It seems to me that a case could be made that the names of the various characters in the Republic have a certain significance to their bearer's roles in the discussion. The characters are of course historical, but I think that Plato acted deliberately in populating his dialogue. Additionally, the characters seem to mirror both the tripartite image of the soul, and the classes in the image of the city.
In order of appearance:
Glaucon, son of Ariston: "bright" or "bright eyes" (cf. Athena's epithet "glaucôpis"). Historically, Glaucon was Plato's brother. In the dialogue, he is the interlocutor who appears to see the clearest, and who is able to follow Socrates' argument to the end of book X, when all other interlocutors have fallen silent. His spiritedness resembles that of the spirited part of the soul or of the Guardian class.
Polemarchus, son of Cephalus: In Athenian politics, the polemarch was the archon who oversaw the waging of war. In the dialogue, he seems to oversee certain crucial points in the discussion, such as detaining Socrates in the Piraeus at 327b, taking over the discussion from Cephalus at 331d, and compelling Socrates to revisit a large section of the argument at 449b. He seems to be the leader and spokesman for those characters who correspond to the appetitive part of the soul (the "many-headed beast"), or the artisan class.
Adeimantus, son of Ariston: "fearless." Like his brother, he undauntedly pursues the discussion, and seems to resemble the spirited part of the soul. However, unlike Glaucon he seems to relate more to the appetitive characters (cf. 327c, 449b-d).
Cephalus of Syracuse: "head." The historical Cephalus was a resident alien in Athens who owned a shield factory. In the dialogue, he is an old man who lacks the spirit and appetite of the other interlocutors. He seems to symbolize traditional Homeric piety, and leaves before the philosophical discussion gets under way, even though he gently chides Socrates for not visiting him enough. Plato is perhaps either making a comparison between traditional Homeric religion and philosophy, or making a statement about what kind of character the philosopher must possess (whole-souled, not just "heady"), or both.
Thrasymachus of Chalcedon: from thrasys "bold, spirited" or negatively "rash, reckless"; and machos "fighter." His first appearance in book I is likened to a wild animal, but at 449c and 450b he emerges as a generally useful and productive participant in the discussion. Like the appetitive part of the soul, he must be tamed (by the rational part in concert with the spirited part) before he can be a useful part of the whole.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I wish that I knew Greek well enough to give something constructive. Instead I will say: Cool, I never knew.
Coincidentally, what does it say about Socrates that he doesn't represent any particular class of individuals? Also, it seems weird that Glaucon, the bright one, is the one who introduces the myth of the Ring of Gyges? (If I'm remembering correctly) Does his change from this naive view to the informed view serve as a bigger allegory of the cave?
Oh Plato, why are you so confusing?
Yeah, Socrates is a special case. My best guess is that he represents the Philosopher King(s).
I think the ring of Gyges thing falls under Glaucon's pushing for Socrates to show how justice is good in itself, and how injustice is bad in itself, without considering the external results of each. I'd be interested to hear you elaborate on this.
I think that the current Plato seminar here would be of interest to you. Deborah Modrak is interested in talking about Plato's philosophy of language. As I understand it, the discussion in Cratylus deals with the significance of names, whether a name has only conventional meaning or another kind of "natural" meaning (ending in aporia). She also said that the topic is taken up again in "the Sophist". There a view is developed that may cut a line between the two views of the Cratylus - of course, I haven't read the dialogues, so I don't know for sure.
Post a Comment