On Masters, "The Case of Aristotle's Missing Dialogues"Author(s): Christopher McKnightSource: Political Theory, Vol. 6, No. 2 (May, 1978), pp. 247-248Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/191047 .

Accessed: 08/05/2014 10:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 10:47:18 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

COMMUNICATIONS

On Masters, "The Case of Aristotle's Missing Dialogues" (Volume 5, No. 1, February 1977)

In his stimulating article in your February issue, Roger Masters makes two claims. First, that Theophrastus and not Aristotle is the author of large parts of what is normally called Aristotle's "Politics"; and second, that Aristotle and not Plato is the author of the dialogue commonly referred to as Plato's "Politicus." The first claim I am not competent to judge. I should, however, like to comment on the second.

The "Politicus" is, as Masters well knows, ultimately connected with the "Sophist" and normally thought to be part of an unfinished trilogy planned to end with a dialogue called the "Philosopher." If the "Politicus" is ascribed to Aristotle, therefore, there is a strong urge to do the same with the "Sophist." Masters is quite happy to claim that Aristotle is also the author of the "Sophist." There are, however, also strong connections between the "Theaetetus" and the "Sophist," and Masters has no desire to deny the Platonic authorship of the "Thea- tetus." Indeed, the "Theaetetus" with its aporetic conclusions is a typically Platonic dialogue. Masters suggests that the only important connection between the two is one of dramatic date, and holds that this is quite compatible with a difference of authorship. Unfortunately, however, there is also a connection between the content of the "Thea- etetus" and that of the "Sophist." At "Theaetetus" 188 two problems are stated about the possibility of false belief. The first is epistemological and the second ontological. The first is discussed inconclusively throughout the rest of the dialogue while the second is deferred to a later occasion. This promise is surely redeemed in the discussion of false belief which begins at "Sophist" 237 where the problem discussed is precisely the ontological one posed in the "Theaetetus." This connection of content, thought it does not prove common authorship, certainly tells in its favor.

A-consideration advanced by Masters in favour of Aristotelian authorship of the "Sophist" is that the dialogue contains an attack

[247]

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 10:47:18 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

[2481 POLITICAL THEORY / MAY 1978

on people called "Friends of the Forms," and hence on a major Platonic theory. But this fact is explained just as easily by the hypothesis that Plato has developed philosophically by the time of the "Sophist" and no longer adheres to his former theory. Surely this also would explain the number of new words found in the "Politicus" which so impresses Masters-new thoughts require new terminology. Moreover, the "Sophist" is not the only, or indeed the main, dialogue which contains criticism of the Forms. The "Parmenides," on any plausible reading, contains devastating attacks on the theory. Is it too to be ascribed to Aristotle? And what of dialogues such as the "Theaetetus" which do not mention Forms at all? Is this also evidence of non-Platonic authorship? Once we start to play this game it threatens to get out of hand.

Nor does the appearance of the Eleatic stranger and the non-ap- pearance of Socrates really tell us anything about authorship of the "Sophist" and "Politicus." There are dialogues where Socrates does not appear at all and others where he plays a subordinate role, the Platonic authorship of which has never been doubted.

For these reasons, then, I should be unwilling to accept Masters' conclusion. But his interesting article certainly deserves further consideration.

-Christopher McKnight The Queens University of Belfast

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 10:47:18 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions