA, 133: 227–253. [Google Scholar], 248f. For the changing use of εἶδος throughout the Phaedrus, see Cook 1985 Cook, A. 1985. Dialectic, Irony, and Myth in Plato's Phaedrus. AJP, 106: 427–441. [Google Scholar], 435 n11. In the closest approach to theory in the mythical account of the hyperuranian realm, the soul is said to have "seen" true being via a theatrical metaphor (247c7, d4, e3, 249e5) connected in turn etymologically also with ἰδέα (247d3, 249 b6, 250a2, a4, b5, b8). On the development of the meaning of φιλοσοφία, see Arnim 1898 Arnim H., von. 1898. Leben und Werke des Dion von Prusa, Berlin: Weidmann. [Google Scholar], 11, 17f., 63–65. For Isocrates' use of ἰδέα, see Gaines 1990 Gaines, R. N. 1990. Isocrates, Ep. 6.8. Hermes, 118: 165–170. [Google Scholar] and Sullivan 2001 Sullivan, R. C. 2001. Eidos/Idea in Isocrates. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 34: 79–92. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]. For his use of φιλοσοφία, see Halliwell 1997 Halliwell, S. 1997. "Philosophical Rhetoric or Rhetorical Philosophy? The Strange Case of Isocrates". In The Rhetorical Canon, Edited by: Schildgen, B. D. 109–125. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. [Google Scholar], Timmermann 1998 Timmermann, D. M. 1998. Isocrates' Competing Conceptualization of Philosophy. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 31: 145–159. [Google Scholar], and Livingston 2007 Livingston, N. 2007. Writing Politics: Isocrates' Rhetoric of Philosophy. Rhetorica, 25: 15–34. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar], and compare the parallel usage in [Ps.-] Dem. Eroticus, a typical speech of praise followed by counsel, featuring a number of Isocratean ideas, but also framed on the model of the Phaedrus. See Clavaud 1974 Clavaud, R. 1974. Démosthène. Discours d'apparat, Paris: Société d'édition. "les belles lettres" [Google Scholar], 77–83 and Wendland 1905 Wendland, P. 1905. Anaximenes von Lampsacus. Studien zur ältesten Geschichte der Rhetorik, Berlin: Weidmann. [Google Scholar], 72f. See Wyller 1991 Wyller, E. 1991. Plato's Concept of Rhetoric in the Phaedrus and its Tradition in Antiquity. Symbolae Osloenses, 66: 51–69. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar], 53f., Halliwell 1997 Halliwell, S. 1997. "Philosophical Rhetoric or Rhetorical Philosophy? The Strange Case of Isocrates". In The Rhetorical Canon, Edited by: Schildgen, B. D. 109–125. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. [Google Scholar], 108f., and Yunis 2005 Yunis, H. 2005. Eros in Plato's Phaedrus and the Shape of Greek Rhetoric. Arion, 13: 101–125. [Google Scholar], 103f. Cf. note 1 supra. On the triad, see Shorey 1909 Shorey, P. 1909. Φύσις, Μελέτη, Ἐπιστήμη. TAPA, 40: 185–210. (=Selected Papers 1, 1–19) [Google Scholar], 194f. 273d2–274a5. Trimpi (1983 Trimpi, W. 1983. Muses of One Mind, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar], 16) unduly assimilates the two dialogues, sharply contrasting Plato's supposed desire for "certainty by demonstration" with Isocrates' defense of a persuasive dialectic. But if Socrates treats Polus after the fashion of a physician applying a remedial opposite (cf. Gorgias 478d1–479c4 with Phaedo 86b5-c2, Aristotle, EN 1104b13–18, and Celsus, de medicina 3.9.2), his approach to Phaedrus is more ambiguously and gradually persuasive – accounting, no doubt, for some varying estimates of Phaedrus' ability. See Tomin 2000 Tomin, J. 2000. Plato's Disappointment with his Phaedran Characters and its Impact on his Theory of Psychology. CQ, N.S. 50: 374–383. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar], 374 n1. A similar ambiguity fuels speculation about Plato's "attitude" toward Isocrates; see Goggin & Long 1993 Goggin, E. and Long, E. 1993. A Tincture of Philosophy, A Tincture of Hope: The Portrayal of Isocrates in Plato's Phaedrus. Rhetoric Review, 11: 301–324. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]. Narcy 1992 Narcy, M. 1992. Platon, l'ecriture et les transformations de la rhétorique. in: Rossetti 1992, 275–279 [Google Scholar] is led to minimize the importance of καιρός in the Phaedrus, but see the fuller consideration in Tordesillas 1992 Tordesillas, A. 1992. Kairos dialectique, kairos rhétorique. Le projet platonicien de rhétorique philosophique perpetuelle. in: Rossetti 1992, 77–92 [Google Scholar]. On the meaning of the term more generally, see Pfister 1938 Pfister, F. 1938. "Kairos und Symmetrie". In Würzburger Festgabe für Heinrich Bulle, Edited by: Herbig, R. