Plato: Meno – Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy - 3

 Rawson writes: 'In this dialogue, Plato imagines Meno encountering Socrates shortly before that disastrous Persian adventure, when he has not yet proved himself to be the “scoundrel” and “tyrant” that Socrates suspects and Xenophon later confirms. According to Xenophon, when Cyrus was killed and his other commanders were quickly beheaded by the King’s men, Meno was separated and tortured at length before being killed, because of his special treachery (see Xenophon’s Anabasis II, 6)'

But this cannot be right. Meno did not betray the Persians, he betrayed the Greeks, notably Clearchus, the unelected but deeply respected leader of the Greek mercenaries, and the other generals who went with him to the tent of Tissaphernes, the leader of the Persians. And the Persians appreciated it, delighted in it, and presented it to the Greeks in the best possible light.

Xenophon writes that after the generals had been seized in the tent of Tissaphernes and the captains butchered in front of it 'some of the barbarian horsemen rode about over the plain and killed every Greek they met, whether slave or free man. And the Greeks wondered at this riding about, as they saw it from their camp, and were puzzled to know what the horsemen were doing, until Nicarchus the Arcadian reached the camp in flight, wounded in his belly and holding his bowels in his hand, and told all that has happened. Thereupon the Greeks, one and all, ran to their arms, panic-stricken and believing that the enemy would come at once against the camp.' (Anabasis II, v, 32-34)

But not all of the Persians came, only their messengers. 'As soon as they came near, they directed whatever Greek general or captain there might be to come forward, in order that they might deliver the message from the King. After this two generals went from the Greek lines and with them Xenophon the Athenian, who wished to know the fate of Proxenus. And when the Greeks got within hearing distance, Ariaeus said: "Clearchus, men of Greece, inasmuch as he was shown to be perjuring himself and violating the truce, had received his deserts and is dead, but Proxenus and Menon, because they gave information about his plotting, are held in high honour. For yourselves, the king demands his arms; for he says they belong to him, since they belonged to Cyrus, his slave." To this the Greeks replied as follows, Cleanor the Orchomenian acting as spokesman: "Ariaeus, you basest of men, and all you others who were friends of Cyrus, are you not ashamed, either before gods or men, that, after giving us your oaths to count the same people friends and foes as we did, you have betrayed us, joining hands with Tissaphernes, the most godless and villainous man, and that you have not only destroyed the very men to whom you were then giving oath, but have betrayed the rest of us and are come with our enemies against us?" And Ariaeus said: "But it was shown long ago Clearchus was plotting against Tissaphernes and Orontas and all of us who were with them." Upon this Xenophon spoke as follows: "Well, then, if Clearchus was really transgressing the truce in violation of his oaths, he has his deserts, for it is right that perjurers should perish; but as to Proxenus and Meno, since they are your benefactors and our generals, send them hither, for it is clear that, being friends of both parties, they will endeavour to give both you and ourselves the best advice." To this the barbarians made no answer, but, after talking for a long time with one another, they departed.' (Anabasis II, v, 32-34)

Let me end this piece by pointing to the significance of all these events concerning the dating of the Meno.

But first, some more of Diogenes Laertius. In his 'Life of Xenophon' he says that Xenophon 'took part in the expedition of Cyrus in the archonship of Xenaenetus in the year before the death of Socrates.' (II 55)

This means that the whole of Greece knew about Meno's heinous betrayal before the death of Socrates. And so I must ask, how could Plato write the Meno after the death of Socrates?

More problems with Plato’s Meno

 

I wrote ‘Plato: Meno – Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy – 3’, printed it, and then went to the kitchen to make myself some tea. Then I returned to my desk, wanted to copy the text, and put it on my blog. But it turned into a ‘view only’ format; it cannot be copied.

