| dc.description.abstract | In the first chapter I argue that ‘ἡ Γλαύκου τέχνη’ was not a proverb when Plato wrote the Phaedo, as nearly all commentators have erroneously assumed. This is necessary, because it has led many interpreters to the mistaken conclusion that the identity of Glaukos and the nature of his skill are irrelevant to Plato’s meaning. I use a simplified version of Paul Grice’s analysis of meaning to explicate the assumptions and argument implicit in many commentaries. My argument against the assumption of proverbiality is three-pronged. After showing that in the extant Greek sources the phrase is never actually used as a proverb, I counter C. J. Rowe’s claim that the style of the passage necessitates the assumption and cast doubt on the supposition that the inclusion of the phrase in ancient proverb collections supports the conclusion that it was a proverb when Plato wrote the Phaedo.
I begin the second chapter with an overview of the six hitherto overlooked Glaukoi which I believe have some prima facie likelihood of being Plato’s Glaukos. I then discuss the three Glaukoi suggested by some modern scholars, which formed the basis for various interpretations. I consider and reject Burnet’s arguments for Glaukos of Rhegion. The interpretations based on Glaukos of Chios, first by Konrad Gaiser and later by David Sedley, are also given consideration and in turn deemed unsatisfactory. By critically examining the problems of these interpretations, it becomes clear which desiderata a satisfactory interpretation must meet.
This clears the way for the third chapter. I first argue for the historical possibility of the identification with Glaukos of Anthedon man turned soothsaying sea-god. I then interpret a few passages in the Phaedo that seem to suggest the identification. Finally, I note the historical popularity of the identification and explain its eventual decline. In the second part, I examine all the interpretations of γ by scholars who have identified Glaukos as the Anthedonian. I conclude that these all leave something to be desired. This allows me, in the final part, to formulate all the demands an interpretation of γ must meet. I close the chapter by putting forth the interpretation that in my view meets all the demands | |
