Plato'sProtagorasand the Frontier of Genre Research: A Reconnaissance Report from the Field

Abstract

After a review of some general issues surrounding the interpretation of Plato's dialogues, I consider in detail the reception of Plato's Protagoras in English scholarship since 1956, that is, during the last half century. That scholarship falls into three periods. At first (1956-82) there was a sharp division between analytic philosophy commentators and other commentators, but near-unanimity in adopting a "Democritean" conception of the text as composed of discrete, separable parts. In the second period (1983-92), an "Aristotelian" conception of the text, in which functionally distinct parts coordinate with each other within a whole, became a serious rival to the Democritean one. Since 1992, several Aristotelian strategies have been developed. I diagnose these trends as an indication of growing sensitivity to the unity of Protagoras and its integration of literature and theory. I use this review to draw some morals about exegesis and scholarly specialization.

Dangerous Voices: On Written and Spoken Discourse in Plato’s Protagoras

“…Garver ( 2004 ), Gagarin ( 1969 , 48), Jowett ( 1953 , I.119-31), and Adkins ( 1973 ). See also Lavery ( 2007 ). 20 Gonzalez ( 2000 , 117ff.).…”

Melos in Plato

“…{ΣΩ} ἀλλὰ τί οὐ βαδίζομεν παρ᾽ αὐτόν, ἵνα ἔνδον καταλάβωμεν; καταλύει δ᾽, ὡς ἐγὼ ἤκουσα, παρὰ Καλλίᾳ τῷ Ἱππονίκου• ἀλλ᾽ ἴωμεν. καὶ ἐγὼ εἶπον• 'μήπω, 416 Wolfsdorf (1998) 126-133;Provencal (1999); Charalabopoulos (2001); Lavery (2007); Denyer (2008); Arieti and Barrus (2010); Ford (2011). 417 The word is used twice in the Protagoras: at 316c and again at 316d.…”