Pastoral Places and the City: Environmental Rhetoric in Plato’s Phaedrus

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting and engaging discussion of dramatic aspects of the Phaedrus.  It succeeds in its task, which I would describe as using some tools of eco-literary critical analysis to develop an alternative to the longstanding "anti-naturalist" interpretation of the Phaedrus' setting in nature and its philosophical import, showing instead that the Phaedrus demonstrates that the "natural" environment provides space for a distinct kind of philosophical dialectic.  I enjoyed reading the paper, and am sure that others, including those working in a range of academic disciplines, would as well.

I think the paper could be strengthened through another draft entailing minor edits.  Here I make some suggestions as to how the author might highlight and develop the original aspects of the paper, as well as addressing some matters of style. 

There might be some ways to make the paper's thesis clearer throughout.  I find that many of the paper's best points are somewhat buried.  For example, take this quote: "The problem, according to Plato, is when individuals see beauty in things based upon rhetorical constructions alone" (237-38).  And here is another, which follows a particularly well-developed paragraph on Plato and Phaedrus on the environment: "Phaedrus, perhaps more than any other Platonic work, emphasizes the necessity for humans to attune themselves to the surrounding environment" (399-400).  These are, I think, key to the paper's originality and value, though they are somewhat buried in this draft.  If there is a way to signpost and develop these (and these kinds of) insights earlier, so much the better.

The paper is also valuable as a contribution to feminist interpretations of Plato and the Phaedrus.  I think but am not certain that the author intends this explicitly (see, e.g., some stray comments from 3 bottom to 4 top), but in any case, the author might want to do some work to highlight this aspect of the reading earlier in the paper and throughout, since it is another valuable if somewhat buried aspect of the account.

The paper does not engage with all secondary literature on the Phaedrus, which is understandable since this literature is exceedingly vast.  I don't imagine one person could even read it all within one lifetime, let alone engage with it in a ten-page paper.  Still, I would encourage the author to make clearer that they are engaging with one interpretive tradition, while others are available.  Put somewhat briefly, the author is objecting to the Neoplatonic devaluation of nature over the human and those who follow in this tradition.  (This is well illustrated in the earlier parts of the paper.)  But there are other interpretive traditions, and it might help to make this clear from the outset that where the author is speaking about "previous commentators" broadly.  Other commentators have challenged the Neoplatonic "anti-naturalist" reading, including -- just to pick a few quick examples -- John Sallis in Being and Logos (1996 ed., Indiana), Martha Nussbaum in Fragility of Goodness (1986, Cambridge), Ryan Brown (in several recent articles in places like Epoche, Ancient Philosophy, and Parnassos Press), and John Ferrari (whose Cicadas book is indeed cited in the bibliography).  The author need not engage with these sources in depth, but it would help, if possible, to indicate awareness that the author is fighting against one among many interpretive traditions, albeit one of the oldest extant traditions of reading the Phaedrus.

 

Typos and running suggestions:

Abstract: throughout, "Phaedrus" should be italicized when referring to dialogue title

Line 4: First sentence of abstract, agreement: subject is "the notion of place (etc.)" but predicate refers to the dialogue itself

16: Same problem as first line of abstract; also, Phaedrus should be italicized

28: "The Republic" should be "the Republic"

31: "which proves" should be "that proves", and does it actually prove?

 44: should "category of love" be "categories of love" ?

58: change "the fact that" to "that"

67: change "points to the fact that" to "notes that"

84: change "a rhetorician at Dublin College named John Lawson" to "rhetorician John Lawson"

113: cut "a brilliant philosopher of his day".  This is redundant with the name "Socrates"

129: "Lysias, like many other sophists of his time," this is misleading since Lysias was a rhetorician, not a sophist (i.e., a paid iterant teacher preaching epistemic relativism unto winning debates) properly speaking.  Of course, his style of rhetoric was heavily influenced by sophistry.  The cited Jenny Bryan article is helpful in sorting out these influences, but in any case, I advise against calling Lysias a "full-stop" sophist.

171: for what it is worth, note that this sentence is well supported by the cited Ferrari text

189 ff.: I would encourage the author to keep in mind that it is not always clear whether Socrates is acting performatively or honestly.  For instance, my sense is not that Socrates is not actually "elated" as is asserted here, but instead that he is miming elation for performative reasons out of concern for Phaedrus.

244: typo, " Socrates treats with the" should be "Socrates treats the"

278: change "Griswold Jr." to "Griswold" (and again at 281)

299: change "prove/disprove" to "prove or disprove"

322: cut "his protegee"

331-335, I'm assuming this should be formatted as a block quote, and not its own separate paragraph.  Quotation marks are missing, etc.

338: typo, "treat with the" should be "treat the"

339: change "Sarah Nooter" to "Nooter"; Nooter has already been named, so her first name need not be repeated here.

345: I assume this reference to "Phaedrus" is a reference to the dialogue, and thus should be italicized

348-9: rephrase to avoid redundant use of "point," used twice within three words

357: again cut "Sarah"

361: regarding "those things which exist in a public sphere" wording: "which" should be "that," and a personal pet peeve is the overuse of the term "exist".  So I would phrase as: "those things in a public sphere..."

373: should "to confines" be "the confines" ?

377-382: I believe this again should be a block quote, not its own paragraph

426: "ideas which have" should be "ideas that have"

Author Response

Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions on my paper. Below, I have offered a brief response to each of the suggestions you made.

First, I have attempted to elaborate on the sentences that you've pointed out in the third paragraph your review. I did this in an effort to better clarify my thesis. I have highlighted the new sentences I have added. Please let me know your thoughts.

Second, I have added more sentences on the feminist readings of Plato. I have incorporated a bit of this in the first or second paragraph of the paper. Additionally, I have expanded a bit on this criticism throughout the paper in an effort to better gesture to this scholarship. 

Next, I have incorporated the scholars you referenced in your review to improve upon the secondary literature that challenges Neoplatonic readings of Phaedrus. When I shift from critique of Neoplatonist readings to my own reading about halfway through the paper, I include these scholars in a footnote. Please let me know if this will suffice.

Finally, I have followed all of your suggestions on typos, grammatical errors, and writing at the end of your review.

Thanks again for all your insight!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Except for the first paragraph, which should be rewritten, the text is clear and its thesis original. However, there are some important recent texts that the reader should read to enrich his/her approach. In the pdf attached to this review, I refer to those texts that should be considered and included in the references.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your insight and suggestions to my paper. Below, I have offered responses to the comments you made in the pdf you shared.

I have rewritten the initial paragraph in an effort to better explain the thesis of the paper and to incorporate more critical readings of Neoplatonic/pastoral readings of Phaedrus. Let me know if what I have incorporated suffices. 

I have made an effort to incorporate all of the references that you listed in the pdf copy of my paper. The only one I was not able to include is Chara Kokkiou's article. This is because I do not have institutional access to the text where her essay is published. I have made several references to Lavilla de Lera and Brown. I have also included Werner in a footnote among other texts that challenge neoplatonist readings of Phaedrus. I have highlighted all these additions in the new version of my paper.

Thank you for your insights. They have been incredibly helpful.