Диалог Клитофона с Сократом: Проблема наставления и справедливости.

Dialogue, attributed to Plato, of Clitophon to Socrates

The Clitophon (wikt:Κλειτοφῶν (Κλειτοφῶν]]), also transliterated as Cleitophon; Clitopho) is a 4th century BC dialogue traditionally ascribed to Plato, though the work's authenticity is debated. It is the shortest dialogue in Plato's traditional corpus. It centers on a discussion between Clitophon and Socrates, with Socrates remaining mostly silent. Most scholarship until recently has been concerned with the authenticity rather than the actual meaning and contents of Clitophon. The dialogue depicts Clitophon complaining to Socrates that Socrates' speeches are merely exhortative; they create a desire for justice and virtue, but do not instruct how one becomes just or what justice is. Throughout the dialogue Clitophon seems to narrate his changes towards justice and the protreptic from seeing Socrates as a god upon a stage with hopes and beliefs in attaining justice and virtue to thoughts of doubt and disappointment and eventual defiance of Socrates. Clitophon addresses Clitophon's contempt for protreptic, or exhortative, speeches. It showcases the ignorance of Socrates and depicts, as Mark Kremer puts it, the conflict of philosophy of Socrates and Clitophon's irrationality.

Not much is known about the historical Clitophon. What is known, outside of Plato, is from his presence in Aristophanes' The Frogs and Aristotle's Constitution of the Athenians. Depicted as a student of Euripides by Aristophanes, Clitophon is mentioned in relation to Theramenes, an Athenian politician, in both works. However while these works tell of Theramenes as Clitophon's companion, Bowe mentions Frogs and Athenian Constitution as not accurate reflections of the historical Clitophon, for only Theramenes is referenced in the works and Clitophon's character cannot be decided based solely upon his associations with Theramenes. As is evident from Plato's Republic and Clitophon, Clitophon was a politician of Athens, active from 411–405 BC, who was an advocate of ancestral law and a companion of Thrasymachus. In the Republic, Clitophon speaks to defend Thrasymachus' position that justice is what is right to the ruling body. Clitophon sticks to this position even when Thrasymachus backs down (340a 340b). Whether or not Clitophon was paraphrasing, Socrates' speeches lack congruence in content with three unrelated exhortations, taking the pattern of the Platonic trichotomy of values. Clitophon employs this pattern with exhortative motifs seen in other dialogues. The beginning of the dialogue is the accusing protreptic seen in Plato's Apology at 29d9 e3. Slings' example of the accusing protreptic is, "you care about the pseudo Values x, y, not about true Values p, q." Clitophon's first example of Socrates' speech reflects the motifs of wealth from Plato's Euthydemus; gaining wealth has no use without knowing how to use it (280b8 d7), it is better to leave wisdom than money to your children (282a7 8, 301e1 3), not only one's children but oneself should be educated in wisdom (307c3 4). The last motif of slavery is within the second example of Socrates' speeches in which variants are seen also in Plato's Euthydemus (280e3 281e2) and Alcibiades I (117c6 e5), Xenophon's Memorabilia (4.2.25 29), Aristotle's Protrepticus (62 66). What one cannot handle should be left to others or be left alone. The use of the protreptic and protreptic motifs in Clitophon is to prove that explicit protreptic is not advantageous and instead implicit protreptic ought to be preferred.

As Slings mentions, justice is a secondary theme in Clitophon; justice is primarily used to show the ignorance of Clitophon. Clitophon depicts the concentric definitions of justice's results with the latter definition expanding upon the former until the definition is closer to the object in search and aporia, confusion or puzzlement, is reached. However, in Clitophon, aporia is reached prematurely before Socrates gives his definition. The first set of definitions of the result of justice are definitions borrowed from Republic I with some differences; Clitophon lacks "the gainful" and places "the beneficial" at the beginning of the list rather than the end. The second definition of "friendship in the cities" is a common concept in 4th century philosophical literature, but Slings counters that friendship cannot be given as a definition of the result of justice, for it is the parallel to justice. In Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, justice and friendship have the same subject and object; therefore they increase correspondingly (1159ab25 26, 1160a7 8). With respect to the third definition, Plato is the first to reject that to be just is to harm enemies and benefit friends. His rejection is due to Socrates' other definition that justice is benefiting everyone; however, this definition is left undeveloped. In the end, these definitions failed to fit into the criteria of an art with two results.

