Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Proëmial Prolepsis in Plato's Politeia

2008; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 83; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/00397670902906974

1502-7805

Hayden W. Ausland,

Classical Studies and Philology

Abstract A recently proposed proleptic, or anticipatory reading of the Platonic dialogues insufficiently modifies the conventional doctrinal-developmental reading of these. Fuller literary consideration of the way Republic 1 anticipates the following books suggests how a genuine appreciation of a principle previously applied to Aeschylean drama invites deeper re-assessment both of Plato's philosophical manner of writing and of his political philosophy. Acknowledgements Translations not otherwise noted are my own. I take this occasion to express my thanks to an audience at the University of Oslo for stimulating discussion of this paper in an earlier form. Notes 1. Cf. Kahn 1996 Kahn, C. 1996. Plato and the Socratic Dialogue. The Philosophical Use of a Literary Form, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] with id. 1976 Kahn , C. 1976 Plato on the Unity of the Virtues , in : W. H. Werkmeister Facets of Plato's Philosophy , pp. 21 – 39 . Assen : Van Gorcum (Phronesis, Suppl. Vol. II) . [Google Scholar], 1981 Kahn, C. 1981. "Did Plato Write Socratic Dialogues?". Classical Quarterly NS, 31: 305–320. [Google Scholar], 1983 Kahn, C. 1983. "Drama and Dialectic in Plato's Gorgias". Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 1: 75–121. [Google Scholar], 1986 Kahn, C. 1986. "Plato's Methodology in Laches". Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 40: 7–21. [Google Scholar], 1988 Kahn, C. 1988. "Plato's Charmides and the Proleptic Reading of Plato's Dialogues". Journal of Philosophy, 69: 541–549. [Google Scholar], 1993 Kahn, C. 1993. "Proleptic Composition in the Republic, or Why Book I was Never a Separate Dialogue". Classical Quarterly, 85: 131–142. [Google Scholar], and 2007. For Republic 1's anticipations of the rest of the Republic, see already id. 1968, 367. For the "ingressive and heuristic" (as opposed to a "deductive and demonstrative") method of at least Books 1–7, see id. 1972, 570f. Kahn's proleptic reading of the first book, while aiming at completeness (see 1993, 136) is eked out in Wilson 1995 Wilson, J. R. S. 1995. "Thrasymachus and the Thumos: A Further Case of Prolepsis in Republic 1". Classical Quarterly, 45: 58–67. [Google Scholar]. 2. See Kahn 1981 Kahn, C. 1981. "Did Plato Write Socratic Dialogues?". Classical Quarterly NS, 31: 305–320. [Google Scholar], 310; 1988, 541; 1993, 136. In his book, Kahn partly resumes using his earlier term "ingressive" (1996, xi et alibi). 3. See Kahn 2000 Kahn, C. 2000. "Response to Griswold". Ancient Philosophy, 20: 189–193. [Google Scholar], 189 and 191. For several pitfalls awaiting this assumption, see Sider 1999 Sider, D. 1999. (Review of Kahn 1996). American Journal of Philology, 120: 624–628. [Google Scholar] and Griswold 2002 Griswold , C. 2002 Comments on Kahn , in : Annas and Rowe 2002 , 129 – 144 . [Google Scholar]. Kahn declines to try to order individual dialogues within a group (cf. Rep. 516c8–d1), but the general picture he adopts has at least two limitations that it will be useful to bear in mind for the present purpose. The first is that the three groups that he holds to have have been established through the study of Plato's style (Kahn 1993 Kahn, C. 1993. "Proleptic Composition in the Republic, or Why Book I was Never a Separate Dialogue". Classical Quarterly, 85: 131–142. [Google Scholar], 133; cf. 1992b, 90 and 2002a Kahn , C. 2002a On Platonic Chronology" , in : Annas and Rowe 2002 , 93 – 128 . [Google Scholar], 93) cut across the groups that