Technè dans les Dialogues de Platon: l’empreinte de la sophistique 978-3896651549

Citation preview

International Plato Studies Published under the auspices of the International Plato Society

Series Editors: Luc Brisson (Paris), Tomas Calvo (Madrid), Livio Rossetti (Perugia), Christopher J. Rowe (Dt1rham), Thornas A. Szlezak (Tlibingen)

'

TEC E DANS LES DIALOGUES DEPLATON L' empreinte de la sophistique

Volume 14

Avec une Introduction de Luc Brisson en langue anglaise

par

ANNE BALANSARD

Academia Verlag

A

Sankt Augustin

Illustration on the cover by courtesy of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS. Ashmole 304, fol. 31 v.

Table des matieres AVANT-PROPOS................................................................................... IX

Die Deutsche Biblibtl1ek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme

Balansard, Anne: Techne dans les Dialogues de Platon : l'empreinte de la sophistique I Anne Balansard. International Plato Society. Sankt Augustin: Academia-Ver!., 2001 (International Plato studies; Vol. 14) ISBN 3-89665-154-4

1. Aut1age 2001 '

© Academia Verlag Postfach 16 63, D-53734 Sankt Augl1stin Printed in Gerrnany Alle Rechte vorbehalten Ohne schriftliche Geneh1nigung des Verlages ist es nicht gestattet, das Werk unter Verwendung mechaniscl1er, elektronischer und anderer Systeme in irgendeiner Weise zu verarbeiten und zu verbreiten. In_sbesondere vorbehalt_en sind die Rechte der Vervielfaltigung - auch von Te1len des Werkes - auf pl1otomechanischem oder ahnlichem Wege, der tontechnischen Wiedergabe, des Vor­ trags, der Funk- und Fernsehsendung, der Speicherung in Datenverarbeitungsanlagen, der Ubersetzung und der literarischen und anderweitigen Bearbeitung. Herstellung: Richarz Publikations-Service G1nbH, Sankt Augustin

PREFACE DE LUC BRISSON : Tekhne is not productive Craft..................

XI

,

ABREVIATlONS . . . . . . . . ........... ..... ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XV

1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................. 1 2. LE CHAMP LEXICAL DE TECHNE.... ............ ................... ............. . .. 13 ·2. 1. Famille et champ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .·. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 1. 1 . Techne : l'etymologie du mot ................ ..... ... ... ..................... 2. 1. 2. La famille de techne ............................................................. 2. 1. 3. Le champ lexical de techne ........................... ,... ........ .... .........

17 17 20 26

2. 2. Les derives en -1Kos dans le champ lexical de techne .... . .. ....... ..... ...... . . 2. 2. 1. Les derives en -1Kos dans le champ lexical de techne: description . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 2. 2. Developpement et f onction du suffixe -1Kos ........ ................... .. 2. 2. 3. Faut-il sous-entendre TEXVTI avec les derives en -lKT) ? . ... . ......... ..

31 31 38 40

•

'

3 . TECIINE ET TECHNIQUE . ..... .......... .......... ..... ... .............. . ..... .. ....... . 46 3 . 1. Techne : "Ensemble de procedes bien definis et transmissibles, • • , 'l ,, l des fznes • ; a' produire • certa111S resu tats 1uges uti es ?. ...................................... 3. 1. 1. La techne peut-elle etre identifiee par 1'objet qu'elle produit?... ........... .. l)Techne et ergon dans les . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dialogues . . . . . ' • ') 2)L OM ' math,emat1que est-e11 e une poiesis ........................... r,rat1on 3)L'ergon constitue-t-il l'objet propre d'une techne ?...... ................. . " ?.......................................... . ergon par " produ1t 4)Faut-I·1 tra du1re ?. ................................... .3. 1. 2. L'agent d' une tec,uie z.-:. est-I·1 un d'emzourgos · 1) Demiourgos dans les Dialogues ....... .............. ............... ... ...... .. 2)Fonction po·ietique du demiourgos dans la cite . ..... ..... ................. 3)Poiein et demiourgein dans les divisions du Sophiste .............. .... . ' . ' ' 4)Le mimetes est-I·1 un demiourgos ?........................................... . II

