lisis platón

8/2/2019 lisis platn.

1/26

Department of the Classics, Harvard University

in Plato's "Lysis"Author(s): David WolfsdorfSource: Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 103 (2007), pp. 235-259Published by: Department of the Classics, Harvard UniversityStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30032224 .

Accessed: 15/03/2011 04:24

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dchu. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Department of the Classics, Harvard University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access toHarvard Studies in Classical Philology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dchuhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/30032224?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dchuhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dchuhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/30032224?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dchu


2/26

DtXiaN PLATO'S YSISDAVIDWOLFSDORFINTRODUCTION

LYSIS HAS HAD A PARTICULARLYORRYRECEPTIONver the lasthalf-century.Often iewed s deficientncomparison ith haedrusndSym-posium,1cholarswhoattend oitdoso ina defensiveosture. owmany rticles eginwith heobjectivef showinghatLysisnfactcontains ubstantiveontent egardingriendship?monghese,commonhemesthe ttemptedescue f he ext romlaimshat tstreatmentffriendshipsnon-altruisticr nstrumental-ashoughtherewere sympatheticeedtopreservelatofromccusationsfweakmorals.2More ecentlyndespeciallyollowingadamer'srticle,cholarsarguehat hedramaticnactmentfptiaamonghe ersonaeulfillswhat hephilosophicalnquiry roper oesnot.3 onceivedna nega-tive ight,nemightaythat uch iterarynterpretations-howevermuchheylaim obegroundedn n mportantermeneuticrphilo-sophical osition-succeedn lluminatinghevalue f hetext tthecost fdemonstratinghat he nquiryn he exts ndeedacking.ndyet his asbeenconceivedspart f hepoint.What riendshiprulyis cannot esaid, tcanonly eshown. ence, poria sinevitable.rso it sargued.

1 See, fornstance, aszloVersenyi's1975n1) emarksnhispredecessors.2 W.K. C. Guthrie'sriticisms commonlyited. ee Guthrie975 :143. hosewhoargue orn nstrumentalistonceptionncludeerencerwin1977:300)-althoughorIrwin, fcourse, xcellence s conceived s instrumental-andonAdams 1992). Thosewho rguefor non-egoistic iew ncludeGregorylastos 1981:3-11); . F.Morris1986);Michael.Roth1995); orrainemithangle2001).3 Gadamer 980,Tindale 1984,Tessitore 990,Gonzalez1995.Cp. lso Haden 1983.


3/26

DavidWolfsdorfThe ttitudeadvance ere sthat hephilosophicalnvestigationin Lysiss ustas sophisticatednd nterestings those ntheother

earlydefinitionalialogues-howeverophisticatednd nterestingthosemay e.Theres noneed odefendhephilosophicalontentfLysis, erelyoexplaint accurately.hishasalmost lways otbeenwelldone. hemain easonsthat he extsconsistentlypproachedwith resumptionsbout henature ffriendship,s this eciprocal,oftenxclusivelyuman sychological,articularlymotionalelation-ship snow onventionallyxperiencedndconceived.his sanach-ronisticndotherwisemisguided. onsiderhat hepsychologicalconditionsf mpathynd ompassionocommonndfundamentaloourexperiencesf ove ndfriendshipind o place nthediscussion.Of ourse,hedramaticimensionsf he ext eem oencourageheview hat hedialoguesin essence bouthuman riendship,nsofaras thecharacters,ocrates,tesippus, ippothales, enexenus,ndLysis,re ll nvolvedn various ormsf tXia.But n fact,s I haveargued lsewherendas NaomiReshotko as rightlymphasized,inLysis latodevelopsheview hathuman ptMiasone, lbeit or shumansspeciallymportant,nstancef muchmore eneralondi-tion.4 emarkably,he onceptionf ptiMadvancedsnotnecessarilypsychologicalrevenhuman. nce his sappreciated,hemisapplica-tion f amiliar oral oncernsecomeslear.5Furthermore,t sfalse hat heE'pyovfypia that hepersonaeactoutfulfillshat heir 6yoqoesnot ndcannot. uch view imsat an enlightenedynthesisfformnd contentnthetext.But tfundamentallyisunderstandsherelation etweenhedramaticndexplicitrgumentativeimensionsf hetext. hetheorizing,hichis thecenterpiecefthedrama ndfromwhich onclusionsbouttherelationshipsfthepersonae redrawn, reciselyttemptsounderstandhat nderlieshefamiliarxperiences ehumans hareinwhatwecallour oves, ffections,ndfriendships,ncludingherelationshipsf hepersonae. his stheaimoftheearly ialogues:

4 Wolfsdorf997:198-254,eshotko 997.5 Whetherhetreatmentf pthianLysiss anunsatisfactoryreatmentf Xthiaseems ome f econdarymportance.

236


4/26

EiAia nPlato's ysistophilosophizebouthuman onductnaneffortofoster thicalknowledge.ut-andthis s thecrucial oint-in odoing,hetextsreinterprethemeaning fthatconduct ontraryoconventionalandtraditionalnderstandingnd n ight fPlatonic hilosophicalconceptions.hus,t srevealedhat hingsrenot s theyppear ndthat alues ommonlyeld reheldfor hewrong easons rshouldnot eheld t all.Thefollowingiscussion articularlyocuses ntheconceptionof pthia hatSocrates evelops, amelyheconception fyqtiaasbelongingOiKE16trCJ).nce his sclarified,twillbeexplainedwhytheaporia nwhich he nvestigationndsdoesnoteopardize hisconception s wellas why heaporia tself asnothingo dowiththe neffabilityf ptAia. inally,hediscussion ill ouchuponthesignificancef heconcept fbelongingnRepublicandGorgiasndtherebylarifyheconcept fthefirstriendr6RtpWrovpiXov)nLysis.

