Customer Reviews

Plato : Phaedrus: A Translation With Notes, Glossary, Appendices, Interpretive Essay and Introduction (Focus Philosophical Library)

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The central problem to any work of literature or philosophy is that of contextualization. Authors do not write in a cultural vacuum by rather in a complex socio-cultural milieu. The further we are removed in time from the author the more out of context the work appears. Plato wrote the Phaedrus for a fifth century BC audience but we as modern readers are no longer familiar with the culture, language, mores, religion, and values of that period.

Scully’s version of the Phaedrus is a masterpiece of modern scholarship. His lucid introduction sets the stage and background for the dialogue. He clearly articulates the practice of pederasty that would have been easily recognizable to Plato’s contemporaries but is completely foreign to us. His footnotes combined are probably longer than the text itself. They include clarification of cultural practices, ancient Greek technological innovations, religious practices, politics, historical figures, problems with translations, and much more.

Scully says, “the two main themes of the Phaedrus are rhetoric and love, and therein lies the difficulty.” He takes each major section of the dialogue and puts in back into context and in doing so he clearly demonstrates the relationship between the two thereby putting an end to the critics of the Phaedrus who claim that the dialogue is disjointed, or is “ruptured”. Scully’s brilliant scholarship puts Plato’s masterpiece into context so that as modern readers we can appreciate Plato’s brilliance.

In this review I will compare 3 editions of Plato's Phaedrus:
1. Alexander Nehamas & Paul Woodruff (Hackett Pub Co, 1995).
2. Stephen Scully (Focus Pub/R.Pullins Co , 2003).
3. James Nichols (Cornell University Press, 1998).
I have given all 3 editions 5 stars for their own unique perspectives.
Throughout the centuries, scholars have debated on what exactly is the central theme of Phaedrus: is it a dialogue about rhetoric? Or is it about Love? Or perhaps it is about both? If so, how are we supposed to understand the connection between Rhetoric and Love? The book itself is divided into 2 parts: the first part is about Love and the second is about Rhetoric, and because of this division in the book that it generated a lively discussion about Rhetoric versus Love.
The 3 editions I review here provided 3 unique perspectives.
Nichols argues strongly that Phaedrus is definitely about Rhetoric, in fact he links Phaedrus to Gorgias. His argument is that in Gorgias, Plato discusses Rhetoric in relations to justice, and in Phaedrus, he discusses Rhetoric in relations to Love. Love, therefore is a subordinate subject to Rhetoric.
Similarly, Nehamas also argues that Phaedrus is about Rhetoric albeit not as strongly as Nichols. It is a "sustained discussion of Rhetoric" in which Plato used Eros as examples. (xxxviii)
Scully's interpretation is slightly different; this is where I find my own position to be closer to. His argument is that Love and Rhetoric are equal parts of Plato's Phaedrus. This unity is possible because "both [love and rhetoric] requires the philosopher at the helm. As a lover, the philosopher guides the soul of the beloved, as a rhetorician, he guides the soul of his partner in conversation." (88)
My own position is that: it is about both with a slight emphasis on Love, and not on rhetoric. If Love is defined as that madness and uncontrollable urge to search for the ultimate truth and beauty, then, rhetoric is the tool to achieve that. Rhetoric, for Socrates, is understood as a tool that will guide the soul in search for the beautiful. What he is saying here is: it's all about Love, but you are not getting any Love, if it is without Rhetoric.
Overall, I like Scully's edition the best for its completeness: in addition to the translation, it has a wealth of valuable information in the Appendix, including copies of poems by Sappho, Anacreon, Ibycus, etc; plus interpretive text and sample photos of "Phallus Bird". Highly recommended.

I suppose I should start by establishing the fact that I am anything but an expert on Plato. When persuing my undergraduate degree in philosophy 30+ years ago, I read most of the dialogues and found them uninspiring, indeed, some like The Parminedes I found to be incomprehensible.
All these years later, I have come to believe that without an understanding of Plato, one cannot understand the story of Western Culture. And so I have been trying to reread Plato with mixed results.