developmentalists posit: by stylistic criteria, the Republic as a whole might as well come after the Parmenides and Theatetus – and its first book considered alone, along side the Phaedo and Symposium (see Ledger 1989 Ledger, G. R. 1989. Re-Counting Plato. A Computer Analysis of Plato's Style, Oxford: Clarendon. [Google Scholar], 214f. & 224f. and Brandwood 1990 Brandwood, L. 1990. The Chronology of Plato's Dialogues, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar], 107 & 251). The "early" grouping of dialogues required by the conventional developmentalism that Kahn shadows has never been grounded stylistically, but rather by adducing certain statements of Aristotle about Socrates. The second point is that even should Book 1 be found to differ significantly from Books 2–10 and to resemble Socratic dialogues of definition in respect of style or theme, we will not thereby (pace Kahn 1993 Kahn, C. 1993. "Proleptic Composition in the Republic, or Why Book I was Never a Separate Dialogue". Classical Quarterly, 85: 131–142. [Google Scholar], 134; cf. 1981, 306 and – more cautiously – 1992b, 90) know it to have been written during any particular period of Plato's life, since there can have been other explanations, e.g. for his choice of two kinds of response formulae within the same work. As Kahn is aware (1968 Kahn , C. 1968 Review of G. Ryle, Plato's Progress , New York : Cambridge University Press , 1966 , Journal of Philosophy 65 : 364 – 375 . [Google Scholar], 367f. and 1993, 134n15), Vretska 1958 Vretska, K. 1958. "Platonica III". Wiener Studien, 71: 30–54. [Google Scholar] has shown as much for Republic 1. For the variety of styles used in the Republic, see Thesleff 1967 Thesleff, H. 1967. Studies in the Styles of Plato (Acta Philosophica Fennica 20), Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden kirjapaino. [Google Scholar], 95–116; for a deliberate variation in Book 1 of a motif otherwise common to the Gorgias, see Rudberg 1944 Rudberg, G. 1944. "Zum platonischen Thrasymachos". Symbolae Osloenses, 23: 1–6. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]. More comprehensively, one might note that Books 2–10 grow out of Glaucon and Adeimantus' request that Socrates address in some more convincing way the issue he has disposed of dialectically in book 1 (Cf. 357a4–b2 and 358b3–7 with 366d5–e9, 367b2–6, and 367e1–5). 4. See Gill 1998 Gill, C. 1998. "Is Plato Proleptic?". Polis, 15: 113–121. [Google Scholar]. Cf. Kahn 1996 Kahn, C. 1996. Plato and the Socratic Dialogue. The Philosophical Use of a Literary Form, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar], xviii on Myles Burnyeat's caution that not everyone has discarded the developmental approach to Plato. For an assessment from a continental perspective, see Trabattoni 1999 Trabattoni, F. 1999. "Il 'Platone' di Charles Kahn". Elenchos, 20: 131–143. [Google Scholar]. 5. See Griswold 1999 Griswold, C. 1999. "E Pluribus Unum? On the Platonic 'Corpus'". Ancient Philosophy, 19: 361–397. [Google Scholar]. Cf. Kahn 2000 Kahn, C. 2000. "Response to Griswold". Ancient Philosophy, 20: 189–193. [Google Scholar] and Griswold 2000 Griswold, C. 2000. "E Pluribus Unum? On the Platonic 'Corpus': the Discussion Continued". Ancient Philosophy, 20: 195–197. [Google Scholar]. Like the profession generally, Kahn has more recently tended to retreat from reliance on dogmatic claims about the chronology of the dialogues. Cf. Kahn 1996 Kahn, C. 1996. Plato and the Socratic Dialogue. The Philosophical Use of a Literary Form, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar], 48 with e.g. Blondell 2002 Blondell, R. 2002. The Play of Character in Plato's Dialogues, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar], 11. 