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. [Google Scholar], especially 138–43. For competing "esoteric" interpretations of Plato based on this passage, cf. Szlezák 1992 with Strauss 1964 Strauss, L. 1964. The City and Man, Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. [Google Scholar], 52f. (Further in Ausland 2002b Ausland, H. W. 2002b. "On Reading the Platonic Dialogues Esoterically". In New Images of Plato. Dialogues on the Idea of the Good Edited by: Reale, G. and Scolnikov, S. 69–77. Sankt Augustin: Academia [Google Scholar]) Cf. Thesleff 2002 Thesleff, H. 2002. "Plato and his Public". In Noctes Atticae: 34 articles on Graeco-Roman Antiquity and its Nachleben, Edited by: Mejer, J. and Amden, B. 289–301. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculum. [Google Scholar] and (on controversy attending the Tübinger version) La France 2003 La France, Y. 2003. La fin du Phèdre de Platon (274b-279c): ésotérisme et anti-ésotérisme. Philosophie antique, 3: 81–119. [Google Scholar]. See e.g. Rowe's note on 258e6ff. and cf. the short proem with which the Roman Phaedrus introduces his Latin fables. On the presence of irony in the Phaedrus, see Linck 2003. Cf. Socrates' use of μῦθος in reference to his own teachings at 237a9, 241e8, and 253c7. See Moors 1982 Moors, K. F. 1982. Platonic Myth. An Introductory Study, Washington, DC: University Press of America. [Google Scholar], 45f. On the pervasiveness of this theme, see Ferrari 1990 Ferrari, G. R. W. 1990. Listening to the Cicadas: A Study of Plato's Phaedrus, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar], especially 1–36; but cf. Schenker 2006 Schenker, D. J. 2006. The Strangeness of the Phaedrus. AJP, 127: 67–87. [Google Scholar], 75–79. The translation is from Lundberg 2005 Lundberg, P. 2005. Tallyho – The Hunt for Beauty, Truth and Goodness, Bloomington, IN: Authorhouse. [Google Scholar], 7–76 – a rendering into contemporary English of Schleiermacher's more compact German, which here reads "Musse haben wir ja wie es scheint" (1804, 135). See Lundberg's discussion of principles in his Introduction, and the the comparative examples from the Phaedrus at xli-xlii. Even more elliptical is the Greek (σχολὴ μὲν δή, ὡς ἔοικε), which most English translations made directly from it regularly obscure by rendering "having plenty of (or sparing) time". More conscious of the importance of the dialogue's language and imagery, Scully uses "leisure" (2003, 42; cf 89–94), but the term is given voice only tentatively and too late. ("Well, we seem to have leisure time for it now.") Schleiermacher more faithfully reproduces Socrates' word order, emphasized further with the collocation μὲν δή. For the significance of the opposition between illiberal and leisurely occupation, see the lengthy note ad loc in Stallbaum's 2nd edition. On the fable and its manifold interpretation, see Schenker's references to further literature (2006, 77–79 notes 26–28). On possible implications for Plato's use of myth in the Phaedrus, see Gottfried 1993 Gottfried, B. 1993. "Pan, the Cicadas, and Plato's use of Myth in the Phaedrus". In Plato's Dialogues: New Studies & Interpretations, Edited by: Press, G. 179–195. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. [Google Scholar]. 229c4–230a6. Cf. Isocrates, Helen 5. 274c1-c5. Cf. Cicero, de Leg. 1 (1) 3–5. So Frutiger 1930 Frutiger, P. 1930. Les Mythes de Platon, Paris: Felix Alcan. [Google Scholar], 233f. See Ioh. Sard. In Aphthon. Prog. 11.4–20 Rabe. Aphth. Prog. 1.6 Rabe and Hermog. Prog. 2.4f. Rabe. See also Doxopat. In Aphthon. Prog. 144.9–154.14 Rabe. πῶς δ' ἂν γένοιτο πιθανός; ἂν τὰ προσήκοντα πράγματα τοῖς προσώποις ἀποδίδωμεν. (Hermogenes). For example, consider the different kinds of speeches that Homer assigns to the youthful warrior Achilles and the three different members of the embassy in Book 9 of the Iliad. Compare Cicero's use of the poetic principle of decorum as a principle of moral consistency in de officiis 1 (27) 93 - (34) 125. Cicero teaches that one must not only observe the propriety required of all men, but also one special to one's particular persona ([30] 107), so that ultimately the problem culminates in a complicated choice for a life ([32] 117 - 33 119). The ability and knowledge required for this kind of accomplishment are evident in the Homeric Odysseus. Indeed, the entire Odyssey might plausibly be described as Homer's story about a mythical but representative man, who – by reflecting upon and interpreting the meaning of what might otherwise be interpreted as his random wanderings – is able to establish his own moral persona in fact via the device of artistic and appropriate fiction. See Homer, Od. 11.363–369. See Trimpi 1983 Trimpi, W. 1983. Muses of One Mind, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar], 61f. For this application of the Platonic ideas, see Cicero, orator (1) 7–10. For the association of this proverbial pairing with the principle of verisimilitude, cf. Hesiod, Theog. 26–35 with Cicero, Lucullus 101. See Riddell 1877 Riddell, J. 1877. The Apology of Plato, Oxford: University Press. [Google Scholar], xxvii-xxviii and cf. Plato, Epist. 2, 314c2–4.