SOCRATES'FIRSTCONCEPTIONOF ptiXaThroughoutysispthia s analyzed s a two-place elationwhoseparticipantsqpiXot)ay rmaynotbe humansrevenhavewhatwewouldallmentaltates,lthough ostxamplesonsideredo nfactinvolve umans.6'Thecoreof heanalysis eginswith heconven-tional, raditional,ndEmpedocleaniew hatpthicasbasedon ike-ness 6poot6rlq).hree rgumentsremade gainst his osition.8 ll

6 Of ourse,nsofars hiXtas enacted hroughocrates'ngagementith ysis ndMenexenushis elationsthree-place.7Cp.Reshotko997:1:Plato's ysisscommonlyead san early ialogue hichakesupthe uestion:what sfriendship?'owever,fweread heLysis ith he ole nten-tion funderstandingocrates' iews oncerninghen uman eingsmightroperlybecalled riendsoone nother ewill ikelyeconfusednddisappointed.nthe ysis,Socratesevelopsgeneralheoryf ttractionowhichereferssingheword tXia.Socrateslsouses he ermtlia toreferohuman riendship,ecause e takes umanfriendshipobe a special aseofdesirewhichs tselfformf ttraction.norderoappreciatehat ocratesays bout ptiabetween umans, emust irstnderstandwhat e ays bout tXla enerally."f. lsoReshotko993ndBolotin979:130.8 Ly.213e4-215c2.

237


5/26

DavidWolfsdorfpresumehatptXhias beneficial,9n assumptionhat ocratesmain-tains hroughouthediscussion.10

First,t sagreedhat hatwhichsbad (rs KcK6v, ereafterhebad) snot pixovothebad,because hosewho rebad areharmful."Assuch, hebadcannot e a participantn pXicatall.Second,t sagreedhatikesr& pota),nsofarstheyre like,annot articipateinptXiaince,nsofarstheyre like,hey onotneed nythingromoneanothernd ocannot eriveenefitromne nother."2hird,t sagreedhat hatwhichsgood TO ya06v,ereafterhegood),nsofaras it sgood, annot articipatenqtXia ince hegood,nsofars itisgood, eedsnothing,ndsocannot ebenefited.'3ccordingly,hegoodcannot ea participantn ptXiatall. nsum,fpthiasbenefi-cial, henpitXiaannote based n ikeness.Subsequently,ocrates nd Menexenusbriefly ntertain hecontraryiew hat tXia s basedon oppositionEvavwt6rlq).hisview s nitiallyhoughtobeattractiveince ertain elationsetweenoppositesppear eneficial.or xample,herichmay ssist hepoor,thewise he gnorant.'4owever,his iew snot eriouslyntertainedsince t sassumedo mplyhat itia exists etween hebadandthegood, nd hiswaspreviouslyejected."'Socrates ow uestionshe ssumptionhatparticipantsn ptXiashould edistinguishedccordingothedichotomyfgood ndbadtypes.Hesuggestshat here xistnotsimplyhe ike ndtheoppo-site, ut lsothatwhichsinbetween,heneitherikenor pposite.

9This deahasbeen epeatedlyssumednthediscussionlready.or xample,henSocratesonversesith ippothalesboutHippothales'reatmentfLysis,ocratessinterestedo knowwhetherippothalesstreatingysiswell. ocratesubsequentlyrebukes ippothalesor poilingysis.nSocrates' xchange ith ysis,t simpliedthat ocratessbenefitingysisyhumblingnd nstructingim;ndLysissostensiblybenefitedy eing rovokednto hilosophicalnvestigation.10So,fornstance,tthe nd f he nvestigation,ocrateslaimsto dmithat hatwhichsuselessiXprlorov)sypiXovould emistaken"Ly.22c1).11Ly. 14b7-c3.12 Ly.214e2-215a4.13Ly.215a4-c2.14Ly. 15d4-7.15isocratestressesherrationalityf laiminghat ~Xp6q the atefulr hehated)could eengagedn pitXaithts ppositeLy.16a6-bl).

238


6/26

PtAl'an Plato'sLysisAccordingly,ntitiesrecategorizedccordingo trichotomyf ypes(ylvrl):hegood, hebad, nd thatwhichsneitheroodnorbad rbprTE yaOibv r'rEKaK6V, ereafterhe neither oodnorbad).16 incethebadcannot articipaten ptiia nd inceptXia annot ebasedon ikeness,tremainshat heneitheroodnorbadand hegood reparticipantsn ptXfia.ote hat his oesnot ontradicthepreviousclaim hat hegoodcanderive obenefitrom nother,or ocratesdoesnot ssumehat hebenefitfyptiamust ereciprocal.s nthiscase, t sunilateral.Socrateshen uggestshat hecauseof ptXias thepresence fthebad n heneitheroodnorbad."7his ointompels im odistin-guish wowaysnwhich nentitymay ave property."'recisely,fthebad s presentotheneitheroodnor ad, hen tmust epresentin uch way hat heneither oodnor ad snot tselfad.SoSocratesclaims:

some hings resuch s thatwhichspresentrb trap6v)othem,ndotherhingsrenot.19Socratesives hefollowingxample:f netintsne'sblonde airwithwhiteead, hen hewhitenessspresentothehair, ut hehairitself emainslonde.However,f ldageturnsne'shairwhite,henthewhitenessresentothehair s, shesays,such s"thehair.20hepassagemayhave mplicationsor he nterpretationf he elf-attri-butionfpropertiesndtherelationfpropertiesnd heirnstances.But willnotdwell nthesehere. tsufficesonote hat hisway fconceptualizingherelationf hebadandtheneitheroodnorbad

accommodateshe lleged auseofpiXia ith henotionhat hebadcannot articipatenptiMa.16 Ly. 16d5-7.17 n the passage under consideration,Socratesuses the expression"Sa& KaKO)napovoaiv" Ly. 17b5-6).However,when he laterrejects hiscausal account Socratesusestheword i'rov (Ly. 21c2).18However,ocratesdoes notuse anywordfor roperty;e simplypeaksofentities

being particular ay.19Ly. 17c3-4.20T6TEEYvOVro l6vEp "bnap6v, EUKOiOIapOUMg XEUKaL.Ly. 17d8-el).

