Euthyphro. Apology. Crito. Phaedo. Phaedrus.

I purchased the 1966 edition of this Loeb Classical Library volume at the University of Chicago Bookstore on April 5, 1968. I have read most of these writings several times. I use the Loeb edition for the Greek texts while usually comparing them to more recent English translations that focus on maximum accuracy.

At times I was a bit confused why certain words were translated in such a way, though no translation is perfect. If you know at least basic Greek, you will manage in understanding the text very well when synthesized with the English text.

Plato is a difficult writer in Greek sometimes.

That being said, H. Rackham's Aristotle translations in the Loeb library are fantastic for learning Greek. At least in my.opinion. probably because they are quite literally notes and thus worded "simpler"

Read this one in Greek with a Jesuit from the University of Scranton during the summer when I worked at Nay Aug.

“CEBES: I, like Simmias it seems, need an illustration [eikon, image, allegory].

[…]

SOCRATES: [having trifled with natural science] I thought I should take great care not to suffer what people do who study and observe the eclipse of the sun. For some of them, I believe, destroy their eyesight unless they look at its image in water, or some such medium. I did actually consider something like this and was afraid I would be altogether blinded in my soul by looking at these matters with my eyes and each of my senses in my attempt to seize hold of them.”


The passages above, from ‘Phaedo,’ were key for me in understanding the profundity of Plato’s art as it is manifest in this collection of four dialogues which make up the “death of Socrates” cycle. Death, ideas, and the immortality of legacy through fable and allegory is the focus here, as I see it.

I hope to make 2018 the year I reread many of Plato’s dialogues, and read dialogues I am not yet familiar with. It seemed natural to begin with the dialogues which focus on the death and trial of Socrates. Three of the four dialogues are “early”, while the final, ‘Phaedo,’ is a middle period dialogue. Years ago, I remember not being too taken with ‘Apology’ and ‘Crito’—reading the introductions and footnotes provided by the Loeb edition did much to place them in context. ‘Crito,' in particular, had left me cold the first time around. Socrates’ argument for following the laws of the state which seeks to eliminate you seemed (and continues to seem) weak to me. A footnote even goes so far as to mention that the concern for laws and institutions in ‘Crito’ is uncharacteristic of most of Plato’s work—usually the emphasis is on Goodness and Justice. Yet, it was interesting to note that Socrates’ interlocutor, ‘Crito,' is not incredibly bright, but very patriotic, as were most Athenians at this time. It was suggested by the editors that this a picture of Socrates was intentionally designed by Plato to do battle with his popular reputation as a rebellious upstart who taught contempt for the laws, as well as appeal to patriotic readers of a similar persuasion to Crito. Instead, ‘Crito' would serve to convince Athenians and all readers for posterity of his essential innocence of the charges that he “corrupted the youth of Athens.” So, to *really* understand ‘Crito’ within Plato’s body of work it is argued that one must read it in light of the charges against Socrates and the way in which Plato wished to properly convey the legacy of Socrates to future readers who may only have access to the less inspiring accounts of Xenophon’s ‘Memorabilia’, or, worse still, Aristophanes’ ‘Clouds.’ Though, did ‘Memorabilia’ pre-date ‘Crito’? I’m not sure and cannot be bothered to Google it... all told, Socrates’ insistence that it is better to live well than to simply live is not lost and rings clear.

Still, I remain unmoved by the dialogue—so less said about that the better. Similarly, ‘Apology’ gives us a well-worn understanding of Socrates and his dilemma… though I’m sure it doesn’t hurt to read, once again, about the ironies surrounding his charge of corrupting the youth of Athens when the Athenians themselves could use some self-reflection. I’d say that though ‘Apology’ was never a favorite of mine, it is absolutely essential to understanding Plato’s project, particularly as it found blossom in ‘The Republic.’

Which brings me to my favorite of the four—'Euthyphro' and 'Phaedo.’ ‘Euthyphro’ is hilarious! Honestly the dialogues sometimes can have a real sense of humor. I hope this is not lost on some readers. ‘Euthyphro’ begins with an inquiry on “the holy” and what it is… is what is holy loved by the gods because it is holy or is it holy by virtue of the fact that it is loved by the gods? Euthyphro, of course, considers himself an expert on such matters, yet cannot supply a sold answer. This is a man who is attempting to put his father to death for dubious reasons… making the case that since Zeus did as much, he too should be permitted to do so! I think we can all agree, it’s pretty funny to see someone who is a self-described “expert” unable to discuss their trade… and funnier still if they see themselves as following in the footsteps of immortals! Socrates eventually ascribes Euthyphro’s shoddy argumentation as akin to “Daedalus,” in that he is making arguments move about rather than stay in one place… Euthyphro accuses Socrates of the same thing… though it is Socrates who wishes to establish Truth, while Euthyphro seeks a convenient term to blanket over true thought. Socrates last words in the dialogue as Euthyphro leaves the dialogue without resolution are absolutely precious:


“What a thing to do, my friend! You’re off, dashing the great hope I had that I’d learn from you what things are holy and what are not, and I’d be acquitted of Meletus’ indictment when I’d demonstrated to him that I’d become wise in religious matters thanks to Euthyphro, and that I’d no longer talk about them unadvisedly through my ignorance not break new ground over them, and what’s more I’d live the rest of my life better.”


The sarcasm is pretty thick!

