GRICE E CARANDO

 Grice e Carando: la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale di Socrate – scuola di Pettinengo – filosofia piemontese -- filosofia italiana – Luigi  Speranza, pel Gruppo di Gioco di H. P. Grice, The Swimming-Pool Library (Pettinengo). Filosofo piemontese. Filosofo italiano. Pettinengo, Biella, Piemonte. Grice: “I like Carando; a typical Italian philosopher, got his ‘laurea,’ and attends literary salons! – There is a street named after him – whereas at Oxford the most we have is a “Logic lane!” --  Ennio Carando (Pettinengo), filosofo. Studia a Torino. Si avvicina all'anti-fascismo attraverso l'influenza di Juvalta (con cui discusse la tesi di laurea) e di Martinetti. Collaborò alla Rivista di filosofia di Martinetti, dove pubblicò un saggio su Spir. Insegna a Cuneo, Modena, Savona, La Spezia. Sebbene fosse quasi completamente cieco dopo l'armistizio si diede ad organizzare formazioni partigiane in Liguria e in Piemonte (fu anche presidente del secondo CLN spezzino). Era ispettore del Raggruppamento Divisioni Garibaldi nel Cuneese, quando fu catturato in seguito ad una delazione.  Sottoposto a torture atroci, non tradì i compagni di lotta e fu trucidato con il fratello Ettore, capitano di artiglieria a cavallo in servizio permanente effetivo e capo di stato maggiore della I Divisione Garibaldi. Un filosofo socratico. La metafisica civile di un filosofo socratico. Partigiano. Dopo l'armistizio Ennio Carando, che insegnava a La Spezia presso il Liceo Classico Costa, entrò attivamente nella lotta di liberazione organizzando formazioni partigiane in Liguria e in Piemonte. A chi gli chiedeva di non avventurarsi in quella decisione così pericolosa rispondeva fermamente: "Molti dei miei allievi sono caduti: un giorno i loro genitori potrebbero rimproverarmi di non aver avuto il loro stesso coraggio". For centuries the First Alkibiades was respected as a major  dialogue in the Platonic corpus. It was considered by the Academy to be  the proper introduction to the study of Plato's dialogues, and actually  formed the core of the serious beginner's study of philosophy. Various  ancient critics have written major commentaries upon the dialogue (most  of which have subsequently been lost). In short, it was looked upon as  a most important work by those arguably in the best position to know.   In comparatively recent times the First Alkibiades has lost its  status. Some leading Platonic scholars judge it to be spurious, and as  a result it is seldom read as seriously as several other Platonic  dialogues. This thesis attempts a critical examination of the dialogue  with an eye towards deciding which judgement of it, the ancient or the  modern, ought to be accepted. I wish to take advantage of this opportunity at last to thank my  mother and father and my sister. Lea, who have always given freely of  themselves to assist me. I am also grateful to my friends, in particular  Pat Malcolmson and Stuart Bodard, who, through frequent and serious  conversations proved themselves to be true dialogic partners. Thanks  are also due to Monika Porritt for her assistance with the manuscript.   My deepest gratitude and affection extend to Leon  Craig, to whom I owe more than I am either able, or willing, to express  here. Overpowering curiosity may be aroused in a reader upon his noticing  how two apparently opposite men, Socrates and Alkibiades, are drawn to  each other's conversation and company. Such seems to be the effect  achieved by the First Alkibiades , a dialogic representation of the beginning of their association. Of all the people named in the titles of  Platonic dialogues, Alkibiades was probably the most famous. It seems  reasonable to assume that one's appreciation of the dialogue would be en¬  hanced by knowing as much about the historical Alkibiades as would the  typical educated Athenian reader. Accordingly, this examination of the  dialogue will commence by recounting the major events of Alkibiades' scareer, on the premise that such a reminder may enrich a philosophic  understanding of the First Alkibiades.  The historical Alkibiades was born to Kleinias and Deinomakhe.   Although the precise date of his birth remains unknown (cf. 121d), it was   most surely before 450 B.C. His father, Kleinias, was one of the wealthy   men in Athens, financially capable of furnishing and outfitting a trireme in wartime. Of Deinomakhe we know nothing save that she was well born.   As young children Alkibiades and his brother, Kleinias, lost their father   4   in battle and were made wards of their uncle, the renowned Penkles.   He is recognized by posterity as one of the greatest statesmen of Greece.  Athens prospered during his lengthy rule in office and flourished to such  an extent that the "Golden Age of Greece" is also called the "Age of Perikles." When Alkibiades came under his care, Perikles held the  highest office in Athens and governed almost continuously until his  death which occurred shortly after the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War. At an early age Alkibiades was distinguished for his striking  beauty and his multi-faceted excellence. He desired to be triumphant in  all he undertook and generally was so. In games and sport with other  boys he is said to have taken a lion's share of victories. There are no  portraits of Alkibiades in existence from which one might judge his looks,  but it is believed that he served his contemporaries as the standard  artistic model for representations of the gods. No doubt partly because  of his appearance and demeanor, he strongly influenced his boyhood  companions. For example, it was rumored that Alkibiades was averse to  the flute because it prevented the player from singing, as well as dis¬  figuring his face. Refusing to take lessons, he referred to Athenian  deities as exemplars, calling upon Athena and Apollon who had shown disdain for the flute and for flautists. Within a short time flute-playing   had ceased to be regarded as a standard part of the curriculum for a gentleman's education. Alkibiades was most surely the talk of the town   among the young men and it is scarcely a wonder that tales of his youthful escapades abound.   Pursued by many lovers, he for the most part scorned such attentions. On one occasion Anytos, who was infatuated with Alkibiades, invited him to a dinner party. Instead, Alkibiades went drinking with some  of his friends. During the evening he collected his servants and bade  them interrupt Anytos' supper and remove half of the golden cups and  silver ornaments from the table. Alkibiades did not even bother to  enter. The other guests grumbled about this hybristic treatment of Anytos, who responded that on the contrary Alkibiades had been moderate  and kind in leaving half when he might have absconded with all. Alkibiades  certainly seems to have enjoyed an extraordinary sway over some of his  admirers. Alkibiades sought to enter Athenian politics as soon as he became   eligible and at about that time he first met Socrates. The First  Alkibiades is a dramatic representation of what might have happened at that fateful meeting. Fateful it was indeed, for the incalculable richness of the material it has provided for later thought as well as for the lives of the two men. By his own admission, Alkibiades felt that his   feeling shame could be occasioned only by Socrates. Though it caused him   discomfort, Alkibiades nevertheless chronically returned to occasion to save Alkibiades'   life. The generals were about to confer on him a prize for his valor but he insisted it be awarded to AlkiThis occurred near the  beginning of their friendship, at the start of the Peloponnesian War.   Later, during the Athenian defeat at the battle of Delion, Alkibiades   repaid him in kind. In the role of cavalryman, he defended Socrates who was on foot. Shortly thereafter, Alkibiades charged forward into  politicsbiades., campaigns he mounted invariably meeting with success. Elected  strategos (general) in 420 B.C. on the basis of his exploits, he was one  of the youngest ever to wield such high authority. Generally opposing Nikias and the plan for peace, Alkibiades as the leader of the democrats  allied Athens with various enemies of Sparta. His grandiose plans for  the navy rekindled Athenian ambitions for empire which had been at best  smouldering since the death of Perikles. Alkibiades' policy proposals  favored the escalation of the war, and he vocally supported Athens' con¬  tinuation of her position as the imperial power in the Mediterranean.   His first famous plan, the Athenian alliance with Argos, is recounted in  detail by Thucydides. Thucydides provides an especially vivid portrait   of Alkibiades and indicates that he was unexcelled, both in terms of diplomatic maneuvering and rhetorical ability. By arranging for the   Spartan envoys to modify their story from day to day, he managed to make Nikias look foolish in his trust of them. Although Alkibiades suffered  a temporary loss of command, his continuing rivalry with Nikias secured  him powerful influence in Athens, which was heightened by an apparent  failure of major proportions by Nikias in Thrace. Alkibiades' sustained opposition to Nikias prompted some of the  radical democrats under Hyperbolos to petition for an ostrakismos . This  kind of legal ostracism was a device intended primarily for the over¬  turning of stalemates. With a majority of the vote an ostrakismos could  be held. Citizens would then write on a potsherd the name of the one man  in all of Attika they would like to see exiled. There has been famous  ostracisms before this time, some ofwhich were almost immediately  regretted (e.g., Aristeides the Just, in 482 B.C.). At any rate,  Hyperbolos campaigned to have Alkibiades ostracized. Meanwhile, in one  