239


7/26

DavidWolfsdorfIwill peak f his sSocrates' irstonceptionfyptia, hats, hefirstonceptionhathe himself evelops. is nitial eactionoit s

this:So now, ysisndMenexenus,said,wecancount nhavingdiscoveredhat 6 q(piXovs andwhat t snot.Forwesaythatnthe oul nd nthebody ndeverywhereheneithergoodnorbad,which asthepresencef hebad, s pitov fthe ood.21Two xamples regiven. irst,hehuman ody, hichsneither

goodnor ad, ssaid obeqfiXovfmedicine,hichsgood, naccountofdisease,which s bad.22 econd, hehuman oul,which sneithergoodnor ad, ssaid obecpiXovfknowledgeoopia),whichsgood,onaccountf gnorance,hichsbad.23bservehebroad onnotationoftheverbptX~hv.hesecond xamplemakes ensebecause ovingis a psychologicalondition. owever,hefirstxamplenwhichhediseased odyovesmedicinenly eems ensiblef nterpretedigu-ratively.ut, s mentionedbove, hroughoutysis tXias notmerelytreatedsa humansychologicalelationship.thAancludeselationsofboth psychologicalnd physical ature.nfact,hese ategoricaldistinctionsrenot rucialo he nalysis.or xample,n nalyzingheviewofytXia ased nopposition,ocratespeaks f hewetdesiring(rTt0Ulpd)hedrynd he olddesiringhehot.24 ote lso, gain,hatwhileweconceivef riendships involving utualffection,he ypeof pthianthese xamplessnon-reciprocal.he gnorantoul oveswisdom,utwisdomoesnot ove nreturn;hediseased odyovesmedicine,utmedicineoesnot ove hediseased ody.25n short,tis prudentn nterpretingheconceptionfptXia evelopednthe

21 Ly. 18b6-c2.22 Ly. 217a4-b6.23 Ly. 18a2-b3.24 - -Uli'dptoy touotoOEKaaorov,'X oTroo 6po{iouti iV y&p pbvypo0, Ti6S PuXpv 0eploo,T 8S~% &i603Xo,T68KE"vv tptp0o0wx, airos XqfipE &KEVCra6eq

(Ly. 15e4-8).25 The viewthatptXhianLysis s treatedas non-reciprocal as been notedbyotherscholars. ee,for xample, obinson 986.Cf. lsoReshotko 997:2-3.

240


8/26


9/26

DavidWolfsdorfMenexenusasalreadymade vident,he djective ifxoqanbeusedinboth enses.30

Thesecond ointstreateds more ubstantial.heclaim, ere-after, hat qpikoqlover)s pikoqloving) f qlXo (beloved)orhesakeof qpioq beloved)ntails regress,orf belovedsineverycase oved orhe ake f nothereloved,hebeloved orwhose akethebeloveds ovedwill nturn e loved or he akeof beloveddinfinitum.ocratesxpresseshis oint sfollows:Nowarewenotbound towearourselvesoutwithgoingoninthisway, nlesswecanarrive t somegoverningrin-cipleapxi~)hatwillnotkeep eading sonfromneypilovtoanother,utwill each hefirstriendt6oprTovqpi'ov)forwhose ake ll theother hingsresaid to be beloved(cpYjXC)?31

Socrates' oint sthat misrepresentshe onditionf thiMa.hedrive hat overns tiMas, nfact, ot nterminable.here s someobject hatsdesiredortsown ake, or he ake fnothinglse, ndfor hesakeofwhich very ther eloved bject s loved.Note hatthisdea snotdefended.32Thenature f his bjectwill ediscussedbelow.)The ntroductionf he onceptf hefirstriendnables ocratestodistinguishypes fptiMaccordingotheir bjects. e says hatpi'ka hat re oved or hesakeofother piXkaannot e thoughtfas cpika roper,nsofars therealqpiov sthatwhichspursued orthe akeofnothinglse.Accordingly,hefollowingivisionf txicatresults.thia betweenheneither oodnorbadandthefirstriendis intrinsic tXia.thia betweenheneither oodnorbadandsomebeneficialpiov hatsnot hefirstriendsextrinsictXica.ocratesdescribes xtrinsic ptXias a phantom E&'go)ov)of ntrinsicptia.30 Ly. 11d6-213d5.31 Ly.219c ff.32 The claim f npdrov (pkov as both n ethical nd a psychological-or ather,ince

ptiMa eednot nvolve ntitieswith ouls,motivational-implication.ntheonehand, tentails species f thicalmonism; ntheotherhand, t mplies hat ovedependsupona stateofdeficiency.

242


10/26

'tAtanPlato's ysisFurthermore,xtrinsicMtXiathould edistinguishedromnauthenticpiXftat,hich,swewill ee, rerelationshat,ccordingoconven-tional nderstanding,ppear obe tXicat,ut re ctuallyarmfulndsonot, roperlypeaking,tMaict all.Socrates'econd riticismfhisfirstonceptionfpthiaoncernsits ause. ocratesuggestshat hepresencef hebad ntheneithergoodnorbaddoesnot ausepitia.33nstead,eargueshatf hebaddidnot xist, heneitheroodnorbadwould onethelessesire ndlove hefirstriend.ocrates rants hat t sdifficulto magineusthow hings ould eifbads r&KaKd) idnot xist.34uthesuggeststhat omedesires,uch s hungerndthirst,renot n themselvesharmfulrbeneficialndsoneither adnorgood.Rather,hey regoodorbadinsofars their bjects re beneficialrharmful.hus,hesays, here s no reasonwhy esireshat reneitheroodnorbadwould easetoexistfbadsdid.One ould till ave hese esires,uttheywould nly efor hegood.35herefore,econcludeshat esire,not hepresencef hebad, auses ptica.Socrates owexplainshenature fdesire s follows.hatwhichdesires s deficientv56Efq)nddesireshatnwhicht sdeficient.36Sincedesire sthecauseof pthia,hatwhich s deficientoves hatinwhicht s deficient.37nentitysdeficienthent s deprivedfsomethingrta qaipirat).38hatofwhich n entitys deprived s itsbelongingr6oiKE"OV).39herefore,hat elongs oanentitystheobjectof ts ove ZEpxq),riendship(ptia), anddesire~rint8v).40

33 Cf. ocrates'question: For f herewerenothing eft oharmus,we shouldfeelnowantof nyassistance .. Isnotthis henature f hegood-to be beloved ecauseof hebadbyus whoaremidway etween hegoodandthebad,whereas eparatelyndfor tsownsake t sofnouse?" (Ly. 20c7-d2).34Cf.hisstatement,Or sthis ridiculous uestion-as to whatwillexist rnotexistinsuch case?Forwhocantell?" Ly. 22a).35Thisargumentspresentedt Ly. 21a-b.36 Ly.221d7-el.

