The object of the present work is the study of structural and compositional organization of Plato's dialogue - Sophist. Generally, the selection of this issue is not accidental. The fact is that there is no uniform approach to Plato in today's science. Here I mean the consideration of Plato's writings in different planes. This is the essential and crucial question because if historical, cultural and literary context in which the author creates is not properly determined from the outset, further research might proceed in a wrong direction.

Hence, in my view, first we should determine as to what Plato's writings generally represent. It is a common belief among scholars that Plato made his first steps in literature in ancient Greece and considered as a paradigm for understanding of further changes in communication technologies.

It is of special importance to define whether Plato's philosophical dialogues represent a piece of literature or they manifest the stylistic forms typical of oral tradition which are mainly characteristic to Homeric epics.

I believe that even consideration of this dialogue is enough to evidence that Plato's creative activity is a kind of transitional stage of a big revolution occurred in Greek culture - transition from the unwritten to written tradition. It would be more precise to say that Platonic dialogues represent a kind of hybrid medium in which the oral forms of information storage are merged with written literary style.

While reading any of Plato's dialogues, one can have an impression that it is just a record of unwritten dialogues aiming to keep the information. The reason to doubt this is also Plato's known discourse in Letter VII that he never rendered his philosophy in a written form.

Let us put a question in the following way: What can be a criterion for determination whether the work belongs to oral or written tradition? In the early period of Greek literature the Homeric epics is regarded as an example of an ancient oral tradition. The main argument to prove that Homer's works are oral compositions written by a single creator is structural and compositional organization, namely, the principles of circle and parallel division. Such type of structural organization is noted at three levels: 1. Words and phrases; 2. Separate topics and episodes; 3. A whole text. If any discourse composition reveals the structure characteristic to these principles at least at one level, it is said that this text is claimed to be oral or traditional work. In other words, it is called "memory technique".

Let us see, how it goes with Plato. For this, we have applied the method of modern research - structural analysis. It should be mentioned that from this viewpoint Plato's heritage, namely an issue of compositional organization of his works has not been properly studied yet. However, while studying any artistic work, the most important thing is its architectonics and structure that is crucial for determination of its identity and artistic merit [Darchia, 1998:7].

Conventionally, Plato's dialogues are divided into two categories: whether the work has the form of direct representation of the dialogue or it is a dialogue narrated by a separate character. The following terms are used for their designation: reported, inverted "dihegmatic", narrated dialogue (in which the conversation rendered by an imaginary author is given) and direct dramatic dialogue in which the conversation is given immediately without an imaginary narrator. [Darchia, 1998:9].

Such classification of the structure of Plato's dialogues is certainly acceptable but it tends to categorize the works from the formal viewpoint and not an in-depth understanding of the compositions.

Here we present peculiarities of the composition of Sophist based on the analysis of its structure. Consequently, we will try to answer the following questions: Why did Plato use those principles of structural formation in his works and what was its aim?

Unlike the dialogues of the early and middle periods, the Sophist is less artistic and belongs to so-called dramatic dialogues. The action in it is almost absent. There is pure debate. And thus, we should consider the composition of a discussion and how philosophical ideas are advanced in the dialogue. As main structural unit we have singled out the definitions done by the sophist which as a whole create symmetrical structure of a dialogue and in its turn the specific symmetry is distinguished in each definition.

The discussion developed in the Sophist which creates the plot of the dialogue can be divided into separate passages:

1.      Exposition (217a-218b). The meeting of Socrates and Theodorus and definition of main topic of conversation. This is an introductory part and is the first structural unit of this dialogue. At the same time, it can be very important structural unit for the trilogy:  "Sophist", "Statesman", and "Philosopher". Here we have description of interlocutors and selection of the method of discussion - the dialogue.

2.      The definition of the angler (218b-221c). This is somehow experimental definition, investigation of the simple (angler) issue, which will be a paradigm for further research of more difficult (sophist) issue.

3.      The first definition of the sophist (221 c-223b). The first definition of the sophist is built on the paradigm of the angler and shows the activities of the hunter.