I

51 51 51 56 59 65 70 71 75 79 83 V

-

3. 1 . 3 . Techne demiurgique et techne sophistique ... ... ...... ... .. ... ...... . .... ..... . 86 1) Une opposition ancienne entre vie liberale et travail manuel .. . .... .. 87 2) Sophistique et techne, sophiste et demiourgos............................. 89 3. 2 . Techne: "Ensemble de procedes bien definis et transmissibles, . . . 11 ? es . ...................................... 95 JUgt;s u 1 ,. ltats . ..( t"l tal. resu ns , a, pr00u1re cer dest1nes 3. 2. 1 . Techne et episteme ... ........ ....... .............. . ............. . ......... .... ....... 95 1) Ce qui se dit dans la langue ... .......... ...................... ................. 96 2) Ce qui se dit apropos de la langue . .. . ... . .. .... ................... . . .... ... 105 3. 2. 2. Techne et theia moira............................................................... 117 1) L'opposition de la techne et de la theia moira dans les Dialogues .. ......... ........... . .............. . ........................... . ............ 119 2) Les ambigu·ites de la poesie dans les Diawgues ......................... 123 3) Manike - manlike techne .. ... ... .... ..... ...................................... 131 3. 2. 3 . Techne et empeiria ...... .... .. . . ..... ...... ..... .......... ................ ......... . 139 1) L'opposition de la techne et de l'empeiria dans les Diawgues ...... .. 140 2) L'opposition de la techne et de l'empeiria est-elle une opposition de la methode au savoir-faire?............... .... ....... ... . . ..... 146 3) Et si !'opposition ne visait que la rhetorique .............................. 153 4. L'ARETE EST-ELLE UNE TECHNE POUR SOCRATE ?..................... 160 4. 1. Socrate et les artisans ................................................................... 4 . 1 . 1 . Apologie 20c4-23c1 : l'enquete de Socrate .............................. 4. 1. 2. Le recit de Socrate releve-t-il de l'(auto-)biographie?.................. · 4. 1. 3. Socrate: personnage historique, personnage des Dialogues .........

165 167 172 176

4. 2. Que le philosophe ne craint pas le ridicule........................................ . 4. 2. 1. Le registre de la fable .......................................................... 4. 2. 2. Socrate et Parmenide ........................................................... 4. 2. 3. L'epreuve du ridicule ...........................................................

179 179 185 191

4. 3. La seconde objection de Critias, dans. le Charmide, recouvre-t-elle . . .. une cnt1que platon1c1enne de l''ethique socrat1que ?........................................ 4. 3. 1. Le personnage de Critias peut-il etre le "porte-parole" de Platon?....................................................................................... · .. 4. 3. 2. Et si l'objection traduisait les prejuges aristocratiques de . Cr1t1as . ?......................................................................................... . 4. 3. 3. L'utilitarisme 11 socratique 11 du Charmide differe-t-il re . . . . ti ti 1 , blique ?. ....................................... p1aton1c1en de 1a R epu · · 1 ut1• 11tar1sme

VI

196 197 203

4. 4. Le travail de l'elenchos ... .. ..... .... ..... ...... ............ ... ... .... .......... . . ... ... 4. 4. 1. Le travail de l 'elenchos dans le dialogue du Gorgias ... . . ..... ......... 4. 4. 2. L'intellectualisme socratique: doctrine des moyens ou savoir de la fin?.......... .. ..... ....... . .......... ..... ...... . .... ..... ............. ... .. .. ... ..... ... 4. 4. 3 . Techne : un concept dialogique, un concept dialectique ..............