37 Ly. 221el-2.38 Ly. 21e2-3. Cf. he use of the verb d&qalpWto describethe confiscation f one'spropertytGorg.66c1, 68d2, 11a7).39Thispropositionsnot expressed, ut sderivable romhatwhich recedes ndthatwhich ollowst.40 Ly. 21e3-4.

243


11/26

DavidWolfsdorfItshouldeemphasizedhatnLysis tEtuia istreatedsa condi-tionmore eneralhanwhatwecalldesire.nthe ameway hatwhat

wecallfriendships conceiveds onemanifestationfthebroaderconditionf pXia,owhatwecalldesires conceivedsone manifes-tation f hebroaderonditionfrimOupia.ntitieshatdo nothavesouls xperiencenteOupia.gain, ecall ocrates'laimshat hebodydesiresmedicinend hat hewetdesireshedry nd he old hehot.Socrates'onceptionfdesiremonghe arly ialoguessa subjectofconsiderableebate. hecontroversyurns n whetherocratescommitsotheview hat veryoneesires hatsreallyood rratherwhat nefalliblyegardssgood.41hemain assages iscussednthedebatereMeno7b2-78b6,orgias66a4-468e5,ndProtagoras52b1-357e8.RegardingheMeno assage, have lsewhere efendedheview,consistentithhedominantnterpretationf hepassage,hat esirefornobject ollowspon falliblevaluationf hat bject sgood.42will eferothis s the ubjectivistonceptionfdesire.RegardingheGorgiasassage, support view omewhatkin otheoneadvanced yMcTighe.43cTighergues hat ocrates'rgu-ment gainst olus sadhominemndthereforehat heclaimwithintheargumenthateveryone esires hegood-whichheremeanseveryoneesires hatsreallyood-doesnotprovideound videnceofSocrates'rPlato's onceptionfdesiremong he arly ialogues.UnlikeMcTighe,donot egardhe rgumentsadhominem;owever,I doregardhepremisehat veryoneesires hegoodas a dialec-tical xpedient.ote hat hispremiseollowsheclaim hathealth,wealth,nd oonare intrinsic)oods. his urelysnot positionhatPlato ndorsesmong heearly ialogues.t s,however,onvenient

41 For xample,omewhohave ecentlyrgued hat ocratess committedothe iewthat llpeople esire herealgood nclude edaSegvic2000), erryenner1991),Thomas .BrickhousendNicholas.Smith1994:87-102);erryenner ndC.J.Rowe(1994),NaomiReshotko 1997).Butcf.McTighe1984.Note thatBrickhousendSmith'sandPenner'srgumentsre f very ifferentharacter.rucially,rickhousend mithsuggesthatocratesscommittedo trueelf. ennerejectshismove.42Wolfsdorf2006a.43McTighe984.

244


12/26


13/26

DavidWolfsdorfobjects,utwemustudgewhetherokens f hose ypesregood rbad.

Insum, ocrates'econd onceptionf pthiasthis:Theneithergoodnorbad lovesthefirst riend ecausethefirst riends itsbelonging.hefirstriendsthebelongingf heneither oodnor adbecause heneitheroodnor ad s deprivedf ndsodeficientnandsodesireshe irstriend.Finally,ocratespplies is econd onceptionfytXiaothe ela-tionshipsf he nterlocutors:"Then,fyoutwo Lysis ndMenexenus]reqi0Xoi ithoneanother,ouwouldbelong o one another omehowbynaturep6aGEt)."Precisely,"hey aid. And f, oys, neperson esires r oves nother,ewouldnotdesire r oveorbefriendimunless he over elongednsomeway othe eloved,ithern oul r ome haracteristic,anner,rformf oul." Yes, ntirely,"aidMenexenus.utLysis ellsilent.Well,' said, ithasbeen hownhatwhat elongsousbynaturep6uoEt)snecessaryor sto ove."So t eems,"he[Menexenus]aid. Thent snecessaryor hegenuine(yvrlaip)ndnotthe nauthenticnpooTrotnrcy)dmirer44(pacoTfi) obe lovedbyhisdarlingrzv xat~xKOV)." henLysis ndMenexenusavea faint odofassent,whereasHippothales,ull fpleasurei6n6 fq jSoviq),turned llmannerf olors.45

Thepassage larifiesowhuman sychologicalelationshipsanbeinstancesf ynia. he stensibleroblem ith uman elationshipssinstancesfpthiasthat he ouls fmost umansreneitheroodnorbad.Butwhen ocratesuggestshat eople anbelongoone notherwith espectotheir ouls, eadds"orsome haracteristic,anner,orformf oul."Accordingly,eallows hat he soul scomplexndsothat ome arts raspectsmay eextrinsicallyoodwhile thersarenotorneitheroodnorbad. nthat ase,human ptiacanoccur

44 I refrain rom ranslatingipaotijq" s "lover" ince thatwould ead to confusion.45 Ly.221e5-22b2.

246


14/26

itALanPlato's ysisincaseswhereone personpossessessomepsychological enefit hatanother acks ndso desires.Humanpticat re, hen, xtrinsicinXat.