I have never read any of his dialogues that I enjoyed as much as Scully's edition of Phaedrus. I have no Greek, I cannot assure you that it is a accurate translation. I can tell you that this is the first time I wanted to see the dialogue performed by really good actors. There are moments of great beauty in this dialogue- in the setting, the words and the thought.
As pointed out by the other reviewers, there has been much debate on the central theme of this dialogue. Scully does an excellent job of explaining the different interpretations that other translators or scholars have brought to their readings and how his differs. So among other graces, Scully serves as an introduction to the literature around the dialogue and influenced by the dialogue (he offers passages by Shakespeare, Donne and Eliot as examples of that influence).

I find myself swayed by what Scully sees as the central theme in the dialogue- the turning of the soul back toward its true understanding and nature. Around this theme of how we can guide or be guided back to the truth, Plato weaves a the myth of the charioteer to explain the nature and history of the soul, a Egyptian myth to explain the difference between writing and speech (influential on Derrida) and explains the difference between the true use of rhetoric and the common use of it in (somewhat)democratic Athens. All of this is woven around a framework of a holy place (part of what we have lost in our understanding of the Bible and of the Greeks is that God/s were present at certain places. Those places were holy because they were inhabited by God/s and people would go to those places to meet with and interact with that presence). Socrates, as always, proves to be more aware than any of his contemporaries of the presence and the gravity of God/s.

The dialogue is also woven around an older man trying to seduce a younger man. That seduction is largely spiritual but there are moments when I think Socrates is supposed to be tempted. The language of the dialogue is full with methaphors for tumnescence (the wing stubs of the soul throb, etc.).
I would take Scully's theme and put it another way. I think that a lot of ancient philosophy is best understood as a relationship between a teacher and an acolyte.
In this dialogue, Socrates is proven a teacher with many methods of turning the soul of young Phaedrus inward toward a remebrance of his vision of the forms. The dialogue as a whole is striving toward, a loving pursuit of what is true about the nature of our soul.
The discussion of rhetoric, the use of myths, the gravitas of the holy place are all means a teacher uses to inspire his young lover toward remembering that vision.

It is a beautiful work presented by Scully with great skill, sensitivity and scholarship.
Whether you read it as a key work in Western culture or to guide you on your own personal path, this is a great edition to read.

_I have heard some call this work a confused jumble of unrelated concepts. These people just didn't get it. There is one unified theme to the Phaedrus: without a deep connection to the soul and to the higher Reality only accessible to the soul, then all human endeavors are in error.

_The first part of the dialogue deals with three speeches on the topic of love. This is used only as an example and is not the primary theme (though it is an extremely thorough and compelling examination of the subject.) The first speech (by Lysias) is clearly in error- it is badly composed, badly reasoned, and supports what is clearly the wrong conclusion. The second speech (by Socrates), while an impeccable model of correct rhetoric, and reaching the correct conclusion is also essentially flawed- for it makes no appeal to the deepest fundamental causes of things. Simply put, it lacks soul. The third argument (attributed to Stesichorus) however, delves deeply into the soul. In fact, the core of the argument is centered around the proof of the existence and nature of the soul. That is the consistency here- unless you are Philosopher enough to have looked deeply within your own soul, to have made contact (recollection) with ultimate Reality (Justice, Wisdom, Beauty, Temperance, etc.) then your arguments are just empty words- even if you are accidentally on the correct side.

_The second part of the dialogue concentrates on showing how true rhetoric is more than "empty rhetoric" (i.e. just clever arguments and tricks used to sway the masses.) True rhetoric is shown to literally be the art of influencing the soul through words. It also reads as the perfect description, and damnation, of modern politics and the legal system. No wonder Socrates was condemned to later take poison- he actually BELIEVED in Justice, Truth, and the Good. As a Philosopher he could not compromise on such things for he knew the profound damage and that it would do to his soul and to its "wings."