217 218 225 228

5 . TECHNE, SOPHISTIQUE ET POLITIQUE.......................................... 234 5 . 1 . Techne sophistique et techne politique ............................................. 5. 1. 1. Sophistique et politique dans les premiers dialogues ....................... 1) L'arete comme objet de la techne sophistique ......... .... ........ ..... .. 2) Le politique comme enjeu de l'elenchos dans les premiers dialogues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 5. 1. 2. Du Sophiste au Politique .................................... ... ............... .... 1) Du Sophiste au Politique : continuite et rupture ....................... 2) Le sophiste est un imitateur ........ ................ .. . ......... ..... .... . .... 3) ...un imitateur du politique .................................................... 4) Poesie et sophistique: deux imitations du politique ................... 5. 1. 3. Critique de la sophistique, critique de la democratie?........... ........... 1) Sophiste et tyran .................................. .'..................... ......... 2) Le rang de la democratie dans la Republique et le Politique ..........

243 249 251 253 256 262 267 270 274

5 . 2. T�chne naturelle et phusis technique ... .... . .............. . ..... ......... . ... .... . .. 5. 2. 1. A l'origine de la cite ................................................................ 1) Repartition des taches et fondation de la cite ............................. 2) Une polis sans politique ....... .. ................... ...................... . ... . 3) Techne et phusis ........ .... ........... . .... . .................... . ............... 5. 2. 2. A l 'origine du monde ...................................................,.... . .. ..... 1) Causes et causes auxiliaires dans l'expose de Timee .................... 2) Poiesis divine et poiesis sophistique .......................................

279 279 279 284 291 295 298 304

237 237 237

6. CONCLUSION.................................................................................. 314 ANNEXE l Hyponymie et divisions dichotomiques dans le Sophiste et le Politique ........... 319

207

VII

ANNEXE2 Tableau des norns d'activite et norns d'agent dans les Dialogues...................... 322 1) Les conventions de presentation adoptees ................................. 328 2) Tableau des norns d'activite et norns d'agent dans les Dialogues..... .. .. ...... ... .. .. ...... .... ... ..... . .... . ..... . ... ..... .... . .. ...... . . . . . . 324 ANNEXE3 Distribution des mots techne et demiourgos et repertoire des rnots­ hyponyrnes de demiourgos dans le corpus des dialogues authentiques............... 404 1) Distribution des mots techne et demiourgos.............................. 404 2) Repertoire des rnots-hyponyrnes de demiourgos......................... 404 BIBLI OGRAPHIE......... . .... . . ... .. .. .. .... . . .. ... .. . .. ... .... ..... . . ... .... . ... ... .. . . ... . .. .. 4.()8 INDEX DES NOTIONS COMMUNES . ... . ... ....... . .... ... .. ...... ... ..... .. .. ..... . . .. 425 INDEX DES PASSAGES DE PLATON CITES ........................................ 427

VIII

Avant-Propos Ce qui forme rnaintenant un ouvrage est une version remaniee du Doctorat que j'ai presente, en decembre 1997, a l'Universite Paris X - Nanterre. Je souhaite rernercier tous ceux qui ont perm.is que ce travail aboutisse. Suzanne Said a assure la direction de mon Doctorat avec son exigence et son alacrite. Cette direction s'est prolongee, apres la soutenance, par la lecture critique du rnanuscrit de cet ouvrage. J'espere qu'il en porte la marque. Didier Pralon m'a fait part de ses appreciations dans un dialogue toujours ouvert. Avec sa femme, Dolores, ils rn'ont apporte soutien et encouragement. Luc Brisson m'a ternoigne sa confiance depuis la genese de ce projet; il n'a jamais epargne un temps que je lui sais precieux pour affiner ma lecture du texte platonicien. Je voudrais que cet ouvrage ne de�oive pas la patience de ses analyses. Laurent et Marie ont leur part dans l'aboutissernent de ce travail : leur empreinte est indicible.