PS

This time my 'More problems with Plato's Meno' had no effect. And so I rewrote the article directly on the blog,

Plato: Meno – Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy - 2

In Plato: Meno – Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy – 1, my last entry, I discussed the dating of the Meno, involving Rawson’s “Plato: Meno” and Adams’ “Platonic Chronology and Writings”. An attentive reader surely noticed a discrepancy between the two, which I did not touch, let alone explained. Rawson dates the Meno tentatively at 385 B.C.E., while Adams dates it three years earlier, at 388; this is the year with which he opens the Second Period of Plato’s literary activity, with the Meno figuring as the first dialogue in that period. It might seem trivial, when we are dealing with a period almost two and a half thousand years distant from our time. But it ceases to be so, if we consider Adams’ reasons for opening the Second Period at 388 B.C.E.: ‘390-388 First Journey to Sicily and Italy (early 390 to summer 388). Probably Plato's first real attention to Pythagoreanism, which was undergoing a renaissance in South Italy under the leadership of Archytas of Tarentum. First acquaintance with Dion of Syracuse (brother-in-law of Dionysius I) and with the young Dionysius II (who became tyrant in 367 on the death of his father). Plato departed to Aegina, on orders of Dionysius I.’ Those were not the years in which Plato would have written the Meno.

As the passage at Diog. Laert. II.38 suggests, the Meno was written at the time when it was taking place dramatically. Aspiring to become a leading politician, the only true politician, for he was the only one capable of teaching true political art to another, Plato in the dialogue displayed his democratic credentials in Socrates’ questioning of Meno’s slave-boy.

Let me quote, abbreviated, the discussion between Socrates and Meno after the boy successfully solves, guided by Socrates’ questioning, the mathematical problem the solution to which Socrates wants him to “recollect”.

Socrates: ‘Was there any opinion that he did not give as an answer of his own thought?’

Meno: ‘No, they were all his own.’

Socrates: ‘And at this moment those opinions have just been stirred up in him, like a dream; but if he were repeatedly asked these same questions in a variety of forms, you know he will have in the end as exact an understanding of them as anyone … You see, he can do the same with all geometry and every branch of knowledge. Now, can anyone have taught him all this? You ought surely to know, especially as he was born and bred in your house.’

Meno: ‘Well, I know that no one has ever taught him.’ (85b7-e6, transl. W.R.M. Lamb)

***

Let me now turn to Plato’s and Xenophon’s characteristic of Meno, as Rawson has it: ‘The contemporary historian Xenophon … wrote an account whose description of Meno resonates with Plato’s portrait here: ambitious yet lazy for the hard work of doing things properly, and motivated by desire for wealth and power while easily forgetting friendship and justice. But Xenophon paints Meno as a thoroughly selfish and unscrupulous schemer, while Plato sketches him as a potentially dangerous, overly confident young man who has begun to tread the path of arrogance. His natural talents and his privileged but unphilosophical education are not guided by wisdom or even patience, and he prefers “good things” like money over genuine understanding and moral virtue.’

Let me compare this with what Socrates says about Meno to Anytus, perhaps the most important Athenian politician of those days; Anytus is Meno’s host in the days of his stay in Athens.

Socrates and Meno are sitting on a bench, discussing virtue. Meno asks Socrates: ‘Do you think there are no teachers of virtue?’ Socrates replies: ‘I have often inquired whether there were any, but for all my pains I cannot find one. But look, Meno: at the very moment when he was wanted, we have Anytus sitting down beside us, to take his share in our quest. And we may well ask his assistance; for our friend Anytus is the son of a wise and wealthy father, Anthemion, who gave his son a good upbringing and education, as the Athenian people think, for they choose him for the highest offices.’ (89e4-90b3)

Socrates turns to Anytus: ‘Now there is an opportunity of your joining me in a consultation on your friend Meno here (Lamb translates wrongly ‘on my friend Meno here’ (peri tou xenou toutoui Menónos. Meno is not Socrates’ xenos (“guest-friend”, he is a xenos of Anytus). He has been declaring to me ever so long, Anytus, that he desires to have that wisdom and virtue whereby men keep their house or their city in good order, and honour their parents, and know when to welcome and when to speed citizens and strangers as befits a good man. Now tell me to whom ought we properly to send him for lessons in this virtue?’ (90e10 – 91b2, tr. Lamb)

Socrates’ miniportrait of Meno might be dismissed as just his way of getting Anytus into their discussion; he uses language that Anytus can understand. The problem is that this picture resonates with the picture of Meno towards the end of the dialogue.

