Guy Shaked
A Dialogue on Jacques Derrida's interpretation of Plato's Phaedrus (Plato's Pharmacy)
Dedicated to Jacques Derrida
Elisha Ben Avuyah ("Aher" - the "other"): Shalom... Shalom Rabbi Ben Zoma.
It is such a pleasure to be meeting you here in the market place, making the
holiday's shopping, I presume.
Ben Zoma: Indeed dear Aher. I've come all the way here to Cesaria to shop
for the finest of the seven species ("minim"). Look at those beautiful
pomegranates - I see I've come to the right place indeed. (To the seller) I
think I'll take one of these lovely ones for two Shekels.
I've heard you
are these days up to your neck engaged in foreign [1] books of philosophy.
Aher: Indeed and most so in the work of the great Socrates and no "other"
("aher"). Of special interest to me lately is his work called the Phaedrus [2].
In it there is a passage in which the god Theuth offers King Thamus the gift of
writing - as a medicine to wisdom and memory. The king however, rejects it as
poison - that will bring false wisdom and no real memory [3].
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 [4].
I think
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 (i.e. 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 [5].
Ben Zoma: Perhaps you should consider that 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.
For as you know well the
Egyptians had terms which symbolized both something and its opposite. Like the
God Atum, which means bot everything and nothing. Just as a comment, I should
perhaps note, that they (the Egyptians) differed with Parmenides claiming that
also nothing is God, since God contains everything. Despite the fact that by
saying nothing doesn't exist and shouldn't be discussed, Parmenides in fact
raises to the mind the same term - "nothing" - that he wishes to reject.
And so to the Egyptians nothing exists both in the material (or more
exactly i-material) sense, and in the sense that God is not only those things
that are in time (i. e. that happen), but also all the numerous possibilities
that can occur in a moment in time but do not occur (thus being
nothing).
Regarding the poison-medicine meaning of a term you are also most
familiar with the serpent of brass cult which came from Egypt. As the logic is
that medicine changes a given balance in the body and thus excessive amount of
it would kill and so act as poison [6]. It is on based on this idea that the
Egyptians medicine-men believed the opposite: that a little amount of poison
(like a snake's poison) would act as medicine). And so the cult of the serpent
of brass mentioned in our bible [Numbers, 31:9] emerged at the time of Moses
under Egyptian influence.
Aher: Yes, its like they used our Talmudic process of wisdom we call "Gzera
Shava"
Ben Zoma: And so in their pictograms the picture of a snake (later used for
the sound "v") could have meant poison or also medicine.
However these two
possible meanings result in that when we approach any Egyptian written text for
which no longer an oral witness exists we can not know when the word medicine is
written if perhaps they meant poison.
Aher: I do not follow, can you please try to explain this point to me.
Ben Zoma: For example, if we read a medicine-man gave the king a medicine -
and if the king died we might perhaps wonder if the medicine-man did not give
him poison. If the opposite occurs and the king lives after his illness it still
could be that it is after the medicine-man gave him poison which he overcame
[7]. Such similar readings can be applied to your Socrates.
Nothing is
better in my eyes dear friend after such heavy material than a light prayer. Do
join me in a little prayer, for even you that do not believe in all benevolent
God is still a Jew under his eyes...
Perhaps you know this prayer:
God
please save our souls, God please save our souls, For so great is your name...
("Ana hoshia na, Ana hoshia na, Ki ko gadol shimkha...")
Ben Avuyah: But Ben Zoma, this is a totally Greek melody you are singing?!
It's the famous "Orestes" choir I often hum under my moustache (For it is said
Aher often humed Greek tunes [Talmud, Hagiga 15]).
Ben Zoma: What do you say about that?! I thought all the time this was an
oral Jewish melody and you reveal to me it reminds you of a foreign melody
perhaps even one written down. Perhaps this is also what happens with your
Socrates.