of their rare moments of agreement, Alkibiades persuaded Nikias to join  with him in a counter-campaign to ensure that the percentage of votes  required to effect Alkibiades' exile would not be attained. They were so successful that the result of the ostrakismos was the exile of Hyperbolos. That was Athen's last ostrakismos. Thucydides devotes two books (arguably the most beautiful of his  History of the Peloponnesian War) to the Sicilian Expedition. This  campaign Alkibiades instigated is considered by many to be his most note¬  worthy adventure, and was certainly one of the major events of the war. Alkibiades debated with Nikias and convinced the Ekklesia (assembly) to launch the expedition. Clearly no match for Alkibiades'   rhetoric, Nikias, according to the speeches of Thucydudes, worked an   effect opposite his intentions when he warned the Athenians of the ex-  19    Rather than being daunted by the magnitude of the cost of the pense   expedition, the Athenians were eager to supply all that was necessary. This enthusiasm was undoubtedly enhanced by the recent reports of the   vast wealth of Sicily. Nikias, Alkibiades and Lamakhos were appointed   co-commanders with full power (giving them more political authority than anyone in Athen's recent history).   Immediately prior to the start of the expedition, the Hermai   throughout Athens were disfigured. The deed was a sacrilege as well as   22   a bad omen for the expedition. Enemies of Alkibiades took this oppor¬  tunity to link him with the act since he was already suspected of pro¬faning the Eleusian Mysteries and of generally having a hybristic dis¬  regard for the conventional religion. He was formally charged with  impiety. Alkibiades wanted to have his trial immediately, arguing it   would not be good to command a battle with the charge remaining undecided. His enemies, who suspected the entire military force would  take Alkibiades' side, urged that the trial be postponed so as not to  delay the awaiting fleet's scheduled departure. As a result they sailed with Alkibiades' charge untried.   When the generals arrived at Rhegion, they discovered that the   24   stories of the wealth of the place had been greatly exaggerated.   Nonetheless, Alkibiades and Lamakhos voted together against Nikias to remain and accomplish what they had set out to do. Alkibiades thought   it prudent that they first establish which of their allies actually had   been secured, and to try to persuade the rest. Most imperative, he   26   believed, was the persuasion of the Messenians. The Messenians would   not admit Alkibiades at first, so he sailed to Naxos and then to Katana.   Naxos allied with Athens readily, but it is suspected that the Katanaians had some force used upon them. Before the Athenians could address the   Messenians or the Rhegians, both of whom held important geographic   positions and were influential, a ship arrived to take Alkibiades back   to Athens. During his absence from Athens, his enemies had worked hard   to increase suspicion that he had been responsible for the sacrilege,   and now, with the populace aroused against Alkibiades, they urged he be   28   immediately recalled.   Alkibiades set sail to return in his own ship, filled with his   friends. At Thouri they escaped and went to the Peloponnese. Meanwhile the Athenians sentenced him to death. He revealed to the Spartans his   idea that Messenian support in the west was crucial to Athens. The   Spartans weren't willing to trust Alkibiades given his generally anti-   Spartan policies, and they particularly did not appreciate his past   treatment of the Spartan envoys. In a spectacular speech, as recounted   by Thucydides, Alkibiades defended himself and his conduct in leaving  30   Athens. Along with a delegation of Korinthians and Syrakusans,  Alkibiades argued for Sparta's participation in the war in Sicily. He also suggested to them that their best move against Athens was to fortify   a post at Dekelia in Attika. In short, once again Alkibiades proved   himself to be a master of diplomacy, knowing the right thing to say at   any given time, even among sworn enemies. The Spartans welcomed Alkibiades. Because of his knowledge of Athenian affairs, they acted   32   upon his advice about Dekelia (413 B.C.). Alkibiades did further  service for Sparta by inciting some Athenian allies in Asia Minor, par¬  ticularly at Khios, to revolt. He also suggested to Tissaphernes, the   Persian satrap of Asia Minor, that he ought to consider an alliance with  33   Sparta.   However, in 412 B.C. Alkibiades lost favor with the Spartans. His    loyalty was in doubt and he was suspected of having seduced the Spartan queen; she became pregnant during a long absence of the king.   