It must be said that in the ensuing discussion Socrates is not very nice to Anytus, who appears to be a useless debater on political virtue. Anytus ends his involvement in discussion with the words: ‘Socrates, I consider you are too apt to speak ill of people. I for one, if you will take my advice, would warn you to be careful: in most cities it is probably easier to do people harm than good, and particularly in this one; I think you know that yourself.’ (94e3-95a1)

***

Lamb notes: ‘Anytus goes away.’ I disagree; Meno’s and Socrates’ use of the pronoun hode clearly indicates that Anytus is sitting with the two to the end of the dialogue. At 99 e 2 Meno says to Socrates ‘though perhaps “our friend Anytus” (Anytos hode’ ‘this here Anytus’) may be annoyed at your statement (kaitoi isós Anytos hode soi achthetai legonti)’ As can be seen, Lamb leaves the pronoun hode untranslated, patching it up with the words “our friend Anytus”. And even more importantly, Socrates uses the pronoun hode in the accusative tonde in his last words to Meno, with which the dialogue ends: ‘It is time now for me to go my way, but do you persuade our friend Anytus (ton xenon tonde Anyton) of that whereof you are now yourself persuaded, so as to put him in a gentler mood; for if you can persuade him, you will do a good turn to the people of Athens also.’ (100b7-c2)

***

The question is, what does Socrates mean with his closing exhortation to Meno: ‘do you persuade our friend Anytus of that whereof you are now yourself persuaded.’ What is it whereof Meno has been persuaded?

The perfect tense pepeisai, which Socrates uses in his losing words with reference to what Meno has been persuaded of, embraces the whole dialogue. Plato opens the dialogue with Meno asking Socrates: ‘Can you tell me, Socrates, whether virtue can be taught (Echeis moi  eipein, ó Sókrates, ára didakton hé areté?)? This question underlies the whole dialogue and is prominently aired and answered in the closing stage of the dialogue.

Socrates: ‘If through all this discussion our queries and statements have been correct, virtue is found to be neither natural nor taught, but is imparted to us by a divine dispensation without understanding in those who receive it, unless there should be someone among the statesmen capable of making a statesman of another. And if there should be any such, he might fairly be said to be among the living what Homer says Teiresias was among the dead – “He alone has comprehension; the rest are flitting shades.” In the same way he on earth, in respect of virtue, will be a real substance among shadows.’ (99e4-100a7)

Who can this ‘someone among the statesmen’ be, but Plato himself?

Meno: ‘I think you put it excellently, Socrates.’

 

 

Plato: Meno – Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy - 1

 

If you google ‘Plato’s Meno’ you can find there a very extensive article, from which I have taken two passages, which I subject to criticism. The first passage deals with the ‘Relations of the Meno to Other Platonic Dialogues’, the second compares Plato’s and Xenophon’s portraits of Meno. I focus my attention on the lines emphasized in bold. Passage I is discussed in this article, passage II will be discussed in my next article: ‘Plato: Meno – Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy – 2’

I am particularly interested in the dating of the Meno, and as can be seen, Glenn Rawson, the author of the article, does not want to commit himself to any specific dating. Yet the picture, which he gives us hesitantly, is given in no uncertain terms in a diagram, which one gets when one googles ‘dating of plato’s dialogues’: PLATONIC CHRONOLOGY and WRITINGS.

The diagram divides Plato’s dialogues into three periods:

399-390 First Period of Plato’s Literary activity

388-367 Second Period of Plato’s Literary activity

360-348/7 Last Period of Plato’s Literary activity

The Meno figures in the second period as the first dialog.

John Paul Adams published his diagram on May 28, 2009; in those days he presumably did not know about the passage in Diogenes Laertius’ ‘Life of Socrates’, which shows that Plato wrote the Meno prior 399, i.e. prior to Socrates’ trial and death. I discovered the passage on March 31, 2022, reported the discovery on my blog on April 1 in an article entitled ‘Socrates – Meletus and Anytus’, and informed Oxford classicists by emails. Let me quote the passage:

‘[Socrates] would take to task those who thought highly of themselves, proving them to be fools, as to be sure he treated Anytus, according to Plato’s Meno . For Anytus could not endure to be ridiculed by Socrates, and so in the first place stirred up against him Aristophanes and his friends, then afterwards he helped to persuade Meletus to indict him on a charge of impiety and corrupting the youth.’ (Diog. Laert. II. 38) 

