Abstract
Tofighian examines the introduction (frame dialogue) to the Protagoras and explains its relevance for interpreting the philosophical arguments. Both the dramatic form that opens the dialogue and the beginning of Socrates’s narration of events contain elements that complement scenes and ideas pertaining to Protagoras’s myth. Tofighian examines how Plato presents a somewhat challenged and sometimes unconvincing Socrates; Socrates is neither heroic nor authoritative. He introduces Laurence Coupe’s theory of ‘radical typology’ and applies it to explain how Protagoras’s myth refigures earlier narrative elements in order to deliver the hypothesis that political skill and good citizenship are essentially linked to virtue and that therefore virtue can be taught.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Burke (1970) p. 7.
- 2.
- 3.
Coupe (2006) p. 58.
- 4.
Coupe (2006) p. 58.
- 5.
Coupe’s reading is influenced by Ricoeur’s theory that myth is ‘social imagination’. Coupe explains how Ricoeur denied the notion of a future totality but incorporates hope in his reading of myth as a necessary principle (Coupe [2006] p. 58; Ricoeur [1965] pp. 190–191). For Ricoeur, the function of myth is best understood as the dialectic between ‘ideology’ and ‘utopia’.
- 6.
Coupe (2006) p. 60.
- 7.
For essays by Cupitt on non-realist philosophy of religion, see Cupitt (2002).
- 8.
Coupe (2006) p. 60.
- 9.
Coupe describes Eliade as a traditional realist.
- 10.
Coupe (2006) pp. 64–66.
- 11.
Tofighian (2013) pp. 105–106. My analysis of non-realist allegory in this paper engages with the Iranian film Baran (2001) by Majid Majidi.
- 12.
Coupe (2006) p. 61.
- 13.
Coupe (2006) p. 61. In addition to Coupe, consider the theories and methods of Vico, Benjamin, Auerbach, and White.
- 14.
Consider Coupe’s criticism of rational demythologizing of Greek myth (Coupe [2006] pp. 62–64). However, his evaluation of Plato differs from my interpretation and analysis here. Also, see pp. 65–66.
- 15.
Compare with McGrath (2009).
- 16.
Coupe (2006) p. 67.
- 17.
The Prometheus and Epimetheus myth is pivotal for understanding the theme of partnership pervading the dialogue. Partnership is significant for interpreting the literary structure and the arguments in the text as I discuss in the section on plot structure.
- 18.
Bartlett draws attention to Plato’s use of the term hetairos rather than philos (Plato [2004] p. viii). The ambiguity of the word hetairos introduces a complexity into the relationship that cannot be recognized in the word ‘friend’. I explain how the distinction between advantages, disadvantages, and pragmatic concerns characterizes the way the theme of partnership is portrayed in the dialogue. A more formal and conditional relationship between two parties is presented as opposed to the intimacy associated with friendship.
- 19.
Ebert (2003) also identifies the importance of the frame dialogue. However, his interpretation arrives at conclusions different from mine.
- 20.
Ebert (2003) pp. 9–11. Ebert refers to three different kinds of poetry outlined in the Republic to assist his classification of the formal style exhibited by the Protagoras.
- 21.
In an introduction to the Protagoras, Frede points out that the slave closes the door on Socrates and Hippocrates (Plato [1992] p. xiv). The scene indicates, for Frede, that generally people cannot distinguish between a philosopher and a sophist and connects this confusion to Socrates’s trial and execution (in contrast, Protagoras led a successful life as a teacher and political ideologue). Through the dramatic setting of the dialogue, Plato conflates or overlaps categories, personalities, and stereotypes. I argue that a fusion of these different aspects is one of the most fascinating features of the text and a concomitant to plot structure.
- 22.
There are eight dialogues in which the main dialogue is reported by an explicit narrator (Ebert [2003] pp. 11–20). These are the Phaedo (Phaedo), Parmenides (Cephalus), Symposium (Apollodorus and Aristodemus), Charmides (Socrates), Lysis (Socrates), Euthydemus (Socrates), Protagoras (Socrates), and The Republic (Socrates). In addition, there are two spurious dialogues that are narrated: Erastai (Socrates) and Eryxias (Socrates). In all cases, the personality of the narrator, as he is presented in the particular dialogue, has a profound impact on many of the philosophical and dramatic features of the text.