Alkibiades prudently moved on, this time fleeing to the Persian court of   Tissaphernes where he served as an advisor to the   satrap. He counselled   Tissaphernes to ally neither with Sparta nor with Athens; it would be in   his best interests to let them wear each other down. Tissaphernes was   pleased with this advice and soon listened to Alkibiades on most matters,   having, it seems, complete confidence in him. Alkibiades told him to   lower the rate of pay to the Spartan navy in order to moderate their   activities and ensure proper conduct. He should also economize and   reduce expenditures. Alkibiades cautioned him against being too hurried  in his wish for a victory. Tissaphernes was so delighted with   Alkibiades' counsel that he had the most beautiful park in his domain named after him and developed into a luxury resort.   The Athenian fleet, in the meantime, was at Samos, and with it  lay the real power of Athens. The city had been brought quite low by the war, especially the Sicilian expedition, which left in the hands of  the irresolute and superstitious Nikias turned out to be disastrous for  the Athenians. Alkibiades engaged in a conspiracy to promote an oligarchic  revolution in Athens, ostensibly to ensure his own acceptance there. How¬  ever, when the revolution occurred, in 411 B.C., and the Council of Four   37   Hundred was established, Alkibiades did not associate himself with it.   He attached himself to the fleet at Samos and relayed to them the promise  of support he had exacted from Tissaphernes. The support was not forth¬  coming, however, but despite the sentiment among some of the Athenians  at Samos that Alkibiades intended to trick them, the commanders and   38   soldiers were confident that Athens could never rise without Alkibiades.  They appointed him general and re-instated him as the chief-in-command  of the Athenian Navy. He sent a message to the oligarchic Council of  Four Hundred in Athens telling them he would support a democratic boule  of 5,000 but that the Four Hundred would have to disband. There was no  immediate response.   In the meantime, with comparatively few men and ships, Alkibiades   managed to deflect the Spartans from their plan to form an alliance with   the Persian fleet. Alkibiades became an increasingly popular general   among the men at Samos, and with his rhetorical abilities he dissuaded   them from adopting policies that would likely have proven disastrous.   He insisted they be more moderate, for example, in their treatment of   unfriendly ambassadors, such as those from Athens. The Council of Four   Hundred sent an emissary to Samos, but Alkibiades was firm in his refusal to support them. This pleased the democrats, and since most of the   oligarchs were by this time split into several factions, the rule of the   40   Four Hundred fragmented of its own accord. Alkibiades sent advice from Samos as to the form of government the 5,000 should adopt, but he still   42   did not consider it the proper time for his own return.   During this time Alkibiades and the Athenian fleet gained major   victories, defeating the Spartans at Kynossema, at Abydos (411 B.C.), and   43    at Kyzikos (410 B.C.)    Seeking to regain some control, Tissaphernes    had Alkibiades arrested on one occasion when he approached in a single   ship. It was a diplomatic visit, not a battle, yet Tissaphernes had him   imprisoned. Within a month, however, Alkibiades and his men escaped. In   order to ensure that Tissaphernes would live to regret the arrest,   Alkibiades caused a story to be widely circulated to the effect that   Tissaphernes had arranged the escape. Suffice it to say the Great King of Persia was not pleased. Alkibiades also recovered Kalkhedonia and Byzantion for the Athenians. After gathering money from various sources and assuring himself   of the security of Athenian control of the Hellespont, he at last   decided to return to Athens. It had been an absence of seven years.   46   He was met with an enthusiastic reception in the Peiraeus. All charges   against him were dropped and the prevailing sentiment among the Athenians   was that had they only trusted in his leadership, they would still be the great empire they had been. With the hope that he would be able to  restore to them some of their former glory, they appointed Alkibiades  general with full powers, a most extraordinary command. He gained  further support from the Athenians when he led the procession to Eleusis  (the very mysteries of which he had earlier been suspected of blaspheming)  on the overland route. Several years earlier, through fear of the  Spartans at Dekelia, the procession had broken tradition and gone by sea. This restoration of tradition ensured Alkibiades political support from the more pious sector of the public who had been hesitant about  48   him. He had so consolidated his political support by this time that   such ever persons as opposed him wouldn't have dared to publicly declare   49   their opinions.   