"Gorgias" and "Phaedrus"

Plato, H. Nichols James

Description

With a masterful sense of the place of rhetoric in both thought and practice and an ear attuned to the clarity, natural simplicity, and charm of Plato's Greek prose, James H. Nichols Jr., offers precise yet unusually readable translations of two great Platonic dialogues on rhetoric.The Gorgias presents an intransigent argument that justice is superior to injustice: To the extent that suffering an injustice is preferable to committing an unjust act. The dialogue contains some of Plato's most significant and famous discussions of major political themes, and focuses dramatically and with unrivaled intensity on Socrates as a political thinker and actor. Featuring some of Plato's most soaringly lyrical passages, the Phaedrus investigates the soul's erotic longing and its relationship to the whole cosmos, as well as inquiring into the nature of rhetoric and the problem of writing.Nichols's attention to dramatic detail brings the dialogues to life. Plato's striking variety in conversational address (names and various terms of relative warmth and coolness) is carefully reproduced, as is alteration in tone and implication even in the short responses. The translations render references to the gods accurately and non-monotheistically for the first time, and include a fascinating variety of oaths and invocations. A general introduction on rhetoric from the Greeks to the present shows the problematic relation of rhetoric to philosophy and politics, states the themes that unite the two dialogues, and outlines interpretive suggestions that are then developed more fully for each dialogue. The twin dialogues reveal both the private and the political rhetoric emphatic in Plato's philosophy, yet often ignored in commentaries on it. Nichols believes that Plato's thought on rhetoric has been largely misunderstood, and he uses his translations as an opportunity to reconstruct the classical position on right relations between thought and public activity.

Sujets

• Philosophie et théologie

Informations

• Publié par: Cornell University Press
• Date de parution: 11 septembre 2014
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9780801471490
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 4 Mo

Extrait

Gorgias

AGORa EDïTïONS ÉditOR hOmaS . angle OUnding ÉditOR Allan lOOm

OlOtin, avid.Pàô'ŝ Dîàôue ôn fîenŝhî: an Ineeàîôn ô he "Lŝîŝ wîh à New Tànŝà îôn Ojve, AlexandRe.eŝ ôn heHee: Lecu ô e Reàîn ô In ôucîôn "Phenômenôô ô SîîASSembled bY aYmOnd QUeneaU. Édited bY Allan lOOm. RanSlated bY ameS   ichOlS R. Meîevà Pôîîcà Phîôŝôh: a Sôu cebôôkÉdited bY alph eRneR and UhSin ahdi latO.gôîàŝRanSlated bY ameS . ichOlS R. latO.PhàeuŝRanSlated bY ameS  ichOlS R. latO.gôîàŝandPhàeuŝRanSlated bY aMeS  içHOlS RŒ HÉ pOLITIcaL phILOŝOh:ROOTS Of tÉn Fôôen sôÇàî dïàôueŝÉdited bY hOmaS  . angle. OUSSeaU, eanacqUeS.Pôîîcŝ àn e aŝ Lee ô M DAembe ôn he Theà eRanSlated bY Allan lOOm

PLATO

Gorgias

TRAnsATEDwîTH

înTRODUCTîOn nOTEs AnD An

înTERpREtATîvE EssAY BY

JAMESH.NICHOLS JR.

Cornell UniversitY Press

ITHĀÇĀ ĀND lONDON

çopyriGh © 1998 by çorNell ÛNiversiy

All riGhs reserveD Éxcep For brieF quoaioNs iN a review, his book, or pars hereoF, mus No be reproDuceD iN aNy Form wihou permissioN iN wriiNG rom he publisher or iNFormaioN, aDDress çorNell ÛNiversiy Press, ŚaGe ouse, 1 Éas Śae Śree, Ihaca, ew ork 18

irs publisheD 1998 by çorNell ÛNiversiy Press irs priNiNG, çorNell Paperbacks, 1998

