Following Schleiermacher, who was unable to account for several oddities in the dialogue, some scholars consider the Hipparchus a spurious Platonic work. This essay, by means of a dramatic re-enactment of the dialogue, accounts for those oddities. It demonstrates that the comrade is a recent immigrant to Athens who, having been deceived by a moneychanger in the agora, accuses ‘lovers of gain’ of being ‘profiteers’. Socrates exposes the comrade as fearful of risk-taking and then defends the reputation of Hipparchus, the (...) Athenian King who encouraged commercial development. By further correcting the democratic account of his assassination, Socrates exposes the comrade’s envy, which hides his own profiteering ambitions. The discussion points to a series of dualities regarding commerce and philosophy, including both the generating and non-generating qualities of the philosophic life. It also reveals the rural origins of Socrates’ ‘new’ accusers, and the notion of justice held by them. (shrink)

Literature devoted to analyses of Plato’s Protagoras focus on topics such as Protagoras’ hedonism, the unity of virtue, akrasia, and the distinction between philosophy and sophistry. They pass over the fact that the political atmosphere in Athens and the character of the comrade together compel Socrates to be cautious about what he repeats. The dialogue with Hippocrates allows him to claim that he met with and dethroned Protagoras, not of his own choosing, but as a result of chance. The essay (...) also argues that the Protagoras exposes Socrates’ own inclination towards Hedonism. If Socrates didn’t know this before he met with Protagoras this time, it would be impossible for Socrates not to see it through his encounter and victory over the Sophist. This discovery may be the most profound dimension of Socratic irony. (shrink)