Clitophon throughout the dialogue displays his own ignorance, whether intentionally or not. Most important to understanding the dialogue is his ignorance of Socrates' speeches, methodology and his own ignorance. As Moore points out, Clitophon does not understand Socrates' speeches. He paraphrases them, takes them out of context, and implies there was a much larger audience for the speeches than there actually would have been. It is possible that Socrates uses protreptic speeches because he sees being just as being the same as having a desire to be just; therefore justice is achieved through speech. Clitophon holds that deeds and actions need to bring about change and make one just. This clear misunderstanding of justice is an example of how Clitophon misunderstands Socrates' speeches, for Clitophon has already been given the answer for how to achieve justice. Through not understanding his speeches, Clitophon does not understand Socrates' methods. Clitophon tries to make the protreptic speeches of Socrates effectual while in their nature they are solely meant to encourage and cause people to have a desire for justice. Clitophon misunderstands the Socratic method of elenchus, the cross examination statements of interlocutors. Clitophon attempts to employ elenchus when he had questioned Socrates' companions, but the portrayal of his method when relating the conversation to Socrates is too one sided with concern only for his answers and paraphrasing that of the others. This leads Bryan to label Clitophon as a pseudo dialogue through his use of pseudo elenchus. Having spoken with Socrates on the topic of justice it is clear that either Clitophon was not a receiver of Socrates' elenchus or he did not realize that he had been given the answer to how to achieve justice. Due to Clitophon's desire to be told what to think, this does not make him a proper interlocutor for elenchus. The largest obstacle and most important example of Clitophon's ignorance is his ignorance of his ignorance. Slings, in his portrayals of the levels of Clitophon's character, defines Clitophon as an unabashed young man, who is defensive when provoked; this is seen in his hubristic claims to know of Socrates' speeches and methods, and his attack of Socrates. Wishing to gain the knowledge of how to attain justice for political advancement, Clitophon knows that to be told what he wants, he needs to claim aporia.

The character of Socrates in the dialogue causes difficulty in interpreting the dialogue and Socrates' silence. The Socrates within Clitophon is not necessarily equated with the historical Socrates. Within 4th century philosophical texts of the genre logos Sokratikos, the literary character of Socrates was prominent. The reader must detach himself or herself and read Clitophon as a fictional work. Socrates is used as a symbol of the protreptic and this causes the misinterpretations of the dialogue as well as the meaning of Socrates' silence. Socrates' character in the dialogue must be realized in his capacity as a tool of protrepsis and not as an accurate portrayal of the historical Socrates.

One of the more puzzling aspects of the dialogue is Socrates' silence. Clitophon seems to be an attack on him and yet there is no rebuttal of Clitophon's remarks. What meaning, if anything, does his silence impart on the dialogue? Hayden Ausland indicates that his silence may be just a characteristic of the protreptic genre. This silence leaves the dialogue open ended to elicit the reader to think what may have happened and reflect on what was just said. Socrates' silence also may be due to his inability to go further to teach Clitophon. As mentioned, Clitophon is ignorant of his faults and not aware of Socrates' methods at work. Socrates may not be able to do more for him. The gap between Socrates and Clitophon is illuminated and depicts the weakness of speech to not help make Clitophon understand Socrates' teachings. As another stylistic reason, the silence is a Platonic characteristic to show what Socrates is by showing what he is not. Socrates is put in the light of Clitophon's ignorance and differences between the two are seen. Kremer notes that Clitophon is depicted as the antipoetic foil of Socrates. The dialogue begins with Socrates speaking in third person when referring to himself and Clitophon, which can be equated with a legal statement. What follows would then be the defense of Clitophon. An important note is that Socrates claimed that he would reply, for he had stated that he would listen to Clitophon's complaints and try to learn from them. Along the same thought, Socrates is searching for the truth of people's perceptions of him and his teachings. A characteristic of Platonic dialogues is for Socrates to listen. In Clitophon, he is acting as the audience for Clitophon, who is taking on the role of the frank speaker. Socrates is also setting a precedent for the correct behavior when someone is speaking, something which Clitophon himself does not do well.