PriNeD iN he ÛNieD Śaes oF America

çorNell ÛNiversiy Press srives o use eNviroNmeNally respoNsible suppliers aND maerials o he Fulles exeN possible iN he publishiNG oF is books Śuch maerials iNcluDe veGeable-baseD, lowÔç iNks aND aciD-Free papers ha are also recycleD, oally choriNeree, or parly composeD oF NoNwooD bers or Furher iNFormaioN visi our websie a wwwcorNellpresscorNelleDu

ibrary oF çoNGress çaaloGiNGiN-PublicaioN aa

Pao [orGias ÉNGlish orGias ï Plao  raNslaeD wih iNroDucioN, Noes, aND aN iNerpreive essay by ames  ichols, r p cm  AGora paperback eDiioNs INcluDes biblioGraphical reereNces aND iNDex IŚB1: 9881-8- pb : alk paper IŚB1: -818- pbk : alk paper i  Poliical Éhics, ANcieN scieNceÉarly ~orks o 18 I ichols, James , 19  II ile III Śeries B1A 1998 1Dc1 98-68 çIP

Paperback priNiNG

1

9

8



6

Contents

Reace vii

ïntROdUctiOn hetORic hilOSOphY and OliticS 1

gORgIaS 25

he hetORIc OF ¥UStIce in latO'Sgôîàŝ 131

v

DialoguE NamES and

AbbrEviationS

(ameS appeaR Spelled OUt at RSt inStance and aRe abbReviated theReafteR)

ôÀŝ

CallieS OcRateS ChaeROphOn GORàŚ OlUS

vî

cal ÔC çhaE gOr POL.

Preface

he deSign and execUtiOn O thiS vOlUme ReSt On thRee pRemiSeS. iRSt, that the qUeStiOnS RegaRding the natURe O RhetORic and itS pROpeR RelatiOn tO philOSOphY, pOliticS, and edUcatiOn aRe O peRennial cOnceRn and impOR­ tance. ecOnd, that latO S inveStigatiOn O theSe qUeStiOnS iS pROOUnd and valUable OR OUR Own thinking. And thiRd, that a caReUl tRanSlatiOn bY the Same peRSOn O bOthgîàŝandPhàeuŝwith nOteS and inteRpRetative SUggeStiOnS, cOUld be veRY helpUl OR thOSe wiShing tO cOme tO gRipS with latOS UndeRStanding O RhetORic. Ô cOURSe, ï hOld theSe pRemiSeS tO be tRUe and tO pROvide SUicient jUS ticatiOn OR the pReSent vOlUme. ïn act, theSe pRemiSeS Seem tO me SUi L L c ï en t Y mOdeSt âRÉÉ wh hEm Ithat I ïmagïnÉ mOŚ ÉOÉ mh wÉ URtheR believe that SUbStantiallY StROngeR aSSeRtiOnS alOng eacĒ O theSe lineS aRe deenSible, thOûgh O neceSSitY mORe cOntROveRSial, and that theSe aSSeRtiOnS make a aR mORe cOmpelling caSe OR the valUe O thiS vOlUme. Y Ull aRgUment OR theSe StROngeR aSSeRtiOnS iS tO be OUnd in the en tiRetY O the vOlUme that OllOwS, inclUding intROdUctiOn, tRanSlatiOnS, nOteS, and SUggeStiOnS OR inteRpRetatiOn. et me Sketch them heRe bRieFlY aS OllOwS. iRSt, RhetORic iS the cRUcial link between philOSOphY and pOliticS and mUSt take an impORtant place in edUcatiOn i pOlitical lie and intellectUal activitY aRe tO be in the beSt Shape pOSSible. While it iS eaSY tO denigRate the aRt O peRSUaSiOn, mOSt ObviOUSlY bY cOntRaSting itS pOSSible deceptiveneSS with the tRUth O genUine knOwledge, Science, OR philOSOpHY, One ShOUld neveR ORget the Undamental pOlitical act that hUman beingS mUSt cOOR dinate theiR activitieS with OtheR hUman beingS in ORdeR tO live well, and

