Plato's impact on European political thought is not easy to describe. Plato's metaphysics was influential on Christian thinking almost from the beginning, especially by way of his Timaeus; but when the cultural renaissance of the twelfth century reinvigorated classical scholarship in western Europe, it was Aristotle''s Politics rather than Plato's Republic that scholars turned to for political illumination. The revival of interest in Plato during the Renaissance was a revival of interest in his metaphysics; although Republic was translated into Latin, and could now be read in Greek by a substantial number of scholars, it was the metaphysical dialogues that were important. Quite when Republic acquired its present dominant status is hard to say; in part it seems to have been an artifact of the Victorian obsession with educing young men for public life. Ever since, many commentators have thought of Republic as a treatise on education...Alan Ryan (2012) On Politics, 32-3.
Ryan calls attention to the right question -- when and why did Republic acquire its present dominant status? -- and offers a plausible answer {in the 19th century}, but because he does not know where to look he also makes some obvious mistakes here. Before I get to that; Ryan understands his own book "not [as] a textbook so much as a context and a pretext book, concerned with settings and motives as well as the works themselves." (xxv) In that genre it is, I think, very successful. Ryan writes well and is able to convey judicious (almost too judicious) judgments with clear and economic prose.
I have already noted [recall] that Ryan mentions some of the leading Islamic philosophers in chapter 6, "Between Augustine and Aquinas." I have noted that he treats the Islamic philosophers as metaphysicians and contrasts them with the (somewhat later) Ibn Khaldun, who is considered as the first Islamic political theorist. So, this means that Ryan makes no mention of Al-Farabi's Political Regime [recall, for example, here], Ibn Tufayl's Hayy Ibn Yaqzan [recall, for example, here], and Ibn Rushd's Commentary on Plato's Republic [recall, for example, here]--all three some of my favorite blogging topics.(And that this has peculiar consequences on his treatment of platonic feminism including the absence of (recall) De Gournay.) Now, I mention these three particular texts because the first and third are direct and fairly explicit engagements with Plato's Republic, and Ibn Tuyfayl's philosophical novel is much less puzzling if it is seen as such. To say this is not to deny other influences on their writings.
Now, there are five issues lurking here: first, Plato's impact on Islamic political thought (quite interesting in its own right) is effaced here. Second, some of that takes place on the European continent so their contribution to European thought as such is effaced--these days that's a very political move (recall). Third, it is now left unasked what the influence of Islamic political thought on later streams of European thought might of have been. I have not studied this, but there are important links with Dante (see here for example--it is especially important for the history of toleration) and Spinoza (in whose circle Ibn Tuyfayl was translated into Dutch).
Fourth, because he treats Timaeus exclusively as a metaphysical work, which is peculiar because one need not be a Straussian to see that the very start is clearly a nod to a work resembling the Republic, he does not notice later that interest in Timaeus may well also sometimes signal political interest. Ibn Tufayl's work is an instance of this (work is mostly metaphysics, but there are also clear political themes), but so is (another of my blogging favorites!) Bacon's New Atlantis (recall for example here). Yes, the very end of it, s primarily about the organization of scientific research (and education), but the vast majority of that that (short) text is a clear response to both More's Utopia and Plato's Republic. Ryan mentions New Atlantis when he discusses Harrington's Oceana, but there to distinguish it from the more Machiavellian work by Harrington. The connection between metaphysics and politics is not contingent--it's intrinsic to what as once known as political theology. This is a topic he largely ignores and considers (to quote a bit unfairly out of context!) problematic. This absence goes largely unnoticed because Spinoza is irrelevant to the study he tells (one passing mention of Spinoza in context of Hegel), and Philo is unmentioned. [That political theology is also not discussed in context of Hobbes' philosophy is peculiar.)
Fifth, Ryan shows almost no interest in Bodin. He mentions The Six Bookes of a Commonweale as the source of the modern conception of the sovereign state. But he does not mention that the original title was Les Six Livres de la République, which gives at least more of a hint of the Platonic resonances. Bodin starts the book by disassociating himself from Plato: "Not that we intend to describe a purely ideal and unrealizable commonwealth, such as that imagined by Plato, or Thomas More the Chancellor of England. We intend to confine ourselves as far as possible to those political forms that are practicable." In this he echoes Machiavelli and anticipates the trope we also find in Spinoza, Hume, and Smith, who all (recall) three treat More's Utopia as a species of useless and inapplicable philosophy because it (purportedly) relies on, shall we say, wishful thinking about human nature (and social reality). But throughout the text Bodin returns explicitly and implicitly to Plato.
Now, Ryan is also aware (see p. 139) that Cicero was fully engaged with Plato's Republic, although he treats Cicero political theoretical works not as a full fleshed philosophy ["caring" about "foundations,"] but rather as contributions to statecraft. But, as far as I can tell, he makes no mention of early Stoic political theory, and so basically misses the enduring influence of Plato's Republic on Hellenic and Roman thought as well as its impact on Islamic political philosophy. I do not mean to suggests there were no gaps in the Republic's influence, but the real question is, perhaps,* why did Europe in the twelfth century show now interest in the Republic?
*Given that Ryan is not very reliable on the pre-modern history it's possible he is wrong here, too.
Nice post, thanks. An interesting question that needs further reflection is why the Republic was so far down in the pecking order of dialogues in late antiquity (the only major engagement with it is Proclus' essays on it, note that not even he wrote a proper commentary as with the Timaeus, Parmenides etc). One reason may just be its sheer length. Think about copying this out by hand, or reading the whole Republic in a handwritten copy - no easy feats. Could it be that the Islamic world engaged with it more actively simply because they were presented with a manageable text, i.e. a summary of it, rather than the full ten book version?
Posted by: Peter Adamson | 02/02/2018 at 05:30 PM