Talk:The Republic (dialogue of Plato)

Title

Good start! I think the CZ rules suggest making the title one word: "Republic" (Plato did not use "the") as used by the Stanford Encyclopedia at [1] Richard Jensen 12:44, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

They refer to it as "Plato's Republic" in the body of the text, but the title of the article is "Plato's Ethics and Politics in The Republic". I've generally heard it referred to as "The Republic", too. I just checked, and my Jowett of Plato gives it as "The Republic", whereas it gives others as just the single word, e.g. "Euthypro", "Crito", etc. (For me, Jowett's The Man - whatever he says goes!) These Classic books are of course a bit of a problem, since the concept of titles didn't even exist back in their day, IIRC. J. Noel Chiappa 14:25, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

two poinbts. In recent years a clear majority of scholars, as shown here, drop "the"; also the CZ rules recommend against "the" whenever possible, which is the case here. Plato did not use "the" (it's not part of GreekRichard Jensen 14:32, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

Seems sensible. I am not particularly bothered either way. Wikipedia titles theirs "Plato's Republic", which I'm not keen on, but I'm not keen on simply "Republic". That said, consider me disinterested. --Tom Morris 14:38, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

Well, we can't move it to Republic, because that ought to be either i) about the political construct, or ii) a disambiguation page.

Oh, and if I recall my classic Greek correctly (only took it for one term, unlike Latin, which I suffered through for several years :-), it does have the definite article; "'Oi polloi" means "the people". J. Noel Chiappa 14:52, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

Speaking as a philosopher, not as Editor-in-Chief, I think the article would best be placed at The Republic of Plato (a very common name for it) or Plato's Republic (which is fine), or Republic (dialogue of Plato) (see below). Obviously, the article can't live at Republic, because we do (or will) have an article titled republic, concerning the concept of republics generally. While the phrase "the Republic" is often used by philosophers to refer to the dialogue (we refer to other dialogues in the same way, the Timaeus, the Sophist, perhaps as shorthand for "the X of Plato"), the phrase itself does not really convey the subject of our article clearly enough. This isn't because anyone who knows about the Republic will confuse the topic of this article with any other work called "the Republic," but because those who need the article are best instructed from the title itself that it is about a work of Plato. There are other instances of titles that are "disambiguated" not because they are apt to be confused with anything else, but because we want the topic of the article to be clearer--I can't think of any other examples off hand, but I know I've seen many.

Naming articles is tricky business, and this is no exception. In this case, the best way forward might be to think of sets of articles. How should we be naming works of philosophy, and Plato's dialogues, in particular? I'm inclined to think that the best way might be to use Dialogue Name (dialogue of Plato), e.g., Sophist (dialogue of Plato), Euthyphro (dialogue of Plato), etc. If we use Plato's Republic, parallelism would suggest that we title other articles Plato's Sophist and Plato's Euthyphro. But as far as I recall, those dialogues are not often referred to that way. "Plato's Republic" is in currency because we often want to say which republic we're referring to--the imaginary one described by Plato, or the book about that republic. There is no similar reason to speak of "Plato's Euthyphro," etc.

Yes, of course Greek has definite articles, but there is no definite article in the name of the dialogue. --Larry Sanger 15:02, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

P.S. Republic (Plato), Euthyphro (Plato) etc. are also possibilities, but not so plausible because the relationship between the parenthetical word and the main word is not immediately clear to beginners. If I know nothing at all about Plato, seeing Republic (dialogue of Plato) will help a lot more than Republic (Plato). --LMS ...said Larry Sanger (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2008

I think that the Dialogue Name (dialogue of Plato) format seems like a good one. The Republic of Plato feels very jarring. I think a move to The Republic (dialogue of Plato) or Republic (dialogue of Plato) is sensible. --Tom Morris 15:11, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

Isn't there a proposal on Naming Standards that's currently underway? --Robert W King 15:26, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

I suggest either "The Republic (Plato)" or "The Republic (Dialogue of Plato)". Clearly it cannot be merely Republic as that it is a constitutional form rather greater than Plato's contribution (unless you put it as a subpage there). Martin Baldwin-Edwards 16:27, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

I don't think as a subpage of Republic would be wise; it's really not that germane.