IX

Preface de Luc Brisson Tekhne is not productive Craft. Our understanding of tekhne as productive craft in Plato's Dialogues has been determined by our current preoccupations with technology, defined as a process or set of methodical procedures used for the production of an object or the achievement of a result. Two types of interpretation have utilized this conception of tekhne in order critically to approach Plato's Dialogues: some from the point of view of moral philosophy, and others from that of social and economic history. The interpretations which are currently most influential - that of Irwin 1 , for example - are based on the conviction that tekhne is a productive craft. They also claim that Socrates uses tekhne , understood in this sense, as a model in order to think about arete. Arete - that is to say, excellence in general, and virtue in particular - guarantees the moral agent the success of his action, just as the possession of tekhne ensures the artisan success in the accomplishment of his task. The difference between the two is the following: whereas the artisan applies his knowledge to the realization of an object (such as shoes, for instance), or the production of a precise effect (such as a musical tune), the moral agent applies tekhne to the realization of his happiness. Socrates' ethics, which is compared to hedonism by those who associate happiness with pleasue, can in any case be charged with instrumentalism. In any case, the concept of tekhne in Plato's first dialogues is perceived by all these authors as a Socratic development to which Plato subsequently reacts. Jean-Pierre Vemant2, who develops an analysis of Marxist inspiration, bases himself on the famous distinction between abstract work, which creates products for the market, and concrete work, which creates products which satisfy real needs. Considered in this way, work is limited to the field of trade. In this context, tekhne is also defined as a set of procedures intended to produce certain results ,vhich are judged useful, whether these be objects or effects. In its form as trade, work etablishes a personal link of dependence, or relation of service, between the producer and consumer of a product. Thus, this kind of work is alienated in its value. It is reduced to the service of others, and is akin to slavery. Such a conception of tekhne can, moreover, explain the contempt attached to the status of the artisan in ancient Greece, and the absence of major technical innovation in Antiquity. 1

Irwin, Terence, Plato's Moral Theory, The Early and Middle Dialogues. Oxford, Oxford. Univ. Press, 1972; Plato's Ethics, Oxford, Oxford. Univ. Press, 1996. 2 o S me articles in Mythe et pensee chez les Grecs [first published in 1965], Paris, La Decouverte, 1996.

Anne Balansard begins by reacting against these interpretations, showing the gap which exists between the usual definition of tekhne as productive craft, and the extension of the term in the Dialogues. In order to do this, she carries out a semantic investigation which constitutes a preliminary to her philosophical inquiry. This semantic inquiry is made up of two stages : Balansard first rejects the synonymy which is usually admitted between the terms tekhne and episteme, for the equivalence which has been pointed out in certain cases between tekhne and episteme cannot be generalized. She also obliges us to do away with the definition of tekhne as manual trade, because the demiourgoi are not the only ones who possess a tekhne. Balansard then tries to explain why it is so easy to accept the understanding of tekhne as a set of methodical procedures which aim at the achievement of an object or a result. The answer lies in our presuppositions; but it is the legitimacy of these presuppositions which Balansard wishes to question.

Tekhne is not always a rational process The opposition between tekhne and theia moira, on the one hand, and between tekhne and empeiria, on the other, is instructive with regard to the alleged connection between tekhne and rationality. a) In the Ion and the Ph.aedrus, Plato makes poetry depend on a divine favour (theia moira). Henceforth, poetry is no longer considered as a rational activity which utilizes definite rules: "Indeed, all poets (pantes poietai) - I mean the good ones (hoi agathoi), who are the authors of epic verse (ton epon) - are not such by virtue of competence (tekhne ), but because they are under the influence of a god (entheoi), and are possessed (katekhomenoi) by him, that they recite all these beautiful poems (ta kala poiemata)" (Ion, 533e). In the Ph.aedru.fi, this possession is presented as madness (mania) dispensed by the Muses: "But he who, without having been seized by that madness dispensed by the Muses (mania Mouson), arrives at poetry's door in the belief that, in the last analysis, competence will be enough (ek tekhne hikanos) to make a poet out of him: he is a failed poet (ateles). In the same way, the poetry of men of good sense fades before the poetry of the mad" (Phaedrus, 245a). Later in the same dialogue, however, poetry is presented as a genuine tekhne (Ph.aedrus 268d269a). Contrary to all expectation, this tekhne does not involve a set of rules capable of being taught; it denotes the transcendence of a norm by means of divine intervention. Poetry cannot be reduced to the mechanical application of definite procedures, for it is a madness \vhich depends on divine favour. To some extent, the same is true of divination (mantike), which is characterized as "the most beautiful of the tekhnai" . b) Moreover, the opposition routine (empeiria)/competence (tekhne ), which plays an important role in the Gorgias, is only applied to the field of rhetoric, where it has to do not with the application of rules, but with the presence or absence of a