Alkibiades led a number of successful expeditions over the next   year and the Athenians were elated with his command. He had never failed   in a military undertaking and the men in his fleet came to regard themselves a higher class of soldier. However, an occasion arose during  naval actions near Notion when Alkibiades had to leave the major part of  his fleet under the command of another captain while he sailed to a near¬  by island to levy funds. He left instructions not to engage the enemy  under any circumstances, but during his absence a battle was fought none¬  theless. Alkibiades hurriedly returned but arrived too late to salvage  victory. Many men and ships were lost to the Spartans. Such was his   habit of victory that the people of Athens suspected that he must have wanted to lose. They once again revoked his citizenship.   Alkibiades left Athens for the last time in 406 B.C. and retired   to a castle he had built long before. Despite his complete loss of   civic status with the Athenians, his concern for them did not cease. In   his last attempt to assist Athens against the Spartan fleet under Lysander,   Alkibiades made a special journey at his own expense to advise the new   strategoi . He cautioned them that what remained of the Athenian fleet   was moored at a very inconvenient place, and that the men should be held   in tighter rein given the proximity of Lysander's ships. They disregarded   his advice with utter contempt (only to regret it upon their almost   52   immediate defeat) and Alkibiades returned to his private retreat.  There he stayed in quiet luxury until assassinated one night in 404 B.C. The participants in the First Alkibiades , Socrates and Alkibiades,  seem at first blush to be thoroughly contrasting. To start with appear¬  ances, the physical difference between the two men who meet this day  could hardly be more extreme. Alkibiades, famous throughout Greece for  his beauty, is face to face with Socrates who is notoriously ugly. They  are each represented in a dramatic work of the period. Aristophanes   refers to Alkibiades as a young lion; he is said to have described   54   Socrates as a "stalking pelican." Alkibiades is so handsome that his   figure and face served as a model for sculptures of Olympian gods on high   temple friezes. Socrates is referred to as being very like the popular   representation of siloni and satyrs; the closest he attains to Olympian   heights is Aristophanes' depiction of him hanging in a basket from the   55   rafters of an old house.   Pre-eminent among citizens for his wealth and his family, Alkibiades is speaking with a man of non-descript lineage and widely  advertised poverty. Alkibiades, related to a family of great men, is  the son of Kleinias and Deinomakhe, both of royal lineage. Socrates, who  is the son of Sophroniskos the stone-mason and Phainarete the midwife,  does not seem to have such a spectacular ancestry. Even as a boy Alkibiades was famous for his desire to win and his  ambition for power. Despite being fearful of it, people are familiar with  political ambition and so believe they understand it. To them, Alkibiades  seemed the paragon of the political man. But Socrates was more of a  mystery to the typical Athenian. He seemed to have no concern with im¬  proving his political or economic status. Rather, he seemed preoccupied  to the point of perversity with something he called 'philosophy, 1  literally 'love of wisdom.' Alkibiades sought political office as soon as he became of age. He felt certain that in politics he could rise above  all Athenians past and present. His combined political and military  success made it possible for him to be the youngest general ever elected.  Socrates, by contrast, said that he was never moved to seek office; he  served only when he was required (by legal appointment). In his lifetime  Socrates was considered to have been insufficiently concerned with his  fellows' opinions about him, whereas from his childhood people found  Alkibiades' attention to the demos remarkable - in terms either of his  quickness at following their cue, or of his setting the trend.   Both men were famous for their speaking ability, but even in this  they contrast dramatically. The effects of their speech were different.  Alkibiades could persuade peop  le, and so nations, to adopt his political  proposals, even when he had been regarded as an enemy. Socrates' effect  was far less widespread. Indeed, for most people acquainted with it,  Socratic speech was suspect. People were moved by Alkibiades' rhetoric  despite their knowing that that was his precise intention. It was  Socrates, however, who was accused of making the weaker argument defeat  the stronger, though he explicitly renounced such intentions. Alkibiades'  long moving speeches persuaded many large assemblies. Socrates' style of  question and answer was not nearly so popular, and convinced fewer men.   