4.      The second definition of the sophist (223c-224d). The second definition defines the sophist as merchant and is very small.

5.      The third definition of the sophist (224d). The third definition, sophist - merchant is very small and somehow is only additional determination to the second definition.

6.      The fourth definition of the sophist (224e-225d). The fourth definition of the sophist defines him as a disputant.

7.      The fifth definition of the sophist (226a-231b). The fifth definition of the sophist is more extensive and characterizes the sophist as a teacher of false wisdom.

8.      Interlude (231c-231e). Here we have a small rest during which summarization of the first part of this dialogue occurs and all definitions obtained by the sophist before are collected together.

9.      Dialectics and the communion of forms (232a-260b). Here Plato needs the dialectics of being and not-being and critics of the forms of being. This structural unit is the most extensive and occupies more than the half of the dialogue.

10.  The sixth definition of the sophist (260b-264d). This is the most exhaustive definition of the sophist and we have all points of activities of sophists. This definition is at the same time the conclusion of this dialogue.

Thus, we can get ten basic sections of a dialogue among which each has its own exposition where the issue arises from. Each section is associated with one another in some specific structural-symmetric aspect and creates the entire tectonics of the dialogue. At first we have a prologue that shows the main target of the dialogue that is accompanied with the series of definitions and it is obvious that they are easy for perception but vast in volume. This is followed by interlude and summarization of the results obtained from the previous discussion that itself is the way to pass from the easy issue onto more difficult one and afterwards the vastest and the most complicated perceptional section takes a start - that is a dialectics of Being and Not-Being and the communion of forms which ends with the last definition of the Sophist, serves at the same time as a conclusion of this dialogue. We can describe all the above-mentioned as follows:

A - exposition

B - asking a question

C -definition of the angler

B₁ - asking a question

C₁ - the first definition of the sophist

B₂ - asking a question

C₂ - the second definition of the sophist

B₃ - asking a question

C₃ - the third definition of the sophist

B₄ - asking a question

C₄ - the fourth definition of the sophist

B₅ - asking a question

C₅ - the fifth definition of the sophist

B₆ - asking a question

C₆ - dialectic of being and non-being

B₇ - asking a question

A₁ - the sixth definition of the sophist. Conclusion

 

Thus, conditionally we can single out three basic elements in a dialogue - A, B and C which rhythmic alternation makes harmony. Of these elements A is found only twice at the beginning and at the end, and it acts as reliable and integrating unit in a dialogue. Generally, the existence of A at the beginning and at the end of the dialogue is common for all works, or in other words it means the existence of exposition and conclusion. As to the elements B and C, there is relative connection between them, i.e. they are not identical but similar sections and they have structural and compositional correlations. We find element B eight times; it is the shortest but the most significant unit because it represents the special joint of the dialogue and acts as integrating unit of the different sections. As to the element C, it develops philosophical discussion and is found seven times; six times it acts as definition and for seventh time - dialectics of the existence and non-existence.

Consequently, we get the most interesting and original structure where the elements are distributed in such a way where the pairs are organizationally being repeated. The existence of element A at the beginning and at the end of the dialogue stipulates the circle symmetry of dialogue. And the rhythmical alternation of the elements B and C: B C B₁ C₁ B₂ C₂ B₃ C₃ B₄ C₄ B₅ C₅ B₆ C₆ B_{7 -} stipulates organizational principle of the "pair repetition".

We can say with confidence that there is a strict systematized and quite specific structural organisation throughout the work. Let us see what is going on in separate passages or episodes. As a result of the research, we can sum up that some particular interesting and original principles for organization are also participating here that structurally can be described as follows:

The definition of the angler

A - angler

B - acquisitive art

C - by capture

D - by hunting

E - by hunting living things

F - angling

G - by strike

H - with hooks

I - upwards

B - acquisitive art

C - by capture

D - by hunting

E - by hunting living things

F - angling

G - by strike

H - with hooks

I - upwards

A - angler

 

Based on the research, we conclude that in the first episode - the definition of the angler - shows an interesting structure. Namely, element A also exists at the beginning and at the end of the episode as it happened in the dialogue but with the difference that the element A in this case represents absolutely identical units and stands for an associable unit of the episode. The existence of this element at the beginning and at the end, stipulates trend to the circle composition but this is hampered by the rest elements placed between two A elements, which expose a structure typical for the parallel division, namely: B C D E F G H I B C D E F G H I. These elements also represent identical units and each of them is repeated twice in the text. So, we can say that we have a blend of circle and parallel divisions.