XII

definition of the goal of rhetoric - persuasion - in virtue of the nature of the soul. Thus, the opposition ernpeiria/tekhne seems to have only a polemical function : to refuse the status of tekhne, considered as genuine competence, to rhetoric, which demands such status. In the light of these considerations, it is interesting to note that, instead of considering what is polemical about these oppositions, and inserting them within a dialogue in which it denounces an individual's pretension to a particular item of knowledge, the modem interpreter reifies them into essential elements, which enable a definition.

The result of tekhne is not always a product Let us first take the example of calculation (logistike), \Vhich is considered as a tekhne in the first dialogues (e.g., in the Charmuies, 165e-166a; and the Euthydemus, 290c). In order to maintain an equivalence between tekhne and poiesis here, we must make calculation into a deductive method which proceeds by stages and produces a result. Yet the passage cited from the Euthydemus presents matters in a very different way. Two types of tekhnai are considered : those related to production and those related to hunt. Among experts at hunting, we must count the general, who hunts men, as well as geometers (geometrai), astronomers (astronomoi), and calculators (logistikoi): "for they too are hunters; for none of them produces figures, but they discover those which exist (alla ta onta aneuriskousin)" (Euthydemus 290cl-3). In mathematics, the result is thus neither an invention nor a production of the human spirit, but a discovery. The circle and its properties, just as the odd and the even, exist outside the mind, which can only unveil their properties, or "re-cognize" them. In this sense, the image of the hunt contributes all the precision necessary. T.he hunter does not produce the rabbit or the deer, but pursues, captures, or kills them. We may note that this· passage of the Euthydemus is in perfect agreement with several passages from the Sophist. . Moreover, there is often confusion between the ergon of a tekhnf - that is, what 1t realizes, or its utility - and the object of a tekhne: what it knows, or its area of competence. For instance, medicine knows what is good for the body, and it prO?uces health. But the notion of ergon turns out to be highly complex� it designates both work and the object and result of work. As a result, the Aristotelian opposition between poesis and praxis, or external finality and internal finality, is annulled by this notion of ergon.

The agent of a tekhne is not always a producer. Anne Balansard shows that, although the notion of production (poiesis) structures the semantic field of the demiourgos, it cannot be deduced that every

XIII

possessor of tekhne is a demi ourg os. The example of the sophist is illuminating in this regard. There is one unique concept, with two indissociable aspects: activity (tekhne) and its agent (the demiourgos); yet the sophist lays claim only to tekhne, by virtue of the aristocratic opposition between manual work and liberal activity. The sophist claims to possess a tekhne, but he never presents himself as a

demiourgos.

This return to the presuppositions which guide this analysis of tekhne is not without an effect on the Socrates' conception of virtue. The hypothesis according to which tekhne is a foundational concept of Socratic ethics is based on a common, but confused image of Socrates. Socrates frequents the artisans, and takes them as examples; and yet he does not enter into discussion with the artisans, but with aristocrats, sophists, and powerful men. If he talks about artisans, it is because he is borrowing the language of fable, because, for him, the risk is to take seriously that which is not serious. Socrates confronts the pretentious ,vith his apparently futile examples; in particular, the sophists must be confronted with the demiourgoi, to whom they are akin, but with whom they refuse to be identified. Tekhne must therefore be brought back to its sophistic anchorage-point. The sophists claim to be able to transmit a tekhne which has areti as its object. In this sense, tekhne is the instrument of political power. Socrates, however, does not make tekhne the paradigm of areti; instead he identifies with the word of the sophist, who claims to teach areti in order better to refute it, not only in the first dialogues, but also in such late dialogues as the Sophist and the Statesman. We could say of the concept of tekhne that it is a dialogical and dialectic concept, for the Socratic elegkhos is a refutation of the sophist's political pretensions. Ironically, the sophist is excluded from politics by definition, for he only imitates knowledge