6. Rep. 357a1f. . Cf. Kahn 1993 Kahn, C. 1993. "Proleptic Composition in the Republic, or Why Book I was Never a Separate Dialogue". Classical Quarterly, 85: 131–142. [Google Scholar], 131f. and 140. 7. See Kahn 1993 Kahn, C. 1993. "Proleptic Composition in the Republic, or Why Book I was Never a Separate Dialogue". Classical Quarterly, 85: 131–142. [Google Scholar], 142 ("Afterword on Prolepsis"). 8. Lebeck 1971 Lebeck, A. 1971. The Oresteia. A Study in Language and Structure, Washington, DC and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar], 1f. ("Introduction. Proleptic statement and gradual development of recurrent themes and images.") Cf. 4f. and 52. In her "Acknowledgements" (vii), Lebeck thanks, among others, Charles Kahn, who informs me that the application of prolepsis in this connection was Lebeck's own. 9. Fraenkel 1950 Fraenkel, E. 1950. Aeschylus Agamemnon, Oxford: Clarendon Press. [Google Scholar], II, 82 (ad Ag. 136) and 136 (ad 238). Cf. also 80f. (on 131). 10. Fraenkel 1950 Fraenkel, E. 1950. Aeschylus Agamemnon, Oxford: Clarendon Press. [Google Scholar], I, 37. Cf. Casaubon 1610 Casaubon , I. 1610 Aeschyli Agamemnon Isaaco Casaubono interprete MDCX, cum eiusdem notis et observationibus erud . (Bibl. Nat. MS. grec. 2791) . [Google Scholar], fol. 15r and 107r. In commenting on in Ag. 215, Casaubon criticizes interpreters who would delete it, on the grounds that even were it synonymous with (which he will shortly deny), "Aeschylus customarily explains later what he has said in obscure words". In commenting on at 376, he repeats the point, referring back to his earlier statement. 11. Lebeck 1971 Lebeck, A. 1971. The Oresteia. A Study in Language and Structure, Washington, DC and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar], 15f. Aesch., Eumenides 325f. 12. For standard explanations and illustrations of these two types, see Kühner-Gerth 1898 Kühner , R. and B. Gerth 1898 Ausfürliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache , Part II (3rd ed.). Hannover und Leipzig: Hahnsche Buchhandlung 1898 [repr. Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung 1966] . [Google Scholar] 1.276 and II.2 577–580 (or at less length Smyth 1920 Smyth, H. W. 1920. Greek Grammar, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar], sections 1579 and 2182). The use of the term even in grammar is less than exact, however, since the phenomenon can be seen to vary subtly for the sake of style, emphasis, or the like. For discussion, see Nutting 1926 Nutting, H. C. 1926. "Prolepsis". Classical Journal, 22: 51–53. [Google Scholar] and Gonda 1958a Gonda, J. 1958a. "'Prolepsis' of the Adjective in Greek and Other Ancient Indo-European Languages". Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, 11: 1–19. [Google Scholar] and Gonda 1958b Gonda, J. 1958b. "On the So-Called Proleptic Accusative in Greek". Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, 11: 117–122. [Google Scholar]. 13. For the first kind, see Anon. De Figuris, vol. 3. 171.7–17 Spengel. For the second kind, see Lausberg 1998 Lausberg , H. 1998 Handbook of Literary Rhetoric: A Foundation for Literary Study , tr. M. T. Bliss, A. Jansen, & D. E. Orton . Leiden, Boston : Brill . [Google Scholar], section 855 (or Smyth 1920 Smyth, H. W. 1920. Greek Grammar, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar], section 3045). 14. See Stuart 1918 Stuart, D. C. 1918. "Foreshadowing and Suspense in the Euripidean Prologue". Studies in Philology, 15: 295–306. [Google Scholar]. The idea is pursued in differently in in Erbse 1984 Erbse, H. 1984. Studien zum Prolog der euripideischen Tragödie, Berlin: de Gruyter. [Google Scholar], with somewhat analogous application to Plato's Republic in id. 2001. 