Granted his,Socrates distinguishes etweena genuine and aninauthenticdmirerndsays hat hedarling ught o ovethegenuineadmirer. erehe employs hevocabularyfhomosexual iscourse.He smaking general tatement bouthomosexual elations,ut lso specif-ically lluding oHippothales' ovefor ysis. his s clearfromhefactthatSocratesnotesHippothales' esponse ohisremarks ndthatthisisthefirstimesincethebeginningfSocrates' onversation ith heboys hatHippothales' resencehasbeenmentioned.his lsoexplainsLysis' ndMenexenus'distinct eactionso Socrates' tatements.WhenSocrates aysthatwhen"onepersondesires r oves nother, e wouldnotdesireor love orbefriendhimunlesstheloverbelonged nsomewayto thebeloved,"Menexenusconsents, ut Lysisfallssilent.Thisis because Lysisassumesthat Socrates s implying hatHippothalesand Lysisbelong to one anotherbecauseHippothales s attracted oLysis-whereasLysisdoes notwantto reciprocateHippothales' ffec-tion nddoesnotwantto feel hathe ought o.However,nceSocratesmakes hedistinction etween genuine ndan inauthenticdmirer,thisreveals oLysis hepossibilityhatheneednotfeelboundtorecip-rocateHippothales' ffectioninceHippothalesmaynotbe a genuineadmirer. inally, ippothales ssumes hathe isa genuine dmirer ndso interpretsocrates' tatements compellingysis oreciprocate isaffection.ccordingly,e isfilledwith leasure.There reseveral ndi-cations hatHippothales s deceived. hefirststhat hewordSocratesuses for nauthenticadmirer), npoono-ulr6q,lludesto thebatheticand hackneyedpoetryHippothalescomposesforLysis.The second,more obvious indication is thatHippothales s describedas beingfilledwithpleasure igSovri), hich uggests hehedonisticmotivationgoverning is nterestnLysis.nsofar s goodness ndpleasure renotidentical ndHippothales'hedonisticnterestnLysissnotbeneficial,Hippothales s nota genuine dmirer. ecallthatearly nthedialogueSocrates riticizesHippothales ornotknowing owtoconducthimselfwith espect ohisdarling ndtherebyorruptingim.46

46 Ly. 10el-5.

247


15/26

DavidWolfsdorfThedistinctionetween hegenuine nd inauthenticdmirerimplieshedistinctionetweenenuinend nauthenticesires well

as piXia. ippothalesoesnot uthenticallyesire r oveLysis, here"authentically"eans eneficiallyndso inaccordance ith ature.Accordingly,distinctionetween enuine nd nauthenticelong-ings anbe inferred,here genuine elongingsa good ype f hebelongingnd n nauthenticelongingsa badtype f hebelonging.Moreover,naturalelongings anauthenticelonging.APORIA NLYSIS

Thecore f he nalysisf tX inLysiseginswith he onventionaland traditionalonceptionfqXhia asedonlikenessndconcludeswith ocrates'econd, ovel onceptionf pldiabasedon belonging.The porianwhichhe nvestigationnds ccurssa conflictetweenthese wo ositions.fterocrates asarticulatedis econd oncep-tion f pliXiandappliedttotherelationshipsetweenhepersonaeinthetext, eurges ysisnd Menexenusodraw conclusionromthediscussion:Ifthere s anydifferenceetween hebelongingndthelike, t seemstome .. thatwemightgivesomeaccountofwhat pioq is.But f ike ndbelongingre the ame t snot asy ogetridofourformertatementhat he ike suseless othe ikensofarstheyre like; ndtoadmithatthe selesssqpiXovould e agrossmistake.ohow boutfweagree ow... sinceweareratherrunkromhediscus-

sion, osay hat hebelongingndthe ike retwodifferentthings?Lysis ndMenexenusonsent.] hen hallwemain-tain hat hegood elongsoall Travzi),hile he ad s alien(&AXX6ptov)?rdoes hebadbelong othebad, hegood othegood, ndtheneitheroodnorbadtotheneitheroodnor ad? LysisndMenexenusgree hat he ast hree airsbelong ogether.]o here gain,boys .. we havedroppedntheverytatementsegardingiXiahatwerejectedtfirst;for ow heunjustwill easmuchpiXoqf heunjust,ndthe bad ofthebad as thegood ofthe good ... Andwhat s

248


16/26

ODUianPlato's ysismore,fwesay hat hegood nd he elongingre he ame,we cannotvoidmakinghegoodpiXovnly othegood ..But his gain, ouknow,sa view fwhichwethought ehad disabusedourselves;youremember,oyounot? .. Sowhatmore an we dowith ur rgument?r s tclear hatwecando nothing?.. Wehavenotyetbeen abletodiscoverwhat qpixo s.47

Attheendofa denseconversation,heparticipantserge namutuallyatisfactoryccount f ptXia. ocrates uggestshat hisrequires distinctionetweenhe ike ndthebelonging.heboysagree omakehedistinction.owever,henskedwhich ixot elongtogether,hey laim hat ikes o.This hoice esultsna contradictionofwhat ocratesallstheverytatementsegardingtia thatwerejectedtfirst;for ow heunjustwill easmuch friendf he njust,ndthebadof hebad, s thegood f hegood.48

Socratessreferringothefirsttage f hecoreoftheanalysiswhere,swehave een, hree rgumentsremade gainsthepopularview f tiXa ased n ikeness.ndescribinghese rgumentsempha-sized heirharedssumptionhatpltiamust ebeneficial.t he ndof he nvestigationocratesgain tresseshatptXiamust ebenefi-cial.49hus, ysis'ndMenexenus'ailureodistinguishhebelongingand he ikedraws he rgumentack othegrounds ponwhichheconceptionf taia based n ikeness asrejected.If,however,he belonging nd thelike are distinguished,sSocratesdvises,ndthe lternativesadopted, consistentccountof iAtiaasedonbelonginganbemaintained.heoption ysisndMenexenusonot hoose sthat hegoodbelongso all tavwt), hilethebad s alientoall.50tisnotobviouswhatnravtfefersointhissentence. ccordingothetrichotomizationfallentitiess either47Ly. 22b3-223b8.48 Ly.222dl.49Ly. 22b8-c9.50Ly. 23c3-5.