- 23.
Van Riel points out that Socrates presents Protagoras with a dilemma: if he agrees with Socrates he jeopardizes his occupation as a teacher and if he disagrees with him he criticizes the democratic constitution that enables him to work as a teacher ([2012] p. 149). Protagoras’s myth renders Socrates’s problem irrelevant by placing the details and data within a new framework.
- 24.
Van Riel attributes the failure of the conversation between the two interlocutors to the fact that they are using two different conceptions of arête (Van Riel [2012] pp. 147–148).
- 25.
Thein (2003) p. 61.
- 26.
- 27.
Zilioli (2007) pp. 96–98. Zilioli connects the theory proposed in the myth to the fragments of Protagoras.
- 28.
In his introduction to the Protagoras, Taylor argues that Socrates’s style of argumentation, which subjects an opponent’s hypothesis to critical questioning with the aim of exposing its contradictions, was first pioneered by the Sophists. The difference, he explains, between Plato’s use of the method and the sophists’ is that Plato’s aim is not victory by one party but healthy cooperation between two parties to arrive at truth (Plato [1996] p. xi).
- 29.
‘The myth has supplied a framework within which excellence might be considered; the myth is used for such purposes by those with a fatherly point to make’ (Tarrant [2012] p. 6).
- 30.
For a critical reading of Protagoras’s myth arguing that it ignores individual value, see Bartlett’s comments in Plato (2004) pp. 73–74.
- 31.
Zilioli (2007) pp. 101–102.
- 32.
This is a significant recurring theme in the dialogue and integral to the plot, the character roles, and the arguments.
- 33.
See Frede’s introduction to Plato (1992) p. xiv.
- 34.
I give Protagoras’s arguments more credit than some scholars have attributed to them (for criticisms of Protagoras’s arguments, see Taylor’s introduction to Plato [1996] pp. xv–xvi). As a unity, the myth and the arguments have far more rhetorical weight and more compelling insight into the issue than Socrates’s arguments.
- 35.
For an interpretation that recognizes the interdependent relation between the myth and the arguments, see Tarrant (2012) pp. 50–53.
- 36.
Zilioli presents an anti-objectivist interpretation of the myth that incorporates modern debates concerning cultural relativism ([2007] pp. 105–112).
- 37.
Van Riel argues that the myth promotes the Platonic view that we all possess certain basic human capacities ([2012] p. 158).
- 38.
Frede’s Introduction to Plato (1992) pp. vii–viii.
- 39.
Zilioli suggests another kind of structure that begins with an inferior stage of human society (the Epimetheus stage) and progresses to another stage where survival is ensured (the Prometheus stage) before entering a more advanced level of community dynamics (the Zeus stage) ([2007] pp. 98–100). There is clearly a prominent ‘progressive’ historical theme running through the story that deserves priority when interpreting the Protagoras and requires interdisciplinary investigation.
- 40.
- 41.
Van Riel (2012) pp. 159–62.
- 42.
Also, see 331a–b and 333a–b.
- 43.
Frede’s introduction to Plato (1992) p. xvi.
- 44.
Frede’s introduction to Plato (1992) pp. xvii–xviii.
- 45.
Ebert (2003) pp. 15–16. On page 16, Ebert states: ‘Since he remains an anonymous interlocutor, he is, as it were, anybody from Athens. Thus, his anonymity makes him a perfect representative of the polloi’.
- 46.
The discussion involving the admiration of Alcibiades’s beauty is at 316a, and reference to Homer regarding the most handsome age for a male is at 309a.
- 47.
My critical reading of this aspect of the opening scenes is not shared by some interpreters. See Frede’s introduction in Plato (1992) p. x.
- 48.
The man attending the door is unable to distinguish between the two visitors, the pair of Socrates and Hippocrates, and the sophists. This literary device further informs the view that distinctions between philosopher and sophist are complicated in the Protagoras (314c–e). The attendant’s attitude toward the new arrivals is representative of the deflated status of the philosopher throughout the dialogue.
- 49.
At 316d, Protagoras gives a short history of sophism and how sophists conduct themselves.
- 50.
See Frede’s introduction in Plato (1992) pp. xv–xvi. Frede describes the positive character traits exhibited by Protagoras in the text and refers to the desirable forms of argumentation used by sophists that influence Socrates’s style of dialectic. Also, see passages 316d–317c: this section presents a positive account of the history of sophism and Protagoras indicates how earlier sophists had to mask their art and their identities. Aliases included poets, prophets and seers, physical trainers, musicians, and music instructors.
- 51.
Ebert (2003) p. 17.
- 52.
Compare Protagoras’s comments at 316c–317c with Socrates’s situation in the Apology: cf. Prot. 317a–e about honesty regarding his profession, his disapproval of escape in the face of hostility, and taking precautions against harm targeted against sophists.
- 53.
For details on the characters, see Taylor’s commentary in Plato (1996) pp. 68–69.
Bibliography
Primary Texts
Plato. (1992). Protagoras/Plato. Trans. by S. Lombardo and K. Bell with introduction by M. Frede. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company Inc.
Plato. (1996). Protagoras. Trans. with notes by C.C.W. Taylor. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Plato. (2004). Protagoras and Meno. Trans. with notes and interpretive essays by R.C. Bartlett. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Secondary Texts
Burke, K. (1966). Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Burke, K. (1970). The Rhetoric of Religion: Studies in Logology. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Coupe, L. (2006). Myth. London: Routledge.
Cupitt, D. (2002). Is Nothing Sacred? The Non-Realist Philosophy of Religion: Selected Essays. New York: Fordham University Press.
Ebert, T. (2003). ‘The Role of the Frame Dialogue in Plato’s Protagoras’, in Plato’s Protagoras – Proceedings of the Third Symposium Platonicum Pragense. Havlicek, A. and Karfik F. (eds.). Prague.
Manuwald, B. (2002). ‘Platons Mythenerzahler’, in Platon als Mythologe. Neue Interpretationen zu den Mythen in Platons Dialogen. M. Janka and C. Schafer (eds). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 58–80.
McGrath, E. (2009). ‘Platonic Myths in Renaissance Iconography’, in Plato’s Myths. C. Partenie, (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ricoeur, P. (1965). History and Truth. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Tarrant, H. (2012). ‘Logos, Mythos, and Explanatory Values. From the Protagoras to the Timaeus-Critias’, in Plato and Myth: Studies on the Use and Status of Platonic Myth. C. Collobert, P. Destrée, F.J. Gonzalez (eds.). Leiden: Brill, 47–66.
Thein, K. (2003). ‘Teleology and Myth in the Protagoras’, in Plato’s Protagoras – Proceedings of the Third Symposium Platonicum Pragense. A. Havlicek and F. Karfik (eds.). Prague.
Tofighian, O. (2013). ‘Contemporary Liminal Encounters: Moving Beyond Traditional Plots in Majidi’s Baran’, in Conflict and Development in Iranian Film. A.A. Seyed-Gohrab and K. Talattof (eds.). Leiden: Leiden University Press.
van Ophuijsen, J. M., van Raalte, M. and Stork, P. (eds.) (2013). Protagoras of Abdera: The Man, His Measure. Philosophia Antiqua, 134. Leiden: Brill.
Van Riel, G. (2012). ‘Religion and Morality. Elements of Plato’s Anthropology in the Myth of Prometheus’, in Plato and Myth: Studies on the Use and Status of Platonic Myth. C. Collobert, P. Destrée, F.J. Gonzalez (eds.). Leiden: Brill, 145–164.
Zilioli, U. (2007). Protagoras and the Challenge of Relativism – Plato’s Subtlest Enemy. Hampshire: Ashgate.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tofighian, O. (2016). Myth and Partnership: Protagoras . In: Myth and Philosophy in Platonic Dialogues. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58044-3_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58044-3_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-58043-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-58044-3
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)