I.        I.  Relations of the Meno to Other Platonic Dialogues. ‘We cannot be precise or certain about much in Plato’s writing career. The Meno seems to be philosophically transitional between rough groupings of dialogues that are often associated in allegedly chronological terms, though these groupings have been qualified and questioned in various ways. It is commonly thought that in the Meno we see Plato transitioning from (a) a presumably earlier group of especially “Socratic” dialogues, which defend Socrates’ ways of refuting unwarranted claims to knowledge and promoting intellectual humility, and so are largely inconclusive concerning virtue and knowledge, to (b) a presumably “middle” group of more constructively theoretical dialogues, which involve Plato’s famous metaphysics and epistemology of transcendent “Forms,” such Justice itself, Equality itself, and Beauty or Goodness itself. (However, that second group of dialogues remains rather tentative and exploratory in its theories, and there is also (c) a presumably “late” group of dialogues that seems critical of the middle-period metaphysics, adopting somewhat different logical and linguistic methods in treating similar philosophical issues.) So the Meno begins with a typically unsuccessful Socratic search for a definition, providing some lessons about good definitions and exposing someone’s arrogance in thinking that he knows much more than he really knows. All of that resembles what we see in early dialogues like the Euthyphro, Laches, Charmides, and Lysis. But the style and substance of the Meno changes somewhat with the formulation of Meno’s Paradox about the possibility of learning anything with such inquiries, which prompts Socrates to introduce the notions that the human soul is immortal, that genuine learning requires some form of innate knowledge, and that progress can be made with a kind of hypothetical method that is related to mathematical sciences. This cluster of Platonic concerns is variously developed in the Phaedo, Symposium, Republic, and Phaedrus, but in those dialogues, these concerns are combined with arguments concerning imperceptible, immaterial Forms, which are never mentioned in the Meno. Accordingly, many scholars believe that the Meno was written between those groups of dialogues, and probably about 385 B.C.E. That would be about seventeen years after the dramatic date of the dialogue, about fourteen years after the trial and execution of Socrates.

II. Meno is apparently visiting the newly restored Athenian government to request aid for his family, one of the ruling aristocracies in Thessaly, in northern Greece, that was currently facing new power struggles there. Meno’s family had previously been such help to Athens against Sparta that his grandfather (also named Meno) was granted Athenian citizenship. We do not know what resulted from Meno’s mission to Athens, but we do know that he soon left Greece to serve as a commander of mercenary troops for Cyrus of Persia—in what turned out to be Cyrus’ attempt to overthrow his brother, King Artaxerxes II. Meno was young for such a position, about twenty years old, but he was a favorite of the powerful Aristippus, a fellow aristocrat who had borrowed thousands of troops from Cyrus for those power struggles in Thessaly, and was now returning many of them. The contemporary historian Xenophon (who also wrote Socratic dialogues) survived Cyrus’ failed campaign, and he wrote an account whose description of Meno resonates with Plato’s portrait here: ambitious yet lazy for the hard work of doing things properly, and motivated by desire for wealth and power while easily forgetting friendship and justice. But Xenophon paints Meno as a thoroughly selfish and unscrupulous schemer, while Plato sketches him as a potentially dangerous, overly confident young man who has begun to tread the path of arrogance. His natural talents and his privileged but unphilosophical education are not guided by wisdom or even patience, and he prefers “good things” like money over genuine understanding and moral virtue. In this dialogue, Plato imagines Meno encountering Socrates shortly before that disastrous Persian adventure, when he has not yet proved himself to be the “scoundrel” and “tyrant” that Socrates suspects and Xenophon later confirms. According to Xenophon, when Cyrus was killed and his other commanders were quickly beheaded by the King’s men, Meno was separated and tortured at length before being killed, because of his special treachery (see Xenophon’s Anabasis II, 6)’.

In doctor’s surgery

On April 10 I received a message from the local NHS surgery that I was expected to see my doctor on May 2; the e-mail did not say, what the consultation was to be about, and so I expected it to be a health check-up; during the covid pandemic doctors treated their patients only by phone, and so I hoped this was beginning to change.

When I came to the surgery, expecting to have my blood pressure checked. I was about to take my shirt off, when the doctor said: ‘People are worried about your mental health, would you see a psychiatrist?’