(episteme).

We can even extend these conclusions to the universe. By hypothesizing a divine demit1rgy, Plato robs the sophistic opposition between tekhne and physis of its sense. For physis is the work of a demiurge. Consequently, tekhne is no longer what distinguishes man from nature, but that which marks man's intimacy with nature, as well as their unbreakable solidaritv. ., Politics can therefore become normative once again. True politics is that which conforms to the divine order, understood as the manifestation of supreme Intelligence which organizes and governs the universe. Such is the message of Plato's last dialogues. A classicist by profession, Anne Balansard bases her conclusions on an attentive reading of the Greek text - she has taken the trouble to verify the accuracy of each translation she cites - and on a confident use of technical linguistic tools, which she handles with skill and caution. By writing this Preface, I hope to contribute to making this work known. Luc Brisson CNRS-Paris

XIV

Abreviations Liste des dialogues tenus pour authentiques Chronologie de reference Editions et traductions adoptees Abreviations Le� abre �iations �o�t empruntees a E. des Places, Lexique de la langue philosophique et religieuse de Platon, Paris, Belles-Lettres, 1964, 2.

A. Ap. B. Ch. Cl. Cr. Cra. Criti. Ep. Euph. Euth. G. H.M. H.m. I. L.

= Premier Alcibiade. = Apolo gie de Socrate. =Banquet. = Charmide. = Clito phon. = Criton. = Cratyle. = Critias. = Epino mis. = Euthyphron. = Euthydeme. = Gorgias. = Hi ppias Majeur. = Hippias mineur. = Ion. = Lo is.

La. Le. Ly. M. Mx. Pa. Pd. Ph. Phr. Po. Pr. R. So. Thg. 1'h.t. T.

= Laches. = Lettres. = Lysi s. =Menon =Menexene. = Parmenide. = Phidon. = Ph.ilebe. = Phedre. = Politique. = Protagoras. = Republique. = So phiste. = 1'hiages� = Th""' eetete. ,. : = rzmee .

Liste des dialogues tenus pour authentiques Les dialagues �ue je tiens pour authentiques sont les suivants: . Ap ologie

de Socr�te, B:"1q_uet, Charmide, Cratyle, Critias, Criton, Euthydeme, Eu!hyp�ron, O,.orgzas, Hzppias Mineur, Hippias Majeur, Ion, Laches, Lois, Lysis, ��ne.x�ne, Meno�., Parrnf,.nfde, Phidon, Phedre, Philebe, Politique, Protagoras, epublique, So phzste, Theetete, Timee.

Chronologie de reference Il .n'y a pas une chrono1og1e · des dialo . gues de Platon. La chronologie a laquelle je , fais reference est cel�e qu'e blit G. Vlastos, a partir de celle de L. Brandwood, dans � . S aerate, lronze et philosophie morale, Paris, Aubier, 1994, 712.

Groupe I. Les dialogues de la premiere periode de Platon : (a) Les dialogues refutatifs, par ordre alphabetique: Apologie de Socrate, Charmwe, Criton, Euthyphron, Gorgias, Hippias Mineur, Ion, I.aches, Protagoras, La Republique I. (b) Les dialogues de transition, par ordre alphabetique: Euthydeme, Hippias Majeur, Lysis, Menexene, Menon. Groupe II. Les dialogues de la periode intermedi aire de Platon, par ordre chronologique probable: Cratyle, Phidon, Le Banquet, I.a Republique 11-X, Phedre, Parmenide, Theetete. Groupe III. Les dialogues de la derniere periode de Platon, par ordre chronologique probable : Timee, Critias, Le Sophiste, Le Politique, Philebe, Les Lois.