249


17/26

DavidWolfsdorfgood,bad,or neithergood nor bad, itmightbe thought hatnaywriranges ver llthreekinds.However,he fact hat nthesamesentenceit s stated hatthe bad is alien to all undermines his nterpretation.Nothing anbelong o the bad; therefore,navri annotrangeoverallkindsofentities. urthermore,avrscannot range overonly hegoodsince nthis asethegoodwouldbelong othegood,thebelongingndlikewouldbe indistinguishable,nd,according o boththeargumentsthat ikecannotbe qpov ofthelike nsofar s theyare alikeandthegoodcannotbe qpiXovfthegood insofar s they regood,thiswouldlead to the same contradiction s the option Lysisand Menexenuschoose. tremainshatnawri anges ver heneither oodnorbad,andI suggest hatSocrates ntends his nterpretation.n short, ocratesmustbe usingnavrias a masculinerather hana neuternounwhere"everybody"r,with mphasison humanrelationships,eachone ofus [humans]" s to be understood.This makes sense sincealthoughpiXia snot necessarily humanrelationship,nthemovementfthediscussionmmediately recedinghepassageunderdiscussionwhereSocrates pplies hissecondconception fyptia to therelationshipsfthepersonae, hefocusnarrowsohumanrelationships.In conclusion, healternative ptionyieldsa conception f pthiiathat s consistentwith hesecondone Socrates developed,whiletheoptionLysis ndMenexenushoosedependsontheconceptionf tXiabasedon ikeness hatwasrejected arly nthe nvestigation.hus, heanswer othequestion fwhobelongs owhom sthat hegoodandtheneither oodnorbadbelong oone another.nmaking hispoint, ammerely rawingttention o the fact hat, s interpreters,ehavenocompelling easontobelievethattheaporia itself nwhich he nves-tigation nds s an indicationhatPlatodid notintend o advancetheconception fpthiXaasedonbelonging hatSocratesdevelops.Rather,as I willsuggest elow, hetreatment f theconceptofbelongingn acoupleotherpassagesamong he earlydialoguesstrengthensheviewthatPlatodid ntend oadvance hisconception fq~ia.As I have arguedelsewhere, he aporia in whichthe discussionends reflects particular ramatic hemecommonamongtheearlydialogues,hetension etween onventionalndtraditionaleliefsndnovel Platonicones,and servesa distinctphilosophical-pedagogical

250


18/26

PtAlanPlato's ysisobjective: oencourage he ntended eader oreach nunderstandingforhimself.51n sum,Socratesand theboysmakeprogress owardmutuallyatisfactoryonception fpXia, but ultimatelyheydo notreachone. Although he familiar iewof itia based on likeness srejected arly nthe nvestigation,ysis ndMenexenus onotentirelyextirpatet from heir etsofbeliefs. hisviewof ptMa eemerges tthe end ofthe investigation,onflictswiththe conceptionof pthiabased onbelonging,ndperplexes he nterlocutors.hefinal ceneofthedialoguecastssomelight nwhy he nvestigationegressesn itsfinal tages. ndescribingheaporetic onclusion, ocrates ays:

Wehavebeenunable onho ... olo rE yEV6pEOa)odiscoverwhat6 qpi~o is.52Theuse ofthefirst ersonplural ather han hesingulars signifi-cant insofar s the limitations we to the limitations fthe groupcollectively. lthough ocratescontributeso thedevelopment f theconception fcptiiafarmorethanLysis ndMenexenus, heaporeticconclusion fthe nvestigation westo Lysis' ndMenexenus'decision

tochooseone optionSocratespresents ver nother. espitethe prog-ressofthe nvestigation,ysis ndMenexenus reultimatelyoundtothe conventional iewthat thiMasbased onlikeness.When hegroup'spowersof nvestigationinallyeachexhaustion,Lysis' ndMenexenus'pedagogues merge otake heboyshome:Having husspoken, wasminded o stirup somebody lseamong he olderpeoplethere,when ikeotherworldlypirits(Sa&iPovEq),here came upon us the pedagogues of LysisandMenexenus.Theywere bringingheboys'brothers ndcalled outtothem heorder ogo home, or twasquite ate.Atfirst etriedwith hehelpof hegroup round stodrivethemoff; ut they ookno noticeofus andwenton angrilycalling, s before n theirforeignccent itnoPapPapi~ovczE).We decided that theyhad takena droptoo much at the

51Wolfsdorf997. f. lsowolfsdorf004.52 Ly. 23b7-8.

251


19/26

DavidWolfsdorffestivalndwould rovewkwardeople odealwith. owegaven ndbrokepourparty.53

Byreferringothe laves s "otherworldlypirits"nd sspeakingin"barbarianccents,"'ocratesharacterizesheboys' edagoguessforeignothediscussionroup. incepedagogueswere laves, ysis'andMenexenus'edagogues ust ave iterally eenforeigners.heconclusion fLysishows heboysreturningotheir amiliarolesunder he areof heirustomaryedagogues.ut ocrates'mphasisontheforeignnessf hepedagogues,mmediatelyollowingn nves-tigationhathasdeveloped theory f ptXia asedonbelonging,intimateshat hese edagoguesreforeignotheirwardsna philo-sophicalense oo.Socrates,heboys, ndtheother ttending outh rereluctanttobreak ff hediscussion hen heslavescometofetch ysis ndMenexenusotake hem ome.t sremarkedhat he laves ave eendrinkingineduringherites f heHermaia, he dayonwhich hediscussiont Mikkos'alaestraccurs,ndSocrates ays hat t eemedonthis ccounthat he laveswould e intractable.heword ocratesusestodescribeheslaves'demeanors &nopol.54his mage fthedrunkenntractablelaves ervings Lysis' ndMenexenus' eda-gogues ontrastsithhe mage fSocratess Lysis'ndMenexenus'temporaryedagogue. tthebeginning f Lysis ocrates escribeshimselfsmaking isway romheAcademyotheLyceum.hewordSocrates sestodescribe is walk, hefirstword fthedialogue,skntopeF6prlv"Iwasmaking yway").56heaporia r ntractabilityftheslaves tthe ndof hedialogue ontrasts ith ocrates' assage(nt6poq)tthebeginningf hedialogue.While ocratessengagednphilosophy,hedrunkenlaves iterallyisband ocrates',ysis',ndMenexenus'onviviumouvouoaxv).Thedrunkennessf he laves lsorecallsHippothales'runken-nessand suggestshat he laves,ikeHippothales, ayhave detri-mentalnfluencenthe oys.nthis articularase, sthey inderhe53Ly. 23al-b2.54Ly. 23b2.55Ly. 03al.