15. Schmidt-Stählin 1929 Schmidt, W. and Stählin, O. 1929. Geschichte der griechischen Literatur. I.i., München: Beck. [Google Scholar], 106 with nn1–2. For "epic prolepsis", see Kraut 1863 Kraut, C. 1863. Die Epische Prolepsis, Nachgewiesen in der Ilias. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis des epischen Stils. Gymn.-Progr, Tübingen: Fues. [Google Scholar], 1f. Cf. Study 1865 Study , C. 1865 De prolepsis grammaticae usu Homerico. Particula prior . Progr. Coberg . [Google Scholar], 8; (Study himself examines Homer's use of grammatical prolepsis). For foreshadowing in ancient epic poetry, see Duckworth 1966 Duckworth , G. E. 1966 Foreshadowing and Suspense in the Epics of Homer, Apollonius, and Vergil . New York : Haskell House partially reprinted in de Jong 1999 , 4 , 328 – 338 . [Google Scholar]. See further Rothe 1914 Rothe, C. 1914. Die Odyssee als Dichtung und ihr Verhältnis zur Ilias, Paderborn: Schöningh. [Google Scholar], 239–247 and Wieniewski 1924. Duckworth 1931 Duckworth, G. E. 1931. "in the Scholia to Homer". American Journal of Philology, 52: 320–338. [Google Scholar] traces in the Homeric scholia the idea that the poet uses the technique consciously. Cf. also Richardson 1980 Richardson, N. J. 1980. "Literary Criticism in the Exegetical Scholia to the Iliad: A Sketch". Classical Quarterly N.S., 30: 265–287. [Google Scholar], 267–270. For an example, see Iliad 15.59–77, which is recalled at 612–614, where the scholiast refers to . For the ancient use of the term in this sense, see Duckworth 1931 Duckworth, G. E. 1931. "in the Scholia to Homer". American Journal of Philology, 52: 320–338. [Google Scholar], 322f. 16. See Kraut 1863 Kraut, C. 1863. Die Epische Prolepsis, Nachgewiesen in der Ilias. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis des epischen Stils. Gymn.-Progr, Tübingen: Fues. [Google Scholar], 2: "The dramatist wants tension and surprise, and for him such prolepses as occur in the epic poet would be a mistake. He gives quiet indications, hidden cues, leaving their understanding to the acuteness of the audience." In a footnote, Kraut offers Sophocles, OT 59-61 as an example. 17. Phoenix' story of Meleager in Iliad 9 is a notably compehensive mythological paradigm; see Willcock 1964 Willcock , M. M. 1964 "Mythological Paradeigma in the Iliad" , Classical Quarterly N.S. 14: 141–154 [reprinted in de Jong 1999 , vol. 3 , 385 – 402 ]. [Google Scholar], 147–153 [1999, 392–397]. 18. See Wieniewski 1924 Wieniewski, I. 1924. "La technique d'annoncer les evenements futures chez Homere". Eos, 27: 113–133. [Google Scholar], 128–130. 19. See e.g. Sider 1999 Sider, D. 1999. (Review of Kahn 1996). American Journal of Philology, 120: 624–628. [Google Scholar], 627, comparing Peradotto 1972 Peradotto, J. 1972. [Review of Lebeck 1971]. Classical World, 66: 167–168. [Google Scholar], 168. 20. Cf. Kahn 1993 Kahn, C. 1993. "Proleptic Composition in the Republic, or Why Book I was Never a Separate Dialogue". Classical Quarterly, 85: 131–142. [Google Scholar], 135f. with id. 1981, 312 and 1988, 549. 21. Kahn 1993 Kahn, C. 1993. "Proleptic Composition in the Republic, or Why Book I was Never a Separate Dialogue". Classical Quarterly, 85: 131–142. [Google Scholar], 135. Cf. id. 1976, 21f., 1981, 319 and 1988, 545f. 22. Cf. Kahn 1993 Kahn, C. 1993. "Proleptic Composition in the Republic, or Why Book I was Never a Separate Dialogue". Classical Quarterly, 85: 131–142. [Google Scholar], 134f.with id. 1981, 311f. and 1988, 541f. Even when speaking of a "riddle" at Euthydemus 291b–d, Kahn finds it "solved" by the "doctrine of the philosopher kings" he finds in Republic 5–7. (1988, 543f.) 23. In reference to the first of his three groupings, Kahn holds that, "in the last analysis" it is a "systematic orientation towards the Republic that ties together all or most these dialogues". (id. 1996, 48) 24. Cf. Kahn 1972 Kahn, C. 1972. "The Meaning of 'Justice' and the Theory of Forms". Journal of Philosophy, 69: 567–569. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar], 569f. with id. 2007, 57. 25. Cf. Kahn 1996 Kahn, C. 1996. Plato and the Socratic Dialogue. The Philosophical Use of a Literary Form, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar], 48 with Strauss 1986 Strauss , L. 1986 Exoteric Teaching , Interpretation 14: 51–59 [reprinted in: The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism T. L. Pangle , Chicago : University of Chicago Press 1989 , 63 – 71 . [Google Scholar], 55–57 [1989, 67–69]. 26. Schleiermacher's general thesis about the ordering of the Platonic dialogues appeared in the opening volume of his translations in 1804, but his introduction special to the Republic only in 1828. Hermann's general thesis became influential through his book of 1839, but was present already in his review of Stallbaum's edition of the Republic in the Allgemeine Schulzeitung for 1831. (Hermann later revised and expanded parts of this review in Hermann 1849 Hermann , K. F. 1849 Die historischen Elemente des platonischen Staatsideals , in: id ., Gesammelte Abhandlungen und Beiträge zur classischen Litteratur und Alterhumskunde , pp. 132 – 159 . Göttingen : Dietrich . [Google Scholar].) Their interpretations of the Republic in particular thus reflect general approaches developed some years apart, but Hermann's understanding of the relationship of Republic 1 to Republic 2–10 was published only a few years after Schleiermacher's, and with the latter in view. Cf. Schleiermacher 1828 Schleiermacher , F. 1828 Platons Werke III.i Der Staat . Berlin : Reimer – The "Einleitung": 3–72 (2nd ed. Berlin: Reimer 1862: 5–48, is translated in Dobson 1836 , 350 – 415 [Google Scholar], 3–11 and 63–69 (1862, 5–10 and 42–46 [1836, 350–358 and 406–411]) with Hermann 1831 Hermann , K. F. 1831 [Review of Stallbaum's edition of the Republic: Platonis dialogos selectos … rec. G. Stallbaum, Vol 3 Sec. 1 and 2, Gothae et Erfordiae: Hennings 1829 and 1830] Allgemeine Schulzeitung , Abt. II, Nr. 81 and 148–152 . [Google Scholar] (ii.81) 1185–1191 and cf. id. 1839, 537-539 and 1849, 137-141. 27. See Dümmler 1895 Dümmler , F. 1895 Zur Composition des platonischen Staates, mit einem excurs Über die Entwicklung der platonischen Psychologie (Basel Univ. Programm) Basle : Reinhardt & Sohn, Universitäts Buchdruckerei [=id., Kleine Schriften, I, Leipzig : S. Hirzel 1901 , 229 – 270 ]. [Google Scholar], 11. 28. Friedländer 1930 Friedländer , P. 1930 Platon II. Die platonischen Schriften . Berlin : Walter de Gruyter & Co . (Platon Band III. Die platonischen Schriften. Erste Periode (2nd. ed.). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1957 [Engl. from 2nd. ed. in: Friedländer, P. Plato 2. The Dialogues … First Period, translated by Hans Meyerhoff. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1964]; 3rd. ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1964) . [Google Scholar], 50 with the note ([Eng. tr. 50 and 305f.] 1964, 45 and 286f.). Cf. Tigerstedt 1977 Tigerstedt, E. N. 1977. Interpreting Plato, Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. [Google Scholar], 50. 29. For rules by which to isolate Plato's philosophical "system" from his dialogues, see Tennemann 1792–95 Tennemann , W. G. 1792–1795 System der Platonischen Philosophie . Leipzig : Barth . [Google Scholar], vol. 1, iv–x and 151–164. (Cf. Tigerstedt 1974 Tigerstedt, E. N. 1974. The Decline and Fall of the Neoplatonic Interpretation of Plato. An Outline and Some Observations, Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica. [Google Scholar], 64–68 and 1977, 68f.) For an example of the philological "science" of distinguishing genuine from spurious dialogues see Boeckh 1877 Boeckh, A. 1877. Encyclopädie und Methodologie der philologischen Wissenschaften, Leipzig: Teubner. [Google Scholar], 218–220, comparing id. 1806 Boeckh, A. 1806. In Platonis qui vulgo fertur Minoem eiusdemque Libros Priores De Legibus, Halle: Hemmerd. [Google Scholar], 7–33. 