,,

Editions et traductions adoptees

Le. Ly. M. m1se Mx. Pa. Pd. Ph. Phr. Po . Pr. R. So . Thg. Tht. T.

= L. Brisson, Paris, GF-Flammarion, 1994.

= L. Robin, Paris, Gallimard, La Pleiade, 1950. = M. Canto-Sperber, Paris, GF-Flammarion, 1991, 2e edition corrigee et a jour, 1993. = L. Robin, Paris, Gallimard, La Plei ade, 1950. = L. Brisson, Paris, GF-Flammarion, 1994. = M. Dixsaut, Paris, GF-Flamm arion, 1991. = L. Robin, Paris, Gallimard, La Pleiade, 1950. = L. Brisson, Paris, GF-Flammarion, 1989. = L. Robin, Paris, Gallimard, La Pleiade, 1950. = L. Robin, Paris, Gallimard, La Pleiade, 1950. = L. Robin, Paris, Gallimard, La Pleiade, 1950. = L. Robin, Paris, Gallimard, La Pleiade, 1950. = L. Robin, Paris, Gallimard, La Pleiade, 1950. = M. Narcy, Paris, GF-Aa mmarion, 1994. = L. Brisson, Paris, GF-Flamm arion, 1992.

Le texte grec est cite a partir de l'edition de J. Burnet, Platonis Opera, 5 vol., Oxford, 1900-1907. Pour les deux premieres tetralogies, des corrections ont pu etre faites a partir de l'edition recente de E. A Duke et alii, Platonis Opera, vol. 1, Oxford, 1995. La liste suivante presente l a traduction adoptee pour ch acun des dialog u es. D ans le co urs d u texte, une note signale chaque fois qu' u ne autre traduction est preferee, ou qu'une de ces traductions est modifiee.

A. Ap. B. Ch. Cl. Cr. Cra. Criti. Ep. Euph. Euth. G. H.M. H.m. I. L. La. XVI

= L. Robin, Paris, Gallimard, La Pleiade, 1950. = L. Brisson, Paris, GF-Flammarion, 1997. = L. Robin, Paris, Gallim ard, La Pleiade, 1950. = L. Robin, Paris, Gallimard, La Pleiade, 1950. = L. Robin, Paris, Gallimard, La Pleiade, 1950. = L. Brisson, Paris, GF-Flammarion, 1997. = L. Robin, Paris, Gallimard, La Pleiade, 1950. = L. Brisson, Paris, GF-Flammarion, 1992. = L. Robin, Paris, G allimard, La Pleiade, 1950. = L. Robin, Paris, Gallimard, La Plei ade, 1950. = M. C anto, Paris, GF-Fla mmarion, 1989. = M. Canto, Paris, GF-Flammarion, 1987, edition mise a jour en 1993. = L. Robin, Paris, Gallim ard, La Pleiade, 1950. = L. Robin, Paris, Gallimard, La Pleiade, 1950. = M. Canto, Paris, GF-Flammarion, 1989. = L. Robin, Paris, Gallimard, La Pleiade, 1950. = L. Robin, Paris, Gallimard, La Pleiade, 1950.

