by Guy Shaked - Dedicated to Jacques Derrida

Keywords: Dissemination, Jacques Derrida, Phaedrus, Pharmacy, Plato, Shaked

Derrida examines a passage of the Phaedrus [1]. In the passage the god Theuth offers King Thamus the gift of writing - as a medicine to wisdom and memory. The king rejects it as poison - that will bring false wisdom and no real memory [2].

The two possible readings of the same written word : 'pharmakon' (medicine or poison) in fact the confusion between the two is the subject of the text.

The dialogue in this passage exists simultaneously on three levels. On the first level, the speaker Thamus shows Theuth that if he where to receive his gift, the opposite of understanding might arise as a written rendition of his own word might lead to a false understanding of his intentions.
On the second level The author of the "oral" text speaks against the knowledge that the sophists represent - that of written philosophy. Plato who wrote down Socrates words is also working against Socrates's ideas, since the master did not believe in writing down his philosophy.
On the third level the reader (of the original text in Greek) is forced to use his reason - his "oral" logic in order to read and make sense of the text as he has to apply reason to interpret the word as medicine or poison in the proper logical place [3].

In telling a story of the ancient Egypt regarding written and oral language Plato is referring to the lost oral knowledge of the Hieroglyphics language. For even if it was considered to be religious symbols rather than a spoken language they represent then lost oral religious knowledge of what the signs mean.

This confusion between the word medicine or poison also exists in folk tradition. There is the story of the woman who mistakes poison to medicine and poisons her son [4] or the murderer of the doctor takes poison instead of medicine as he tries to show his professional excellence [5].

It is to this superficial kind of knowledge that the king in the passage points to. Since he speaks of reading as a cause of superficial understanding without oral understanding. This claim is further supported by the fact that the king indeed prefers the oral culture, and it is it that holds the solution to these passages.

Derrida's interpretation of the passage reveals that he knows the oral tales - since he points also to another similar story where there is confusion again on the same word - between magician and scapegoat (both written 'pharmakos'). This when translated to Latin was adapted so that the magician was transformed into a priest and the scapegoat into an donkey.

In the folktale the priest sings and sees an old woman weeping. He believes it is because she is touched by his singing. She says he remind her of her donkey (goat) which she lost [6]. This tale emanates from a play on words as magician (holy man in ancient culture - replaced in the Latin tale by a Christian holy man - a Priest "Sacerdotem") reminded the old woman of a scapegoat (both words for magician and scapegoat similar in Greek) or as she puts it: her goat that escaped. In the Latin tale goat was exchanged for donkey (Asinum) however the donkey was in Latin a term for scapegoat as was preserved in the proverb "qui asinum non petest, stratum caedit" [7].

There is another aspect to the myth. For in the myth, Thamus words seems at first to be correct, as Thamus said the Egyptians acceptance of the Hieroglyphs written language led to their losing (forgetting) their oral ancient language as well as the meaning of their written signs.

However, this myth which rings true in the Greek language where the written word "pahrmakon" has two distinct oral pronunciations and meanings, is lost, once it is comprehended that the dialogue between Thamus and Theuth took place in the lost ancient Egyptian language, where it is impossible to know if the Egyptian word for poison was written the same as the words for medicine.

So it appears that Plato is showing here that myths (Here a Greek myth) are actually superimposition of later ideas on an lost and therefore uncheckable past (Here the ancient Egyptian past). This conclusion is consistent with what has been said elsewhere about Plato's figure of Socrates - i.e. that he invents false new myths (stories of new gods) as it pleases[8].

The fact that the oral myth told in this writing is false negates Thamus's claim that oral language has an advantage over written language in that it encourages true wisdom and memory. For, as exemplified by the false myth here, oral myths that are transmitted from generation to generation could still be false because they are the invention of "flesh and bones" humans who can make intentional and unintentional mistakes when creating them, and also those who orally transmit them could transmit these mistakes as truth, for they might remain unnoticed

-----------------------------------------------

[1] Jacques Derrida, "Plato's Pharmacy", in Dissemination, Barbara Johnson tr., London: Athlone Press 1981

[2] Plato, Phaedrus, in "Plato in twelve volumes", Harold N. Fowler (tr.), Vol. 1, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982, pp.561-565

[3] Jonathan Walker, "The Deconstruction of Musicology: Poison or Cure?", Music Theory Online, Vol. 2.4 (1996), paragraphs 2-4

[4] Giovanni Battista (Cintio) Giraldi, Gli Ecatommiti di Giovan Battista Giraldi, Firenze, 1834, IX, No.3

[5] Francesco Sansovino, Cento Novelle Scelte da piu' Nobili Scrittori della Lingua Volgare, Venice, 1556, X, No. 10

[6] Bracciolini Poggio (Fiorentino), Facetiarum, Vol. 1, London: Mileti, 1798, pp.242-243

[7] Alexander Souter (ed.), "asinus", in Oxford Latin Dictionary, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968, p. 182

[8] As indeed it admits in the Apology (Plato, Vol. 1: Euthyphro, apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Harold North Fowler (tr.), Harvard: Cambridge Uni. Press, 1999, pp. 85-105)

Reviews:

REVIEWER	COMMENT
Prof. Jacques Derrida	I see clearly the innovation that you brought to the ancient problem
Mara MacSeoinin (Cambridge Uni.)	found your article very interesting indeed, and glad that someone has finally expressed the multivalency of Phaedrus in a succinct and coherent fashion... Very interesting!

Dear visitor, please take a short moment to sign my guest book!

My Biography

----------------------------------------------------------------

© 1999, 2003 (2nd edition)Emails are gladly received: shakedtg@hotmail.com

Descartes' "I think therefore I am"

Derrida's Interpretation of Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice

The art of rhetoric

The Philosopher Leader of Leo Strauss

Four that Entered the Pardes

The New European Antisemitism (And Anti Americanism) Heb

Other articles by G. Shaked: ART BIBLICAL STUDIES BIOLOGY CINEMA LITERATURE MUSIC PHILOSOPHY PHYSICS (ACOUSTICS)