Abstract

Reviews Marina McCoy, Plato on the Rhetoric of Philosophers and Sophists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. $80.00 (hbk), ISBN 9780521878630. As the title implies, Marina McCoy's basic argument is that both philoso­ phers and sophists engage in rhetoric; her task is to describe how Plato differ­ entiates between philosophers and sophists by other means through a close reading of six dialogues: Apology, Protagoras, Gorgias, Republic, Sophist, and Phaedrus. Her basic thesis is straightforward: "Plato distinguishes Socrates from the sophists by differences in character and moral intention" (p. 1). Not only did Athenians have difficulty separating sophists from philoso­ phers, but Plato did as well: "There is no single method or mode of dis­ course that separates the philosopher from the sophist" (p. 3). Not only does Socrates rely on rhetoric, one cannot produce a consistent definition of "philosophical rhetoric" that can be distinguished from "sophistic rhetoric" (p. 4). Ultimately, what makes Socrates (and by extension, true "philoso­ phers") distinctive is a love of the forms and "his desire to care for the souls of those to whom he speaks" (p. 5). McCoy's first chapter is an excellent precis for the project as a whole. Chapter two provides a reading of Plato's Apology. She wisely does not ar­ gue for the historical accuracy of Socrates' speeches, but instead argues the treatise represents Plato's rhetorical defense of Socrates. Noting the use of standard forensic rhetorical devices (argument from probability, ethopoiia) and detailed argumentative parallels to Gorgias's Defense of Palaniedes, Mc­ Coy demonstrates the continuity of Socrates' speech with forensic rhetorical practices of his time. She contends that the Apology thereby acknowledges the difficulty in sorting out philosophical from sophistical practice. Nonetheless, what makes Socrates' rhetorical performance noteworthy is its moral aim of attempting to make Athenians more virtuous, even at the price of arousing "discontent and discomfort" (p. 20). Chapter three examines question and answer practices found in Pro­ tagoras. McCoy's modus operandi is similar to that deployed in chapter two: Protagoras is read to illustrate the similarities between Socrates and Protago­ ras, who both utilize question and answer techniques in a rhetorical manner, but McCoy also stresses how such techniques perform different ethical tasks depending on the moral purposes of the interlocutor. Of particular interest Rhetorica, Vol. XXIX, Issue 1, pp. 106-119, ISSN 0734-8584, electronic ISSN 15338541 . ©2011 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights re­ served. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Rights and Permissions website, at http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintlnfo.asp. DO1: 10.1525/RH.2011.29.1.10b. Reviews 107 in this chapter is McCoy's discussion of how Protagoras and Socrates enact different ethics of listening. Chapter four visits the text most familiar to those reading Plato to un­ derstand his approach to matters rhetorical—the Gorgias. Despite the fact that Socrates lays out a clear and systematic description that distinguishes Philosophy from Rhetoric in this dialogue, McCoy contends that these are merely “apparent abstract distinctions" and that "no single distinction made in that dialogue adequately characterizes the difference between philoso­ phy and rhetoric ' (p. 21). Rather, Socrates enacts the distinction by demon­ strating goodwill toward his interlocutors, responsibility for one's words or "frankness of speech," a commitment to knowledge, and a willingness to be self-critical about one's own practices. McCoy concludes the chapter by stating the Gorgias "does not reject rhetoric as such but instead connects good rhetoric to the possession of these philosophical virtues" (p. 110). Chapter fix e engages the Republic to argue that Plato presents sophists as "incomplete" philosophers. Though both sophists and philosophers are freed from the chains of the infamous cave and skeptical of received opinion, only philosophers are oriented toward the forms. Plato portrays the philoso­ pher as preferable not because philosophers can reason better or practice dialectic, but because of a commitment to the forms. Thus, while dialectic may be presented as the highest intellectual art (Republic 532a), what makes it philosophical is a belief in the forms. Chapter six prov ides a reading of the late dialogue, Sophist...