XVII

1. Introduction Le projet d'etudier la notion de techne dans les Dialogues de Platon est ne d'un travail prealable sur le dialogue du Timee. Ce dialogue se presente comme un objet singulier, insolite, car le modele artificialiste auquel recourt }'expose de Timee est un modele mineur dans Ia pensee grecque. S'il existe de nombreux mythes cosmogoniques, tous decrivent l'origine sous le mode de l 'engendrement et non de la fabrication. C'est le cas de la Theogonie d Hesiode ou le monde s'explique comme une serie d'accouplements et de naissances. Qui plus est, la reflexion du mythe cosmogonique sur l'origine est une reflexion sur le principe du monde, non son commenceme.nt. S'il y a description d'une genese, cette derniere n'est pas historique. Platon, avec le Timee, s'inscrit en faux contre cette tradition: il met en scene une divinite dont l'activite est essentiellement de type artisanal, et suppose une origine temporelle du monde en decrivant la creation . du temps a }'image de l'eternite. L'ecart est egalement sensible a considerer la genese de l'homme. Les mythes pour penser l'origine de l'homme sont pluriels. Neanmoins, et pour reprendre N. Loraux 1, les traditions s'accordent sur un point: l'homme provient de la terre, qu'il soit modele a partir d'elle, ou qu'il en surgisse comme un vegetal. Ces dernieres traditions sont les plus courantes. C'est tantot un homme, -comme Erechtee, ne de la Terre fecondee par la semence d'Hepha'istos poursuivant Athena2 - tantot l'humanite, -comme les hommes de pierre, sortis de la terre ensemencee par les pierres que jettent Deucalion et Pyrrha3 - , qui na1t du sol. Ces traditions rencontrent des echos dans !'oeuvre meme des Dialogues. Dans le Menexene, l'autochtonie des Atheniens est un theme oblige de l'oraison funebre4. Dans le mythe du Politiq1,e, 1

'

1

Loraux 1981, 197-202. 2 Loraux 1990, 35-73. 3 Pindare,Olympiques, IX, 40-57; Ovide, Metamorphoses, 253 ff.� Heroides, 15, 157. 4 1'4x.237b2-c4 : "- I:Q. [... ] 'Tl)S' 6' EUYEVEtaS' npw-rov unfjpf,E 'TOlOOE rt 'fWV

npoy6vwv ')'E VEOlS' OUK ETTT)A'US' ouoa, OUOE 'fOUS' EKyovous 'TOU'fO'U S' anoq>l)vaµEV1) µE'TOlKOUV'TaS EV 'f'Q xwpq: aAA08E V W V �KOV'TWV, ar,A' a·tJroxBoi, a':,- Kat T4) OV'Tl EV naTplOl 01-KOU V'Tas Kat (;wv'TaS', Kal 'TpEq>OµEVOUS' 0 oux lJTTO µrrrputa S' CDS' ol (lAA.Ol, 0.A./1. UTTO µ11Tpos TT)S' xwpas- EV ,:i 4)KOUV, Kal vuv KEto0at 'TEAEU'Tl)l1q11e et le Craiyle de la definition instnunentale de l'ar tisan22. Ces textcs, rapproches de textes d'Anslote, pe rmcttent .1. -P . Ver nanl d'cnon�-er la "theorie genera le de l'acliVite demiurgique' que prcsente la reflexi on philosophiqu e, -la re11exion philos ophiquc s'avenu1t une "t ransposition" du plan de l'economie-: . "Dans to ute prod'1c1ion dCmiurgique, l 'ai1isan c st cause motn ce. 11 opere su� un matcriau -ca use matcrielle- pou r lui d onnel' une t. onne -cause fo rmclle- qrn est cclle d e J 'ouvrage ach cve. Cel le fonne constit11e en m�me temps la fin de t ?utc operation -cause f inale-. C'est ellc qui commallde ! 'ensemble de l'acL1v1te

1ec/111e

cst

a

20

Venumt 1988. 288: "Le mCticr suppose. chez ccloi qui l'ex�rce, tu�e . o \lvtqJ).� . pm1kuliCrc, cbez cclui qui en ulilise le produit unc XPlÀOTî}TOS" ÈyEyovEt � KapTEpOÛVT0:. 11 (Ia.193b9-10); - "l:Q. [. ..] Kal TTCiÀlV ÈK TWV OVOµaTWV Kat priµaTWV µÉya riori Tl Ka't KaÀOV Kat OÀOV O\J