30. Hermann 1839 Hermann, K. F. 1839. Geschichte und System der platonischen Philosophie. I., Heidelberg: Winter. [Google Scholar] (Geschichte und System der platonischen Philosophie, I) was the first, "historical" part of a never-completed project, the remainder of which was to offer an account of Plato's philosophical "system". 31. Kahn characterizes the difference between Schleiermacher and Hermann in the terms of a procrustean opposition between "unitarian" and "developmental" views. (1992a Kahn, C. 1992a. "Vlastos's Socrates". Phronesis, 37: 233–258. [Google Scholar], 240–241; cf. id. 2007, 33–35) But both scholars' views are developmental in the general sense founded by Schleiermacher. For him, "earlier" meant prior in a methodical sense, and for this reason also temporally. In Hermann and most subsequent scholars, it came to mean idealistically or romantically, and thereby biographically earlier. For elaboration, see Ausland 2002 Ausland, H. W. 2002. "Plato's Ideal Cosmopolitanism". In "Polis and Cosmopolis": Problems of a Global Era, II, Edited by: Boudouris, K. 33–50. Athens: International Center for Greek Philosophy and Culture. [Google Scholar] and 2006 Ausland, H. W. 2006. "Socrates' Definitional Inquiries and the History of Philosophy". In The Blackwell Companion to Socrates, Edited by: Rappe, S. and Kamtekar, R. 493–510. Oxford: Blackwell. [Google Scholar], 496–498. 32. For a recent survey, see Press 2007 Press, G. A. 2007. Plato. A Guide for the Perplexed, London & New York: Continuum. [Google Scholar]. 33. See Thesleff 1989 Thesleff, H. 1989. "Platonic Chronology". Phronesis, 34: 1–26. [Google Scholar], Howland 1991 Howland, J. 1991. "Re-Reading Plato: The Problem of Platonic Chronology". Phoenix, 45: 189–214. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], and Nails 1992 Nails, D. 1992. "Platonic Chronology Reconsidered". Bryn Mawr Classical Review, 3: 314–327. [Google Scholar], contrasting Kahn 1992b Kahn , C. 1992b Review of L. Brandwood, The Chronology of Plato's Dialogues , Cambridge : University Press , 1990 , Classical Journal 88 : 89 – 91 . [Google Scholar]. 34. For "dramatic prefiguration" in the Republic more in accord with Lebeck's understanding of prolepsis, see Rudebusch 2002 Rudebusch, G. 2002. "Dramatic Prefiguration in Plato's Republic". Philosophy and Literature, 26: 75–83. [Google Scholar]. Cf. Voegelin 1957 Voegelin, E. 1957. Order and History, Vol. 3, Plato and Aristotle, Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. [Google Scholar], 52–62 and Strauss 1964, 62–64. 35. Kahn cites Gregory Vlastos as still holding the nineteenth-century view that Book 1 was originally composed as a separate "Socratic" dialogue, but then he adds "According to Friedländer (Plato ii.305 n. 1), the name Thrasymachus was given to the hypothetical dialogue by F. Dümmler in 1895." (Kahn 1993 Kahn, C. 1993. "Proleptic Composition in the Republic, or Why Book I was Never a Separate Dialogue". Classical Quarterly, 85: 131–142. [Google Scholar], 131 n6; cf. Dümmler 1895, 11). Kahn cites Hermann's book (Kahn 1993 Kahn, C. 1993. "Proleptic Composition in the Republic, or Why Book I was Never a Separate Dialogue". Classical Quarterly, 85: 131–142. [Google Scholar], 131 n. 1), but, when he embraces Schleiermacher's view that the Republic in some way fulfils other earlier dialogues, he shows no knowledge that this view goes back before Werner Jaeger's version of it. Cf. Kahn 1993 Kahn, C. 1993. "Proleptic Composition in the Republic, or