252


20/26

rtA"anPlato'sysisboys romhilosophicalnquiry,heyreperhapsntendedo ppear sdoingo.Tothis xtenthe lavesre,ikeHippothales,lso tpoaotolrlro(inauthentic)piXotithwhom ysisndMenexenusonot elong.heharmfulrunkennessf he laves ndHippothales ay econtrastedwithhat eneficialrunkennessrom hichocratesescribesimselfand heboys ssufferingsa resultf he ortuousnvestigation:

Sincet sasifwewere runkpsE6olpEv)romheX6yoq56AsLysis nd MenexenuseaveSocrates'ompanyheyeavethesite fbeneficialxtrinsicptiaandriskhedangersf he nauthentic

qpthia urroundinghem. hefinal ceneofthedialogue,with heentrancef he laves ndthedisbandingf hegroup,ndicateshatthishighlynconventionalhilosophicalnvestigationasoccurredwithin spacegoverned y he ounter-philosophicalonventionsfthepolis.Theaporiaofthe nvestigationay e seentoresult romthis onditionf he nvestigationswell.While ocrates'ommunionwithheboyshas sought oprovokehilosophicalnquirynddevelopunderstandingeyondonventional,eceivediews, onetheless,heboys emain eeply ntrenchednthe onventionalracticesf heirdailyives.

OiKEOt6rl IN REPUBLIC ANDGORGIASNDr6 tp'rovYpiXovInRepublic,Socrates oncludes isdiscussionfusticewith hra-symachus ith he rgumenthat heustpersonshappierhan heunust erson. heargumentegins ydefininghefunctionEpyov)fan entityasthatwhichnly cando or hatwhich candobest.57hefunctionf n entitys here onceiveds anoperationractivity.orexample,eeingsthefunctionf he yes nd rimmingine ranchesisthefunctionf pruningnife.58otably,ocratesttributesunc-tions oth oartifactsnd onaturalinds.

56 Ly.222c2.57 R. I 352e2-3.58 R. 352e5-353a2.

253


21/26

DavidWolfsdorfNext, ocrates licits hrasymachus'ssent othe claim hat here sa particularxcellence&pErt) or achthing hat s suited o tspartic-

ularfunction.59hat s to say, or ach entity operformtsparticularfunctionroperly roptimallyhat ntitymusthave a particularxcel-lence.For nstance, ocrates sks:Could the eyes perform heirdistinct Epyovwell if theylacked heir wnproper xcellence oiKEiav&pEtljv)?60

From thercontexts,t s clear thatsight 64ptq),onceived s thepower osee, sthedistinctxcellenceoftheeye.61 ythis meanthatiftheeyehas a particularondition, ay, particular hysical onsti-tution, hatenables it underthe appropriateconditionsto see. Inparticular, oteSocrates' seofthephraseoiKEiC paEfT"proper xcel-lence").Thissuggests hatfor ach type ofentity here s an optimalconditionpecificallyuited othat ype hatenables ttoperformhefunctionarticularlyuited othat ype.Socratesdoesnothereusethecorrelative hraseoiKSLov pyov"properfunction"), ut t sreason-abletosupplytaswell.

These conceptsfromRepublic suggest hatwhatbelongs o or isoiKEov to an entity f a certain ype s an excellenceofa particularkindandthatthepossessionof thisexcellence enablesthatentity ooperateproperly nd optimally.n Republic Socratescharacterizessuchactivityroperations happiness E65atcpovia):Anddidwenot gree hat heexcellenceofthe soul s ustice... Then the ustman iveswell .. Andhe who liveswell sblessed ndhappyE6l5aipCv).62

Insofar s excellence sgood (&ya06v), hisaccordswithSocrates'claim ttheendofLysishat hegoodis oiKEiov oallhumans,whoareneither oodnorbad. t sthis hathumans ackandthatwould nablethem ofunctionptimally,hich stosay, olivewell.59R. 353b2-4.60 R. 353b14-c2.61 This s rather ncontroversial.62 R. 353e7-354al.

254


22/26

OtMianPlato's ysisIn Gorgiasocrates assumesthatall that s good-"we and every-thingelse that is good"-is good through he presenceofa certain

excellence.63Moreover, e claimsthattheexcellenceofeach thing-"whether fan artifactrbodyorsoulorany iving reature"-entailsa certain tructurerzitq)andorder6pO6rrlj):So theexcellenceofeach thing s somethingrganized ndordered n a particular tructure.. Andso a certainorderbelonging oiKElOq) o each thing nd present n itmakeseachthing ood.64

Soonafter hisremark, ocratesmakes hefollowingeneral tate-ment boutthe nature fthecosmos:Wisementellus,Callicles, hatheavenand earthand godsand men are held togetherby communion nd cpthia ndorderliness nd sound-mindednessnd ustice,and this sthereasonwhy hey allthisuniverse cosmos.65

Theseremarks romGorgias ovetail icelywith hosefrom epublicI. They realso suggestivewith espect oSocrates' onception fpiXIabasedonbelongingnLysis;ndtheyhelpclarifyhenature fthe firstfriend.When the conceptofthe first riends introducednLysis, oclear indication s givenof tsidentity. owever,t s suggested obedesiredfor tsownsakeand tobe thatfor hesakeofwhich ll otherdesiderataredesired.Desirefor hefirstriends, hen,ntrinsicesire.In Euthydemusocratesclaimsthathappiness E6aimpovia)s theultimate bjectofdesire nsofar s itmakesno sense,whenonespeaksofdesiringhappiness, to seek a further xplanationforthe desire.Vlastosdescribes his s theeudaimonistxiom.66n Nicomacheanthics,Aristotle,ppropriatinglatonic deas,writes:

Nowifthereexistsan end in therealmofaction whichwedesire or tsownsake, nendwhich eterminesllour other63 Grg. 06d2-4.64Grg. 06el-4.65 Grg. 07e6-a3.66 Vlastos1991:203.

