Meno, the Slave Boy and the Elenchos

Abstract

' White 1976, p.3, emphasis added; see also Grote 1875, pp. 291-296, Lutoslawski 1897, pp. 207-210, Robinson 1953, p. 19, Guthrie 1975, p. 241, Thomas, 1980, pp. 10-12, and Sharples 1985, p. 6. 2 See, for example, Shorey 1903, Burnet 1920, and Taylor 1951. The distinction between Socrates and which the view requires does not need to be a distinction between the historical Socrates and the historical Plato. A distinction between an earlier and later will do just as well. In my view these two ways of drawing the distinction amount essentially to the same thing, since I believe that the 'Socrates' of the early dialogues (in alphabetical order: Ap., Chrm., Cr., Euthd., Euthp., Gorg., H.Ma., H.Mi., Ion, La., Lys., Prot., and Rep. I) is representative of the historical Socrates and I accept Vlastos' 'grand methodological hypothesis' that Plato puts into the persona of Socrates only what at the time he himself considers true. (Vlastos 1988, p. 373 and n.39.) None of the subsequent argument, however, depends upon this. In placing the Meno chronologically after the above thirteen dialogues I follow Guthrie 1975 (except for Rep. I), Irwin 1977 (again, except for Rep. 1), Kahn 1981 (again, except for Rep. I), Vlastos 1983 and 1985, and a host of others. Some may balk at placing one or all of the Euthydemus Lysis, Hippias Major, and Republic I prior to the Meno. No part of the subsequent argument, however, depends essentially on their chronological position. 3 Bumet 1920 and Taylor 1951 do find more than one view in the dialogues, but the Platonic view does not get displayed until later dialogues like the Parmenides and Sophist. On their view the view displayed in the early Socratic dialogues is identical with the view displayed in such dialogues as the Phaedo, Republic, and most importantly for