Why Book I was Never a Separate Dialogue". Classical Quarterly, 85: 131–142. [Google Scholar], 135 n16 and 1996, 41 with Schleiermacher 1828 Schleiermacher , F. 1828 Platons Werke III.i Der Staat . Berlin : Reimer – The "Einleitung": 3–72 (2nd ed. Berlin: Reimer 1862: 5–48, is translated in Dobson 1836 , 350 – 415 [Google Scholar], 7f. (1862, 8 [1836, 354f.]). He seems likewise unaware that Schleiermacher discussed several points made in book 1 that he held proved significant in the sequel, at least one of which constitutes a case of proleptic composition in Kahn's view. Cf. Kahn 1993 Kahn, C. 1993. "Proleptic Composition in the Republic, or Why Book I was Never a Separate Dialogue". Classical Quarterly, 85: 131–142. [Google Scholar], 137f. with Schleiermacher 1828 Schleiermacher , F. 1828 Platons Werke III.i Der Staat . Berlin : Reimer – The "Einleitung": 3–72 (2nd ed. Berlin: Reimer 1862: 5–48, is translated in Dobson 1836 , 350 – 415 [Google Scholar], 10f. (1862, 9f. [1836, 355–358]). 36. Steinhart 1855 Steinhart , K. 1855 Platons sämmtliche Werke, üb … H. Müller … 5 . Leipzig : Brockhaus . [Google Scholar], 67. Cf. Cicero, De Oratore 2 (80) 325 and Kahn 1993, 140. 37. Steinhart 1855 Steinhart , K. 1855 Platons sämmtliche Werke, üb … H. Müller … 5 . Leipzig : Brockhaus . [Google Scholar], 67f. Cf. Schleiermacher 1828 Schleiermacher , F. 1828 Platons Werke III.i Der Staat . Berlin : Reimer – The "Einleitung": 3–72 (2nd ed. Berlin: Reimer 1862: 5–48, is translated in Dobson 1836 , 350 – 415 [Google Scholar], 11 (1862, 10 [1836, 357f.]). 38. Steinhart 1855 Steinhart , K. 1855 Platons sämmtliche Werke, üb … H. Müller … 5 . Leipzig : Brockhaus . [Google Scholar], 68 and 113. Cf. Cicero, De Oratore 2 (79) 320. 39. See Steinhart 1855 Steinhart , K. 1855 Platons sämmtliche Werke, üb … H. Müller … 5 . Leipzig : Brockhaus . [Google Scholar], 72, where he concludes "… that [book I] not only belongs wholly to the circle of thoughts and views within which the following books move, but that it also – much as the first song of an epic, or the prologue of a tragedy - already comprehends within itself the principles and themes of all later intricacies and solutions, and thus points toward these in an intimating and preparatory (andeutend und vorbereitend) manner in all respects." Steinhart interpreted Plato's dialogues as each organized with reference to a single "Grundgedank". In the case of the Republic, he held that everything in the dialogue is in one way or another focused on the idea of the good: "… the fundamental thought we seek, which may not be merely an artistic, but must also be a philosophical one, … we can find only in that highest of all ideas, which is the central point of all dialectical and ethical discussions of the dialogue, in the idea of the highest good – of the principle of all truth and virtue and even all being. This idea is as it were the entire work's sun, which, while still hidden at the start, already effects all its parts, animating and warming them, until it finally at about the center, where the investigation reaches its climax, breaks forth victoriously, spreads a light as bright as it is pure over all areas of human life, and solves its darkest riddles. …" (id. 1855, 32f.) According to Susemihl (1857 Susemihl , F. 1857 Die genetische Entwicklung der platonischen Philosophie , vol. II.i . Leipzig : Teubner (Reprint Osnabruck: Zeller 1967) . [Google Scholar], 64), this was Steinhart's central contribution to the discussion of the unity of the Republic. While embracing a partly similar view (see note 22 supra), Kahn seems unaware of Steinhart's fuller anticipation of it. 40. illius sive est (uti diximus) Iustitiae Definitio: quae ita proponitur, ut potius doceatur Quid non sit iustitiae, quam quid sit revera. Hac