vîî

v

Péfácé

that thE twO mOst basic mOdEs Of such cOOrdinatiOn arE thrOugh pErsua siOn and bY fOrcE ÉvErYOnE knOws thE disadvantagEs Of ExcEssivE rELiancE bY a pOLiticaL cOmmunitY On fOrcE Or viOLEncE f thE highEst intELLEctuaL activitiEssciEncE, phiLOsOphYarE tO havE much EfficacY i practicaL pO LiticaL LifE, rhEtOric must bE thE kEY intErmEdiarY ¬EcOnd, LatO prEsEntEd thE rst fuLL invEstigatiOn Of thE mOst impOrtant and fundamEntaL quEstiOns abOut rhEtOric, and its rELatiOn tO phiLOsOphY On thE OnE hand and pOLitics On thE OthEr is invEstigatiOn is cLassic, in thE sEnsE that OnE can arguE with pLausibiLitY that nO LatEr invEstigatiOn has surpassEd its cLaritY and fOrcE On thE basic quEstiOns is undErstanding Of thEsE quEstiOns anD his PhiLOsOphic suggEstiOns abOut rhEtOric dEci sivELY afEctEd thE waY thEsE mattErs wErE viEwEd and dEaLt with fOr manY cEnturiEs and rEmain indispEnsabLE tOdaY hird, LatOs tEaching On rhEtOric is an aspEct Of his thOught that is vErY OftEn misunDErstOOd  EvEraL fEatUrEs Of thE intELLEctuaL LifE Of thE Last cEn turY Or twO makE it dificuLt fOr manY schOLas tO takE thE issuE Of rhEtOric as sEriOusLY as LatO himsELf did EncE, fOr ExampLE, thEY arE OftEn mis LEd tO think that, aLthOugh thEgôîàŝdOEs Of cOursE discuss rhEtOric, it is mOrE dEEPLY cOncErnEd with justicE Or phiLOsOPhY And simiLarLY rEgard ing thEPhàeuŝmanY arE rELuctant tO sEE rhEtOric as its cEntraL thEmE Ew transLatiOns Of bOth grEat LatOnic diaLOguEs On rhEtOric, DOnE bY OnE àŚà  OàmàEd by he cOncErn O rEcOvEr a fuLLEr and mOrE adEquatE undErstanding Of LatOs tEaching On rhEtOric, maY bE just what thE phiLO sOphicaL dOctOr OrdErEd fOr thOsE whO sEnsE thE nEEd tO takE a frEsh and sustainEd LOOk at thE prObLEm Of rhEtOric O much fOr thE OvEraLL dEsign Of this vOLumE Ow a fEw wOrds On par ticuLar aspEcts, starting with thE transLatiOns n his prEfacE tOThe Dîà­ ôueŝ ô Pàô(Ew avEn: aLE °nivErsitY rEss, 984) . É ALLEn makEs an ELEgant statEmEnt Of a tRànsLatOr  s nEEd tO makE "thE tactfuL adjustmEnt Of cOmpEting DEmands which cannOt Each bE fuLLY satisED (xixii) E discussEs thEsE dEmands undEr thE namEsàîieî neu andîeà neŝŝY Own adjustmEnt puts cOnsidErabLE wEight On LitEraLnEss, with a viEw tO tRYing tO prOvidE thE rEaDEr with as dirEct an accEss tO LatO as pOs siBLE anD with as LittLE DEPEnDEncY as pOssibLE On thE transLatOr  s intEr PrEtativE undErstanding n thE PrEfacE tOPàôThe Reubîc ô (Ew Ork asic OOks, 968) s statEmEnt Of thE casE aGainst thEALLan LOOm sEarcđ úr cOntEmPOranEOus EquivaLEnts anD in favOr Of a LitEraList tiLting Of thE baLancE is cOmpELLingaLL thE strOnGEr,  nd, bEcausE hE criticizEs thE LEaDing nOnLitEraL transLatiOns nt bY digging up sOmE PassagEs tO