Socrates is reputed to have never been drunk, regardless of how  much he had imbibed. This contrasts with the (for the most part)  notoriously indulgent life of Alkibiades. He remains famous to this day  for several of his drunken escapades, one of which is depicted by Plato  in a famous dialogue. Though both men were courageous and competent in war, Socrates    never went to battle unless called upon, and distinguished himself only during general retreats. Alkibiades was so eager for war and all its  attendant glories that he even argued in the ekklesia for an Athenian  escalation of the war. He was principally responsible for the initiation  of the Sicilian expedition and was famous for his bravery in wanting to  go ever further forward in battle. It was, instead, battles in speech  for which Socrates seemed eager; perhaps it is a less easily observed  brand of courage which is demanded for advance and retreat in such clashes.   Both men could accommodate their lifestyles to fit with the circum¬  stances in which they found themselves, but as these were decidedly dif¬  ferent, so too were their manners of adaptation. Socrates remained ex¬  clusively in Athens except when accompanying his fellow Athenians on one  or two foreign wars. Alkibiades travelled from city to city, and seems  to have adjusted well. He got on so remarkably well at the Persian court  that the Persians thought he was one of them; and at Sparta they could not  believe the stories of his love of luxury. But, despite his outward con¬  formity with all major Athenian conventions, Socrates was st  ill con¬  sidered odd even in his home city.   In a more speculative vein, one might observe that neither  Alkibiades nor Socrates are restricted because of their common Athenian  citizenship, but again in quite different senses. Socrates, willing (and  eager) to converse with, educate and improve citizen and non-citizen  alike, rose above the polis to dispense with his need for it. Alkibiades,  it seems, could not do without political or public support (as Socrates  seems to have), but he too did not need Athens in particular. He could  move to any polis and would be recognized as an asset to any community.  Socrates didn't receive such recognition, but he did not need it. Still,    Alkibiades, like Socrates, retained an allegiance to Athens until his death and continued to perform great deeds in her service.   Despite their outwardly conventional piety (e.g., regular  observance of religious festivals), Alkibiades and Socrates were both  formally charged with impiety, but the manner of their alleged violations  was different. Alkibiades was suspected of careless blasphemy and con¬  temptuous disrespect, of profaning the highest of the city's religious  Mysteries; Socrates was charged with worshipping other deities than those  allowed, but was suspected of atheism. Though both men were convicted  and sentenced to death, Alkibiades refused to present himself for trial  and so was sentenced in absentia . Socrates, as we know, conducted his  own defense, and, however justly or unjustly, was legally convicted and  condemned. Alkibiades escaped when he had the chance and sought refuge  in Sparta; Socrates refused to take advantage of a fully arranged escape  from his cell in Athens. Alkibiades, a comparatively young man, lived to  see his sentence subsequently withdrawn. Socrates seems to have done his best not to have his sentence reduced. His rela¬  tionship with Athens had been quite constant. Old charges were easily  brought to bear on new ones, for the Athenians had come to entertain a  relatively stable view of him. Alkibiades suffered many reverses of  status with the Athenians.   Surprised from his sleep, Alkibiades met his death fighting with  assassins, surrounded by his enemies. After preparing to drink the hem¬  lock, Socrates died peacefully, surrounded by his friends.   It seems likely that Plato expects these contrasts to be tacitly  in the mind of the reader of the First Alkibiades . They heighten in  various ways the excitement of this dialogue between two men whom every  Athenian of their day would have seen, and known at least by reputation. Within a generation of the supposed time of the dialogue, moreover, each  of the participants would be regarded with utmost partiality. It is un¬  likely that even the most politically apathetic citizen would be neutral  or utterly indifferent concerning either man. Not only would every  Athenian (and many foreigners) know each of them, most Athenians would  have strong feelings of either hatred or love for each man. The extra¬  ordinary fascination of these men makes Plato's First Alkibiades all the  more inviting as a natural point at which to begin a study of political  philosophy.   