Abstract

Reviews Thomas A. Szlezak, Reading Plato, trans. Graham Zanker (New York: Routledge, 1999), xii + 137 pp. This short book will be interesting to all readers of Plato and all those who have pondered the relationship of oral and written discourse. It consists of twenty-seven short sections (2-6 pages each) the totality of which makes the following argument: Plato's philosophy can best be understood when read in the light of his critique of writing in the Phaedrus. According to Szlezak, nineteenth and twentieth-century readers have misunderstood and misinterpreted Plato's dialogues. This is so, he explains, because they have paid insufficient attention to Plato's critical comments on writing, because they have tended "to align the great thinkers of the past with the attitudes of [their] own times" (p. Ill), and because thy have confused Plato's esotericism, which is directed to a cause, with the notion of secrecy, which is directed to power (p. 115). Szlezak observes that starting with Schleiermacher "the modern devo­ tees of the god Theuth" (p. 41) have missed the intent of Plato's critique of writing. Consequently, they have supplemented the text of the Phaedrus in in­ admissible ways. Their graphocentric orientation and anachronistic readings have kept them from seeing Plato's repeated point that written philosophy itself can only go so far; to go further, it needs support, the kind that only the dialectician's oral logos can provide. Szlezak applies Plato's critique of writing to most Platonic dialogues, and shows that most of the recent interpretations have little, if any, merit. This is so, he argues, because the internal evidence of several dialogues points not to what is written but to what remains to be spoken about the texts at hand. Rather than read each dialogue separately, Szlezak reads across several dialogues, and identifies seven structural features they all share: 1) they typically depict conversations, with only occasional monologues within the conversational framework; 2) the conversations are place- and time-bound, happen between true-to-life participants most of whom are historically verifi­ able; 3) they all have a discussion leader, generally Socrates; 4) the discussion leader converses with one partner at a time, and in some cases he replaces the real partner with an imaginary one; 5) the discussion leader answers all objections, introduces all elements helpful to the conversation, refutes all other participants but is never himself refuted; 6) the conversation is raised to a higher level in the course of warding off an attack; and 7) none of the© The International Society for the History of Rhetoric, Rhetorica, Volume XIX, Number 3 (Summer 2001). Send requests for permission to reprint to: Rights and Permissions, University of California Press, Journals Division, 2000 Center St, Ste 303, Berkeley, CA 94704-1223, USA 341 342 RHETORICA dialogues comes to a definite conclusion, they all point to the need for further investigation and reflection, and they all have one or more "deliberate gaps" (pp. 18-19; 103-108). Szlezak does not argue for the general superiority of oral discourse over its written counterpart. Rather, he shows that oral discourse has a higher status but only for those capable of playing the role of a philosopher, more specifically a dialectician in the Platonic tradition. To play such a role requires that one identify significant topics for discussion (it is simply not the case that any one topic is as good as any other), expedite the discussion through poignant questions, refute objections, and defend doctrines committed to writing. Effectively, a Platonic dialectician possesses something of higher value (ta timiotera) than his philosophical writings (p. 49). This something consists of doctrines whose articulation happens orally and whose function is to support, defend, or extend written doctrines. Reading Plato is a good piece of scholarship, it guides the reader through Plato's dialogues carefully and thoughtfully. And it raises questions that expose the limitations of the disciples of Derridolatry. At the same time, however, it brings attention to several theoretical issues that Szlezak does not address. For example, how is a contemporary reader to "adapt himself to the perspective of the author, against all kinds of prejudices and resistance which are specific to...