‘Phaedo’, however, is the true masterpiece in this collection. The structure of the dialogue is much more mature. It is here that the old truism about Plato’s dialogues must be heeded vigorously—that nothing is included in the dialogues “just because.” I think it’s telling that the dialogue is not called “Simmias” or “Cebes,” but “Phaedo,” who is not a major interlocutor in the dialogue, but a character relaying a narrative of the last hours of Socrates to his friend, Echecrates. It begins with a telling passage, seemingly filler, about pleasure and pain (after being released from his fetters) and his late composition of poetry and fable ala Aesop despite never having composed a bit of poetry in his life. To my mind, all of what follows about the afterlife as “incentive” towards the contemplative life can be read as fable. I think what Plato is trying to do here is establish a mythology around what Socrates felt was important to leading a good life which would displace the mis-education found in the myths espoused by the poets such as Homer and the like.

In the figure of the “philosopher who prepares for death” Plato is able to deliver a parables on various lessons, ranging from the dangers of living by satiating bodily desires which ultimately distort our view of reality. Something I’ve always admired/been intrigued by is Plato’s distrust of the senses and empiric knowledge—which can be summed up as a weariness for knowledge which is rooted in the conditional. After all, such an outlook always leads to a breakdown of communication along the lines of “this is how I feel” or “this is my truth,” something I’m sure we could all use a lot less of today. Those who hold by this “truth” hold life too dear, as by death their “truth” dies with the body. Similarly, those who crudely abide by empiric, natural philosophy (such as that found in Anaxagoras) can only see death as the end of everything. Thus, Socrates delivers a fable of the afterlife which shows a way toward the only shot mortals have at immortality—the ability to participate in Ideas which are eternal. Socrates goes at length to illustrate how particulars all participate in more general essences, thus rendering them intelligible for generations. In such a way, learning is always a “recollection.” I see this less as providing a “reason” for why the afterlife exists (which would simply break down Socrates’ argument to a mere incentive for behaving philosophically) to providing Cebes and Simmias with both an illustration of how following the body rather than the mind stifles generation, the imagination, and inquiry into the truth of reality, as well as providing a way of dealing with the death of their mentor.


“‘I’ll tell you,’ he said. ‘you see those who love learning recognize that philosophy takes in hand their soul, which is utterly bound up in the body and fastened to it and forced to examine reality through it, as if through prison bars, but not by itself on its own, and is wallowing in total ignorance; and philosophy has discerned that the cunning thing about the prison is that it comes from desire, as if the prisoner where himself the chief accomplice in his being tied up. So what I’m saying is that lovers of learning recognize that philosophy, in taking their soul in hand in this state, gently reassures it and tries to realize it by demonstrating that inquiry through the eyes is full of deception, as also is that through the ears and the other senses…

[…]

That the soul of every person, at the same time as experiencing extreme pleasure or pain over someone, is compelled to suppose that whatever it is suffering in particular is the most palpable and most real, even though it’s not so."


What follows is a detailed, bizarre fable of the afterlife and what follows for this who live the Good Life. At the very end of the dialogue, before drinking the hemlock, Socrates states that:


“Now it isn’t fitting for a man of intelligence to affirm with confidence that these things are just as I’ve related them; however, that either these things are so, or something like them, concerning out souls and their dwelling places, given that the soul is evidently something immortal—that’s what seems fitting to me, when I think about it, and worth the risk for one believing it so—for the risk is a noble one—one should repeat such things to oneself as a charm, which is why I’ve been dwelling on the story for so long."


At the extreme risk of sounding sappy, the end of the dialogue is so beautiful I felt a huge weight within me when I had finished the dialogue. This first volume was a great way to begin what I hope to be a reacquaintance with Plato’s work—hopefully 2018 will be a very good year.

"SOCRATES. Writing, Phaedrus, has this strange quality, and it is very like painting; for the creatures of painting stand like living beings, but if one asks them a question, they preserve a solemn silence. And so it is with written words; you might think they spoke as if they had intelligence, but if you question them, wishing to know about their sayings, they always say only one and the same thing. And every word, when once it is written, is bandied about, alike among those who understand and those who have no interest in it, and it knows not to whom to speak, or not to speak; when ill-treated or unjustly reviled it always needs its father to help it; for it has no power to protect or help itself."

DAMN

This is the first of twelve book in Loeb classic series for Plato. This book has Greek on the left side pages and English on the right side pages, so actual reading length is about half the total pages listed in the book. A reader who doesn’t know Greek can say little about the translation. These may not be the best translation available for Plato, however they are one of the most organized works in English bringing together the dialogues of Plato in one coherent series.
The book contains five dialogues and there is an introduction that precedes each dialogue. The introduction is priming in nature, i.e. it can likely bias a reader’s opinion about the dialogue. Anyone willing to read Plato with clean slate mind should read the dialogues and then test their understanding by reading the introduction. The authors also list other notable translations for the same dialogue, so for anyone not satisfied with the translation, there is information available in the book. On a very high level the dialogues cover the topics as listed below
- Euthyphro – (On Holiness) – An incomplete dialogue on the question what is Holy.
- Apology – The defense of Socrates at his trial.
- Crito – Discussion where Crito tries to persuade Socrates to escape from Prison.
- Phaedo – A proof that soul is immortal.
- Phaedrus – A discussion on the art of rhetoric.
As for the comments of nature of this text, what to learn from it and how to read it, it is best to paraphrase the following quote from an email archive of discussion on how to read Plato
“Rather than putting blinders in front of our eyes in the name of some illusory "objectivity", let us all on the contrary start to get personally involved in the text, not in trying to paraphrase it and supply what we think is missing to make a nice novel, but in putting in the balance our own understanding of what the text challenges in our own lives and beliefs. Let us dialogue on the dialogue with our own hearts and thoughts. Let us risk being ridiculed or contradicted, or forced ("coerced"?) to change our way of thinking, hopefully for the better. This is what Plato wrote for, as I understand it... We are not there to find the truth of a text, but to build a (wo)man in each one of us. The text is only there to help, and, if we don't see that, it's no use reading it anyway...”

Super interesting and cool. Some of it is a bit out there, but it's Socrates so it's characteristic.