In the First Alkibiades , Socrates and Alkibiades, regarded by  posterity as respective paragons of the philosophic life and the political  life, are engaged in conversation together. As the dialogue commences,  Alkibiades in particular is uncertain as to their relationship with each  other. Especially interesting, however, is their implicit agreement that  these matters can be clarified through their speaking with one another.   The reader might first wonder why they even bother with each other; and  further wonder why, if they are properly to be depicted together at all,  it should be in conversation. They could be shown in a variety of  situations. People often settle their differences by fighting, a  challenge to a contest, or a public debate of some kind. Alkibiades and  Socrates converse in private. The man identified with power and the man  identified with knowledge have their showdown on the plain of speech.   The Platonic dialogue form, as will hopefully be shown in the  commentary, is well suited for expressing political philosophy in that  it allows precisely this confrontation. A Platonic dialogue is different  from a treatise in its inclusion of drama. It is not a straightforward  explication for it has particular characters who are interacting in specific ways. It is words plus action, or speech plus deed. In a  larger sense, then, dialogue implicitly depicts the relation between  speech and deed or theory and practice, philosophy and politics, and re¬  flecting on its form allows the reader to explore these matters.   In addition, wondering about the particulars of Socratic speech  may shed light upon how theory relates to practice. As one attempts to  discover why Socrates said what he did in the circumstances in which he  did, one becomes aware of the connections between speech and action, and  philosophy and politics. One is also awakened to the important position  of speech as intermediary between thought and action. Speech is unlike  action as has just been indicated. But speech is not like thought either.  It may, for instance, have immediate consequences in action and thus  demand more rigorous control. Philosophy might stand in relation to  thought as politics does to action; understanding 'political philosophy'  then would involve the complex connection between thought and speech, and  speech and action; in other words, the subject matter appropriate to  political philosophy embraces the human condition. The Platonic dialogue  seems to be in the middle ground by way of its form, and it is up to the  curious reader to determine what lies behind the speech, on both the side  of thought and action. Hopefully, in examining the First Alkibiades these  general observations will be made more concrete. A good reader will take  special care to observe the actions as well as the arguments of this  dialogue between the seeker of knowledge and the pursuer of power.   Traditionally, man's ability to reason has been considered the  essential ground for his elevated status in the animal kingdom. Through  reason, both knowledge and power are so combined as to virtually place  man on an altogether higher plane of existence. Man's reason allows him to control beasts physically much stronger than he; moreover, herds outnumber man, yet he rules them. Both knowledge and power have long attracted men recognizably   superior in natural gifts. Traditionally, the highest choice a man could   57   confront was that between the contemplative and the active life. In  order to understand this as the decision par excellence , one must compre¬  hend the interconnectivity between knowledge and power as ends men seek.  One must also try to ascertain the essential features of the choice. For  example, power (conventionally understood) without knowledge accomplishes  little even for the mighty. As Thrasymakhos was reminded, without  knowledge the efforts of the strong would chance to work harm upon them¬  selves as easily as not ( Republic). The very structure of the dialogue suggests that the reader  attentive to dramatic detail may learn more about the relation between  power and knowledge and their respective claims to rule. Alkibiades  and Socrates both present arguments, and the very dynamics of the  conversation (e.g., who rules in the dialogue, what means he uses whereby  to secure rule, the development of the relationship between the ruler  and the ruled) promise to provide material of interest to this issue.   B. Knowledge, Power and their Connection through Language   As this commentary hopes to show, the problem of the human use of  language pervades the Platonic dialogue known as the First Alkibiades.  Its ubiquity may indicate that one's ability to appreciate the signifi¬  cance of speech provides an important measure of one's understanding of  the dialogue. Perhaps the point can be most effectively conveyed by  simply indicating a few of the many kinds of references to speech with  which it is replete. Socrates speaks directly to Alkibiades in complete privacy, but he employs numerous conversational devices to construct  circumstances other than that in which they find themselves. For example,  Alkibiades is to pretend to answer to a god; Socrates feigns a dialogue  with a Persian queen; and at one point the two imagine themselves in a  discussion with each other in full view of the Athenian ekklesia .   