The problem with all these Classical works is that they never really had titles in the modern sense (Thucydidides' Peloponnesian War certainly didn't), so in some sense this is all arbitary anyway. Any choice we make as to its 'title' can be no more 'correct' than any other.(And then of course we may well put our page at something other than what we decide the work's 'title' is anyway...)

I'm not really sure what the current vogue is (and the Stanford Encyclopedia link is hardly definitive, since it calls it The Republic in its title, although plain Republic is used in other articles there, such as the Plato bio entry).

I have 3 different translations (Jowett - 2 editions, Rouse, and Lee), but none are recent printings ('73, '51, '56 and '55 respectively). Lee calls it "the Republic" in the prefatory text, but the title on the title page is "The Republic" (possibly a decision of the editors, which might indicate their sense of common usage). Rouse likewise uses "the Republic" in his prefatory remarks, but the name given in the text is "The Republic" (again, possibly a decision of the editors). Both editions of Jowett use "The Republic" in the text; one has prefaratory notes by Justin Kaplan, who also refers to it as "The Republic".

Can anyone else chip in with some later data?

I mildly prefer The Republic, as I believe that's what's most common, but I could live with any of Republic (Plato) or The Republic (Plato) or Republic (dialogue of Plato) or The Republic (dialogue of Plato), although I prefer those with the definite article, as that's the form which I am most used to. I'm not too big on Plato's Republic. J. Noel Chiappa 18:59, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

As far as I am aware, all modern translations use "The Republic" and this is obviously to differentiate between a classical work and a constitutional form. I think I agree that as a subpage of Republic would not be ideal, and would also not be helpful in placing analyses of other classical works without such a possibility. The form "Plato's Republic" is often used in sentences, but never as a heading. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 19:07, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

Both "Republic" and "The Republic" as titles (and "Plato's Republic") can be found on this philosopher's bookshelves, and of course I have heard of all of these. Not all modern translations use "The Republic" (or "the Republic"); some just use "Republic." As a title for our article, The Republic (dialogue of Plato) is OK but it isn't the best, in my opinion, because the definite article loses its point after we add "dialogue of Plato"--it seems redundant to me. "The" is strictly not necessary and is not required as part of the English name for the dialogue. This is a matter of taste. --Larry Sanger 20:07, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

Let me add one other data point. Strictly speaking, the names of all of Plato's dialogues do not include the definite article (i.e., in the original Greek and strict translations from that). I honestly don't know why we call them the this or that; it's a good question for a classical scholar. FWIW, we also refer to other philosophers' works with a definite article, especially when referring to an informal name for the work: the second critique (of Kant), the Meditations (of Descartes), the Summa (Theologica, of Aquinas), the Politics (of Aristotle). Not just philosophy, either: the Inferno, but "the" isn't in the name of Dante's poem, I don't think. I think we use the definite article in this case to make it clear that we are referring to a work, not to some abstract concept "second critique," "meditations," "summa," "politics," or in the case of Plato, various people like Meno, Euthyphro, etc. In view of all this, I am inclined to think that the definite article serves only to mark out that we are referring to a work of literature (philosophy). If that's the case, then "The Republic (dialogue of Plato)" is redundant, because "dialogue of" indicates that we're talking about the work, not about republics-in-general. --Larry Sanger 20:21, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

Yes, maybe you're right that the definite article is generally used to specify a particular work. Looking at translations availble from Amazon, only one or two have the title "Republic" and the remainder are more or less split equally between "The Republic" and either "Plato's Republic" of "THe Republic of Plato". On the other hand, I am fairly sure that the older British tradition has been always to use the definite article and avoid mentioning Plato in the title itself. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 20:26, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

Well, definitely that's what British (and American) writers say when referring to the work in passing: they say things like, "In the Republic, Socrates first confronts Thrasymachus..." But what do they say when titling the work itself in published editions and titles of encyclopedia articles? That's the relevant question. On my bookshelves (some from British publishers) are books (or anthology selections) titled "Plato's Republic," "Republic," and "The Republic"--all three! --Larry Sanger 20:32, 31 March 2008 (CDT)