Péfácé

x

bLamE (which OnE can dO tO anY transLatiOn) but bY Examining sampLE pas sagEs that thE transLatOrs thEmsELvEs singLEd Out as íxEmpLarY Of thE Ex cELLEncE Of thEir apprOach Ôn thE basis Of mY Own ExpEriEncE,  wOuLd suppLEmEnt LOOms statE mEnt On bEhaLf Of LitEraL transLatiOn in thE fOLLOwing waY ÔnE cOuLd pur suE thE gOaL Of bEing LitEraL tO whatEvEr dEgrEE OnE might chOOsE ut bEcausE wOrds in twO LanguagEs rarELY cOrrEspOnd wELL in a OnEtOOnE mapping, thE mOrE LitEraL OnE wishEs tO bE, thE mOrE nOtEs OnE must add, EithEr tO ExpLain OnE s wOrdfOrwOrd transLatiOn mOrE fuLLY, whEn nEcEs sarY, sO as nOt tO misLEad thE rEadEr Or whErE OnE cannOt transLatE wOrd fOr wOrd, tO pOint Out that a particuLar rEEk wOrd is thE samE OnE that OnE has transLatEd diErEntLY ELsEwhErE OO manY such nOtEs, hOwEvEr, wOuLd makE thE transLatiOn unbEarabLE ÔnE must thErEfOrE chOOsE tO which rEEk wOrds OnE wiLL dEvOtE this cLOsE trEatmEnt and tO which OnEs nOt n thE chOicE Of whErE tO bE fuLLY LitEraL and tO add nOtEs, OnE cannOt hELp sub jEcting thE rEadEr tO dEpEndEncE On OnE s intErprEtatiOn hat statEmEnt Of thE prObLEm dOEs nOt vitiatE thE gOaL Of chOOsing tO bE LitEraL rathEr than nOt, up tO a pOint t simpLY cLariEs just whY thE gOaL Of LitEraLnEss can bE attainEd OnLY within sOmE Limits, and it suggEsts that thE transLatOr might wELL trY tO indicatE what thE principLEs Of chOicE in that dOmain havE bEEn hE rEadEr maY Of cOursE gain fuLLEr infOrmatiOn On that pOint bY LOOking at thE actuaL nOtEs tO thE transLatiOn itsELf ErE  wish tO indicatE thrEE principLEs bY which mY Own chOicE Of whEn tO strivE fOr LitEraLnEss has BEEn guĢDED £iRt, a m OpEninG rEmarks On rhEtOric suggEst,  paY EspEcIaY cOsE ItEra attentIOn tO wOrs rEatE tO rhEtOric, pErsuasiOn, spEEch, and thE LikE  EcOnda principLE that, rE grEttabLY,  nd mYsELf abLE tO statE OnLY vaguELY strivE fOr EspEcIaL Lit EraLnEss with thOsE wOrds that mOst pEOpLE cOncErnEd with phiLOsOphY, mOraLitY, and pOLitics cOnsidEr Of ObviOusLY cEntraL impOrtancE(he ôô he beà u  îu he juŝ he cî ôve wîŝôm hird, anY rEEkand sO On) ExprEssiOns which, whEn transLatEd LitEraLLY, maY sOund Odd but YEt dO nOt rEaLLY misLEaD,  trY tO transLatE quitE LitEraLLY (Oaths, tErms fOr supEr human bEings, stranGE vOcativEs, and thE LikE)  hE nOtEs tO thE transLatiOn arE chiEY phiLOLOgicaL and histOricaL, rathEr than intErprEtativE ï havE just admittEd, Of cOursE, that mY phiLOLOgicaL nOtEs ExpLanatOrY tO thE transLatiOn rEst impLicitLY, at LEast in paRt, On an OvEraLL intErprEtatiOn YEt such nOtEs arE in thEmsELvEs LinGuistic rathEr than intErprEtativE, and  havE ExprEssED mY intErprEtatiOn in thE intrO ductiOn and In thE EssaYs On Each diaLOguE hE histOricaL nOtEs aim tO prO