255


23/26

DavidWolfsdorfdesires;f,nother ords, edonotmake llour hoices orthe ake f omethinglse-for nthisway heprocesswillgoon nfinitelyothat urdesirewould efutilendpoint-less-then bviouslyhis ndwillbe thegood, hat s,thehighestood.67

Shortlyfter,econtinues:Toresumehediscussion-sincell knowledgendeverychoicesdirectedowardome ood,etusdiscuss hats nourview he im fpolitics,hat s, hehighestood ttain-ableby ction. sfar s itsname s concerned, ost eoplewould robablygree-foroth hecommonun fpeopleandcultivatedmencall ithappiness ndunderstandy'being appy' he ame s livingwell' nd doingwell.' utwhentcomes odefininghathappinesss, hey isagree,andthe ccount iven y hecommonundiffersromhatof he hilosophers.68

ReturningoPlato:cholarlynterpretationsrincipallyivideverwhetherhe irstriendnLysissthe ormfGoodnessrhappiness.69WithinhediscursiveontextfLysisheresnomentionfFormswhatsoever.or his eason regardheformerptionsmisguided.endorsehe dentificationf hefirstriend ithhappiness.owever,thisdentificationust equalified.Wehave een hathedistinctionetweennauthenticndgenuineptXiasnot nalogouso he istinctionetweenntrinsicnd xtrinsicpitfa.ntrinsiciXia ay egenuiner nauthentic;ikewisextrinsicqtXia. his ntailshatntrinsiciXtiasnotnecessarilyood.And hisfurtherntailshat hatwhichsdesiredrbefriendedorts wn akeisnotnecessarilyood;nother ords,hefirstriendsnotnecessarilygood. onsequently,he irstriendannotehappinessua bjectivegood.67 1094a18-22.68 1095a14-22.69 nVlastos991:230,he irstriends dentifiedith U6atpiovia.cholarsho avesuggestedhathe irstriends obe dentifiedithhe ormf he oodncludeamb1991. eealsoKramer959:500.

256


24/26

OtAtanPlato's ysisButthis s ust as it shouldbe.Happinessuabelonging,lbeitsuperordinateelonging,sa typehathoulddmit oth ood ndbad

kinds.his sconsistentithheprinciplehat veryoneesires appi-ness, or,sAristotleotes,heressubstantialisagreementverwhathappinesss.Accordingly,hilewe re llmotivatedowardappiness,weare compelledodistinguishetween enuine appinessnd tsinauthenticemblances.APPENDIX

Thispaperwas composed n 2002 ndaccepted orpublicationn2003. ince hat ime havepublishedrhaveforthcomingnumberofdiscussionsfdesire nPlato's arly ialogueshat mplifyr, ncertainespects,upplanthepresentiscussion.npage245, ndoffirstaragraph,writehat I regardhe laimnGorgiashat veryonedesireshegood s carryingoweightnthedebate ver ocrates'rPlato's onceptionfdesire monghe arly ialogues."eeWolfsdorf:2008.Again npage245, eginningf econd aragraph,writehat he"Protagorasassage tronglyupportshe ubjectivistonceptionfdesirenMeno" eeWolfsdorf:006b.Finally,npage246, ndoffirst aragraph,write... butwemustjudgewhetherokensf hose ypes regood rbad." providefulleraccountfdesirenLysisnWolfsdorf007.

TEMPLENIVERSITYWORKSCITED

Adams, . 1992. The Lysis uzzles:'HistPhilQuart:3-17.Bolotin, . 1979.Plato's ialoguenFriendship.thaca,NY.Brickhouse,. C.,and N.D. Smith. 994.Plato'socrates. xford.Gadamer, . G. 1980."Logos ndErgonnPlato's Lysis."nDialoguendDialectic,rans.P.C.Smith, -20.NewHaven.Gonzalez,.1995. Plato's ysis:n nactmentf hilosophicalinship:'AncPhil5:69-90.

257


25/26

DavidWolfsdorfGuthrie,W.K.C.1975.AHistoryfGreekhilosophy.vols.Cambridge.Haden,J. 983. FriendshipnPlato'sLysis." evMetaph7:327-356.Irwin, .1977.Plato'sMoral heory.xford.Krimer,.1959.AreteeiPlaton ndAristoteles.eidelberg.McTighe, .1984. Socrates ntheDesirefor heGood ndthe nvolun-tariness fWrongdoing:orgias66a-468e." hronesis9:193-236.Morris, .F.1986. Plato'sLysis."hilResArch1:269-279.Pangle,L.S. 2001."FriendshipndHumanNeediness nPlato'sLysis."AncPhil1:305-323.Penner, . 1991. Desire ndPower nSocrates:TheArgumentfGorgias466A-468E hatOratorsnd TyrantsHave NoPower ntheCity."Apeiron4:147-202.Penner,T., and C.J.Rowe. 1994. "The Desire forGood: Is theMenoInconsistent ithGorgias?"hronesis9:1-25.Reshotko, .1993. TheSocratic heory fMotivation." peiron5:145-170. 1997. Plato'sLysis: Socratic reatise nDesire ndAttraction."Apeiron0:1-18.Robinson,D. B. 1986."Plato'sLysis:The Structural roblem."llinoisClassicaltudies1:63-86.Roth,M. D. 1995."DidPlatoNod? Some Conjectureson Egoism ndFriendshipntheLysis."GPh7:1-20Samb,D. 1991. Lasignificationu protonphilon'dans e Lysis.'" evue

philosophiqueranqaiset trangere2:513-516.Segvic,H. 2000. "No One ErrsWillingly:The Meaning of SocraticIntellectualism."xfordtudiesnAncienthilosophy9:1-45.Tessitore,A. 1990. "Plato's Lysis:An Introduction o PhilosophicalFriendship."outh]Phil8:115-132.Tindale,C.W. 1984."Plato'sLysis:AReconsideration." peiron7:102-109.Versenyi, . 1975. Plato'sLysis."hronesis0:1-17.Vlastos,G.1981.Platonictudies.rinceton. nded.Princeton, J.

258


26/26

lALa inPlato's ysis 259- 1991. ocratesronistndMoral hilosopher.thaca,NY.Wolfsdorf,. 1997.AporianPlato's harmides,aches,ndLysis.Univer-

sity fChicagodissertation.hicago.. 2004."Interpreting lato's EarlyDialogues."Oxfordtudies nAncienthilosophy7:15-40.- 2006a. "Desire for the Good in Meno 77b2-78b6." ClassicalQuarterly6:77-92.--. 2006b."The RidiculousnessofBeingOvercome yPleasure:Protagoras52b1-358d4."OxfordtudiesnAncienthilosophy1:

113-136.0- 2007 (forthcoming). rials fReason: lato ndtheCraftingfPhilosophy.ewYork.- 2008 (forthcoming).Rhetoric's nadequate Means: Gorgias466a4-468e5'" lassical hilology.

Documents

lisis platón