I replied: ‘Doctor, it is not the first time that my activities are to be dismissed with reference to a Psychiatrist. The same happened more than 40 years ago, when I was at Oxford.’

The doctor did not want to hear anything about Oxford: ‘It is all about your blocked toilet.’

The doctor apparently viewed ‘my blocked toilet’ as my sick imagination. But what was sick indeed was the criminal blockage of my toilet in response to my protests at Balliol with my LET US DISCUSS PLATO. How could the doctor possibly begin to see that I might be right?

I had to try and explain to him the gist of my controversy with Classicists and Classical Philosophers. ‘The main problem lies in our different approach to Greek language. When I read Greek, I do not translate it into Czech or English or German or Russian, I understand it in Greek, without translating it. Classicists all around the world must translate Ancient Greek into English or French or Russian, or whatever their native language may be. For quite a time they believed that I am fibbing, that understanding Ancient Greek without translation cannot be done.

Now, since translating Ancient Greek is a very laborious process, present-day classicists don’t do it anymore. All important Ancient Greek text have been translated not once, not twice, but several times by real experts, in the days when boys and girls in their Public schools were devoted to learning Ancient Greek from their tender age, and all through to their days in Oxford and Cambridge universities.’

My doctor is an intelligent man; he got the importance of the different approach to Ancient Greek between me and the academic classicists. Still, at the end of my explanation he said: ‘Well, if you have any more problems with the blockage of your toilet, just tell me.’ To this I replied: ‘I can assure you that it will not happen ever again.’ ‘How can you be so sure?’ he asked.

And so I told him about my protests at Balliol College at Oxford University with my LET US DISCUSS PLATO. Instead of trying to say, out of memory, what I told the doctor, let me quote what I wrote on my blog under the title ‘Punishment’:

“My protest at Balliol – LET US DISCUSS PLATO – took place on March 21, as intended. First year students of philosophy wanted to hear what I had to say on Plato. The students were genuinely interested; I enjoyed every minute of our discussion. But then a lady came – a Balliol teacher? – she came to tell us that a Balliol officer insists that we must stop. I protested: ‘As you can see, I am protesting. Protest is not supposed to be welcome by those, against whom the protest is directed.’ But the lady insisted, we stopped.

Obviously, I had to be punished: My toilet has been blocked.

Not for the first time. It happened here times before, each time clearly connected to Balliol; a clear warning: ‘Don’t you dare to go to Balliol with your LET US DISCUSS PLATO.’

When it happened the first time, I reported the crime to the local police Headquarters. When I came home, the toilet was unblocked. Of course I was left with cleaning the toilet, but I was confident that it would not happen again. I was wrong.

Next, I informed the Oxford classicists at the Department of Classics of my protest to come. I sent them the information emails, went to the toilet; it was blocked again.

Next day I went to the Stroud Police Headquarters. I reported the crime; when I came home, I found my toilet unblocked.

Yesterday, i.e. a day after my LET US DISCUSS PLATO protest, my toilet was blocked again. I phoned 101, the Gloucestershire Constabulary. As far as I know, police work on Saturdays. It’s Sunday March 24, 2024; my toilet remains blocked.’

This is the text as it stands in my blog under the title ’Punishment’.”

Clearly, even the Gloucestershire Constabulary was compelled to disregard my report of the crime. I had to go to the very core of the problem. The manageress advertised a new meeting concerning complaints. There were only three of us; apart from me and the lady manager there was an old lady who just listened attentively to the discussion.

I told the lady manager: ‘My toilet has been criminally blocked. It could have been done only from a place below my flat, and below my flat is only your office. If my toilet does not get unblocked before Monday, I shall go to Oxford, and stay at the Backpackers until my toilet gets unblocked.’

When I returned to my flat, which is just one floor below the lounge in which the meeting took place, I went to the bath. My toilet was unblocked, and I can assure you, it will not be blocked ever again.’

Let me end with a reflection, which, as far as I can remember, I did not tell the doctor.

Clearly, the lady manager was not the only person involved in the blockages of my toilet. She was still upstairs in the lounge when my toilet was being unblocked. It was blocked when I went to the meeting, I checked.