Aher: Continuing your suggested line of thought, other folk Greek tradition
(and perhaps also in other languages) of oral sources also have probably this
confusion between the word medicine or poison. There is the story of the woman
who mistakes poison to medicine and poisons her son [8] or the murderer of the
doctor takes poison instead of medicine as he tries to show his professional
excellence [9].
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.
There is another similar exchange of terms in
stories 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 [10].
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 [11]. 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 are 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" [12].
Ben Zoma: Again I am inclined to see the connection to the ancient Egyptian
mythology. For our bible says (while the word used is "tanin" from the context
later it is clear it is a "nahash"-snake, Exodus, 7:10-15) the magicians
("hartumim") of Egypts (and similarly Moses) could turn sticks to snakes (have
control over the power of death) and back into sticks (have control to reverse
the power of death). This perhaps can say why in ancient times the magicians
were also the medicine-men.
Also, Please note that there is another aspect
to the myth mentioned by Socrates. 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. For, it is impossible to know for sure (we can only assume so, but not
be certain) 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 him [13].
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. Also, those who
orally transmit them could transmit these mistakes as truth, for they might
remain unnoticed.
Aher: Wise words indeed seem to come out of your blessed mouth Ben Zoma.
For me I'm not sure if it was poison or medicine that turned me to this culture
in the first place [14]
[1] By the term "foreign" ("zarim") here Ben Zoma is referring to Greek
literature.
[2] Jacques Derrida, "Plato's Pharmacy", in Dissemination, Barbara Johnson
tr., London: Athlone Press 1981
[3] Plato, Phaedrus, in "Plato in twelve volumes", Harold N. Fowler (tr.),
Vol. 1, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982, pp.561-565
[4] In Medieval Hebrew poetry (for example in the Poetry of Judah Al-Harizi
of Spain and Immanuel Romano of Italy) there exists the opposite phenomena of
the use of words (and words combinations), usually as rhymes, which sound orally
the same however have different meaning in their written form (this is called
"tsimud").
[5] Jonathan Walker, "The Deconstruction of Musicology: Poison or Cure?",
Music Theory Online, Vol. 2.4 (1996), paragraphs 2-4
[6] Ibidem. paragraph 4. Quotes the words of Paracelus.
[7] Giovanni Battista (Cintio) Giraldi, Gli Ecatommiti di Giovan Battista
Giraldi, Firenze, 1834, IX, No.3
[8] This is still practiced in medicine today as in radiation treatment to
cure cancer. In the past this was done in bloodletting the ill to health which
was practiced in ancient Egypt and Greece, as well as, eighteenth century
Europe.
[9] Francesco Sansovino, Cento Novelle Scelte da piu' Nobili Scrittori
della Lingua Volgare, Venice, 1556, X, No. 10.
The tradition of the
confusion between the signifier "pharmakon" received less adaptations in
literature than that of the "signified". That might be because perhaps the
signified could transcend language barriers and overcome the decline of
Hellenistic culture in the west.
The most famous example perhaps of such an
adaptation is Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet", where poison is confused with
sleeping medicine (potion). This confusion is possible due to the medical
knowledge of that time where pulse readings to show life were not the usual
practice but perhaps calling out the person's name loudly was.
[10] Bracciolini Poggio (Fiorentino), Facetiarum, Vol. 1, London: Mileti,
1798, pp.242-243.
This exchange might also point to the figure of Moses, as
he as a kind of magician, performing magical feats to convince Paraoh to release
the people of Israel. At the end Paraoh decides to send Israel out of Egypt as a
kind of scapegoat to prevent further evil magic from God unto Egypt (however he
changes his mind later).
[11] Derrida's interpretation of the passage reveals that he knows the oral
tales - since he points also to the "missing" exchange of magician and scapegoat
in this text
[12] Alexander Souter (ed.), "asinus", in Oxford Latin Dictionary, Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1968, p. 182
[13] 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)
[14] Aher is referring [Talmud Yerushalmi, Hagiga, 2, 7:2] to the beginning
of his disbelief in a benevolent God when he saw a man not keeping God's orders
and is well while another man keeps God's orders yet shortly afterwards a snake
bites him.