Socrates stresses that he never spoke to Alkibiades before, but that he  will now speak at length. And Socrates emphasizes that he wants to be  certain Alkibiades will listen until he finishes saying what he must say.  In the course of speaking, Socrates employs both short dialogue and long  monologue. Various influences on one's speaking are mentioned, including  mysterious powers that prevent speech and certain matters that inherently  demand to be spoken about. The two men discuss the difference between  asking and answering, talking and listening. They refer to speech about  music (among other arts), speech about number, and speech about letters.  They are importantly concerned with public speaking, implicitly with  rhetoric in all its forms. They reflect upon what an advisor to a city  can speak persuasively about. They discuss the difference between per¬  suading one and many. The two men refer to many differences germane to  speaking, such as private and public speech, and conspiratorial and  dangerous speech. Fables, poems and various other pictures in language  are both directly employed by Socrates and the subject of more general  discussion. Much of the argument centers on Alkibiades' understanding  of what the words mean and on the implicit presence of values embedded  in the language. They also spend much time discussing, in terms of  rhetorical effect, the tailoring of comments to situations; at one point  Socrates indicates he would not even name Alkibiades' condition if it  weren't for the fact that they are completely alone. They refer to levels of knowledge among the audience and the importance of this factor  in effectively persuading one or many. And in a larger sense already  alluded to, reflection on Plato's use of the dialogue form itself may also  reveal features of language and aspects of its relation to action.   Socrates seems intent upon increasing Alkibiades' awareness of the many  dimensions to the problem of understanding the role of language in the  life of man. Thus the reader of the First Alkibiades is invited to share  as well in this education about the primary means of education: speech,  that essential human power. Perhaps it may be granted, on the basis of the above, that the  general issue of language is at least a persistent theme in the dialogue.  Once that is recognized it becomes much more obvious that speech is  connected both to power, or the realm of action, and knowledge, the realm  of thought. Speech and power, in the politically relevant sense, are  thoroughly interwoven. The topics of freedom of speech and censorship  are of paramount concern to all regimes, at times forming part of the  very foundation of the polity. This is the most obvious connection: who  is to have the right to speak about what, and who in turn is to have the  power to decide this matter. Another aspect of speech which is crucial  politically seems to be often overlooked and that is the expression of  power in commands, instruction and explanation. The more subtle side of  this political use of speech is that of education. Maybe not all political  men do understand education to be of primary importance, but that clearly  surfaces as one of the things which Alkibiades learns in this dialogue.   At the very least, the politically ambitious man seeks control  over the education of others in order to secure his rule and make his  political achievements lasting. With respect to education, the skilled user of language has more power than someone who must depend solely on  actions in this regard. Circumstances which are actually unique may be  endlessly reproduced and reconsidered. By using speech to teach, the  speaker gains a power over the listener that might not be available had  he need to rely upon actions. Not only can he tell of things that cannot  be seen (feelings, thoughts and the like), but he can invent stories  about what does not even exist.   Myths and fables are generally recognized to have pedagogic  value, and in most societies form an essential part of the core set of  beliefs that hold the people together. Homer, Shakespeare and the Bible  are probably the most universally recognized examples influencing western  society. To mold and shape the opinions of men through fables, lies and  carefully chosen truths is, in effect, to control them. Such use of  language can be considered a weapon also, propaganda providing a most  obvious example. Hobbes, for instance, recognizes these qualities of  speech and labels them 'abuses.' Most of the abuse appears to be consti¬  tuted by the deception or injury caused another;