Many ancient authors, such as Diogenes Laërtius, who stated that it was taken straight from the hand of Plato, had cited Clitophon. 1491 Ficino translations and the 1513 Aldine Press editions of Plato's works say that Clitophon was not by Plato. These statements derived from Greek manuscripts, which did not clearly state the author of Clitophon. In the 19th century, scholars began to label Clitophon as spurious because it did not fit their subjective interpretation of what qualifies as Platonic works. Attempts to defend the authenticity have sprung up, but among the defenses there is still much disagreement over classifying the work as fragmentary, completed and independent, or related to Republic.

The rejection of Clitophon depends on both thematic and philological reasons. Heidel and others believed that the vocabulary used in Clitophon would not have been used by Plato; however, that argument has been defeated by Brünnecke, Kester and Grube. Plato's use of language is too varied and interpretations of style are too subjective to be able to use language as a base from which to deem Clitophon unauthentic. Another argument is based on the anti Socratic sentiment. It is difficult at first to answer why Socrates would be criticized by his student and follower. Schleiermacher was one of the first to lead people to characterize Clitophon as spurious; while he acknowledges its listing in the Platonic corpus, he could not reconcile the non Socratic sensitivity. If Clitophon is spurious, then who would have written this dialogue? Slings had originally noted that due to the similarity of writing to that of Plato's, it must have been written by a student of Plato. Schleiermacher believed it to have been written by a contemporary school of rhetoric, which wrote this dialogue as an attack against Socrates.

Yxem was the first to question the Aldine editions' of 1513 placement of Clitophon. As already mentioned, there are ancient writers who have cited Clitophon and indicated no suspicions of its authenticity. Grote argued that it safer to accept this work as one of Plato rather than ascribe it to another.

Brunnecke, Kester and Souilhe believe this dialogue to be an attack on Antisthenes. Based upon Diogenes Laërtius crediting Antisthenes with three books of protreptic works in his Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers vi 16, Clitophon may well be a criticism of Antisthenes. The author of Clitophon uses one of Antisthenes' protreptic works and summarizes its content. Throughout Clitophon, Plato disparages the use of protreptic speeches. This could easily be an answer to why Plato seems to be anti Socratic; he wishes to indirectly denounce Antisthenes via Socrates.

Many think that Clitophon is a fragment or draft written by Plato. Grube believes Clitophon to have been a draft of Plato as a reflection of his dissatisfaction with his earlier methods, a tone seen in the middle period of Plato's works, but was abandoned as is attested to in its lack of revision. Bury believed that, if indeed it was written by Plato, Clitophon would be a fragmentary preface of Republic, a stance held by Shorey and Grote. However, Slings makes note that no ancient author ever indicated that Clitophon was incomplete or unfinished. In Parallel Lives, Plutarch, fully aware of Clitophon, mentions that Plato's life ended before finishing his work (32.2), namely Critias, not Clitophon; this indicates that Clitophon was finished in the opinion of ancient authors.

Discussed previously, Grube thought Clitophon was not necessarily a finished work, but one associated with Republic. Thrasyllus of Mendes, Tiberius' astrologer, arranged Clitophon within the Platonic corpus including Republic, Timaeus, and Critias. Grube thought it to be the criticism of Republic I and the rest of the Republic was a response to Clitophon. With Clitophon and Socrates at odds within Republic without any explanation, Orwin indicated that Clitophon might be the missing confrontation between Socrates and Clitophon. It is possible that Clitophon was written after Republic and Clitophon only draws definitions from Republic. But regardless of when it was written, it can still be read as an introduction to Republic, and only completed by it.

Although there are clear ties to Republic thematically in terms of the discussions on justice, Clitophon has very different themes concerning philosophical methods, resulting in its classification as an independent work in its own right. Above, the identification of Clitophon as a legal study has already been mentioned with no connections to another dialogue. On the other hand, Slings labels Clitophon as a short dialogue according to Müller's standards. Clitophon is used on this view to criticize protrepsis, for the colleagues of Socrates were only able to gain slogans and motifs surrounding justice rather than a full understanding of it. Clitophon is also a warning of how to not read protreptical dialogues and of the dangers of relying on these dialogues to gain insight. Clitophon did not want to think for himself, but rather to be told what to think by Socrates. As a replacement to protreptic speech, Slings proposes that Clitophon champions elenchus as the mode through which to attain virtue and justice by reaching aporia.