autem quasi velitaria opera, serit occasionem suo more legitimae disputationis, quam copiose persequitur insequentibus libris. Duas autem Iustitiae descriptiones selegit de industria, quas ita refutaret ut spargeret tamen semina plenae definitionis, quae rei subiectae naturam repraesentaret. (de Serres 1578 de Serres 1578 Platonis Opera Quae Extant Omnia 3 vols. . Geneva : Henry Stephens . [Google Scholar], II, 324f.) See also Cicero, De Oratore 2 (78) 317 and (80) 325. The definitions offered in book 1 seem to be framed in iridescent terms. Thus Erbse (2001 Erbse, H. 2001. "Beobachtungen über Platons 'Politeia A-D'". Hermes, 129: 198–207. [Google Scholar]), 198) thinks only Thrasymachus' account of significance for the sequel, where Strauss finds only Polemarchus' opinion "entirely preserved in the positive or constructive part of the work" (1964, 73). 41. See Lausberg 1998 Lausberg , H. 1998 Handbook of Literary Rhetoric: A Foundation for Literary Study , tr. M. T. Bliss, A. Jansen, & D. E. Orton . Leiden, Boston : Brill . [Google Scholar], secs. 266–279. Interestingly, a similar set of functions is outlined for narrative anticipation in a scholion to Homer's Iliad 11.604. See Duckworth 1931 Duckworth, G. E. 1931. "in the Scholia to Homer". American Journal of Philology, 52: 320–338. [Google Scholar], 332 n45. 42. Anonymus Sevgerianus 36.5, 196.3, and 240.3. Cf. Iamblichus, In Nicom. Arithm. Intr. 39.3-9 et alibi; Proclus, Theol. Plat. 3.8.21-24; In Remp. 2.24.18–20; In Tim. 1.427.22–26; and a similar idea in a scholion to Iliad 15.64, quoted in Duckworth 1931 Duckworth, G. E. 1931. "in the Scholia to Homer". American Journal of Philology, 52: 320–338. [Google Scholar], 332, who refers also to Roemer 1914 Roemer, A. 1914. Homerische Aufsätze, Leipzig: Teubner. [Google Scholar], 32. See also Richardson 1980 Richardson, N. J. 1980. "Literary Criticism in the Exegetical Scholia to the Iliad: A Sketch". Classical Quarterly N.S., 30: 265–287. [Google Scholar], 267f. and cf. Eustathius, In Hom. Iliad. Vol. 1, 5.31–2.2. 43. Loc cit. See also de Serres 1578 de Serres 1578 Platonis Opera Quae Extant Omnia 3 vols. . Geneva : Henry Stephens . [Google Scholar], II, 325, 355, and the annotation to 331b ff. Cf. further Jahns 1850 Jahns, G. 1850. De Iustitia in Platonis Civitate Exposita, Warsaw: Robert Lucas. [Google Scholar], 21, 25f. and 27. 44. Cf. Thucydides 3.104 with Phaedo 60d2. For the ostensible independence of the kitharodist's proem, see Cicero, De Oratore 2 (80) 325. For an attempt to connect the types, see Koller 1956 Koller, H. 1956. "Das kitharodische Prooimion". Philologus, 100: 159–206. [Google Scholar]. 45. See Bundy 1972 Bundy, E. 1972. "The 'Quarrel between Kallimachos and Apollonios' Part I: The Epilogue of Kallimachos' 'Hymn to Apollo'". California Studies in Classical Antiquity, 5: 39–94. [Google Scholar], 58–72. Cf. HH 3.19-27 with Rep. 354a13–c3. 46. See e.g. HH 27.4 and 28f. "The common break-off formula … is at the same time conclusive and transitional …" (Bundy 1972 Bundy, E. 1972. "The 'Quarrel between Kallimachos and Apollonios' Part I: The Epilogue of Kallimachos' 'Hymn to Apollo'". California Studies in Classical Antiquity, 5: 39–94. [Google Scholar], 52). 47. See HH 3.166–179. 48. See Koller 1956 Koller, H. 1956. "Das kitharodische Prooimion". Philologus, 100: 159–206. [Google Scholar], 198f. and Nagy 1982 Nagy, G. 1982. "Hesiod". In Ancient Writers: Greece and Rome, Edited by: Luce, T. J. 43–73. New York: Scribner Vol. 1. [Google Scholar], 53–55. Cf. Theogony 43–52 with 105ff. 49. Cf. Theogony 73f. with 390–394 and 885, comparing further Republic 332b9–c4 and 420d1–e1. 50. See Dümmler 1895, 10 and cf. Griswold 1988 Griswold, C. 1988. "Unifying Plato". Journal of Philosophy, 85: 550–551. [Google Scholar]. 51.