Teaching Plato in Translation
by Susan Gorman, Boston University
Original text © 2004 Susan Gorman
The Phaedo
Narrative Frame and Credibility
At Stephanus page 88c, Plato writes in the voice of his framer/narrator, Phaedo:
‘Well, when we had heard them state their objections, we all felt very much depressed, as we told one another later. We had been quite convinced by the earlier part of the discussion, and now we felt that they had upset our convictions and destroyed our confidence not only in what had been said already, but also in anything that was to follow later; perhaps we were incompetent to judge, or the facts themselves might prove to be unreliable.’
This paragraph follows Simmias and Cebes' objections to Socrates arguments concerning the immortality of the soul. Although these sentences are just a brief interjection on the part of the narrator Phaedo, I think that a number of key issues surrounding how to discuss the Platonic dialogues appear in this passage.
The questions that are raised intertwine with each other. Firstly, to what extent can be trust the narrative frame? Secondly, whom should we believe? Whose side should we take in these discussions? If the objections of Simmias and Cebes are presented as initally reasonable (although, of course, they will be dismantled by Socrates), can we truly ever accept the argument put forth by Socrates, which also should seem initially reasonable? The audience within the text, assuming that Plato means to align us with them (which is an arguable assertion), is dazzled not by logic but rather by argumentation. This audience inside the text can be easily disheartened, even though they have presumably been following the entire discussion and even earlier discussions of Socrates. If they are so easily discouraged, what hope is there for the student (or even the teacher at times)?
As with most of the narratological peculiarities, I think that the problem of the audience, along with the questions of why frames are always included, why the argumentation can be so hard to follow and even why the texts are presented in dialogue form, exist to prompt thought. The outcome of my discussions with my students about Plato always seem to be that Plato is forcing us, the reading audience, to work hard. We are meant to be disheartened with Phaedo. If we are not, we become much too passive. If we are confused, we work with and, at times, against the text to form meaning. In so doing, we find a nuanced reading of the texts that does not simply accept what we are told but informs our thought by becoming accepted through trials. What we have to work hard to learn may stay with us longer than something we just gloss over uncritically.