The first definition of the sophist

A - sophist

B - hunter

C - land hunting

D - hunting on domestic animals

E - art of persuasion

F - reward demand

G - privately

H - to give excellence (seeming education)

B - hunting

C - land hunting

D - hunting on domestic animals

E - ______________

F - reward demand

G - ______________

H - ______________

A - sophistry

 

The second episode - the first definition of the sophist - like the whole dialogue and its first episode, repeats the existence of element A at the beginning and at the end where the element A again represents absolutely identical units and stands for a joinable unit of the episode. The existence of this element at the beginning and at the end, stipulates trend to the circle composition but the rest elements placed between two A elements are still the main drawbacks which expose a structure that is typical for the parallel division, namely: B C D E F G H B C D E F G H. Also, these elements are identical to each other and are repeated twice in the text. So, here in three cases we have omission of the element that is left out and destroys the harmonic structure for the episode and for the whole dialogue. However, we can say that we also have a mix of circle and parallel divisions.

The second definition of the sophist

A - acquisitive art

B - art of interchange

C - merchandising

D - with exchange

E - macro trading

F - with knowledge

G - sophist

G - sophist

A - acquisitive art

B - art of interchange

C - merchandising

D - ______________

E - ______________

         F - with knowledge

 

The third episode - the second definition of the sophist - compared with two previous ones is shorter and structurally exposes more features and originality. Let us start with the point that here we have no associable element A at the beginning and at the end of the episode. This element participates in parallel division. So, we obtain the following structure: A B C D E F G G A B C D E F or from A including F we have the principles of parallel division, though two elements D and E are also omitted.  The significant distinction is created by the element G that is met two times in succession within these two repetitions of the present parallel division. At first sight, it seems that the course of the episode will be continued in accordance with the principles of circle division but it is false, it doesn't happen this way. It should be mentioned that each element is identical and repeated twice in text. Also, we have the signs of circle and parallel divisions.

 

The fourth definition of the sophist

A - acquisitive art

B - debate

C - the art of war

D - discussion

E - controversy

F - eristics

G - sophist

G - sophist

F - eristics

E - controversy

D - discussion

C - the art of war

B - debate

A - acquisitive art

The forth episode - the fourth definition of sophist - is well organized and exposes the principles of circle division that structurally can be expressed as follows: A B C D E F G G F E D C B A or each identical unit is repeated twice in text. There are no omissions and in whole, we have the structural organization of circle division.

The fifth definition of the sophist

A - sophist

B - distinction

C - purification

D - of soul

E - art of instruction

F - education

G - cross-questioning

B - art of separating

C - purification

D - purification of soul

E - art of instruction

F - education

G - disclosure

A - sophistry. 

As to the fifth episode - the fifth definition of sophist - like in the first part, the existence of the element A at the beginning and end of the episode represents absolutely identical units and stands for an associable unit of the episode. The existence of this element at the beginning and at the end, stipulates trend to the circle composition but the rest of elements placed between two A elements are the main drawback which expose a structure characterised for parallel division, namely: B C D E F G B C D E F G. Also, these elements are identical units and each of them is repeated twice in the text. So, we may say with confidence that we have a blend of circle and parallel divisions.

 

The last definition of the sophist

A - creative art

B - human

C - image

D - semblance

E - art of imitation

F - based on opinion

G - ironical imitation

H - orator

I - sophist

H - ____________

G - ironical imitation

F - based on opinion

E - _____________

D - semblance

C - image

B - human

A - ____________

 

And the last sixth episode - the last definition of sophist - is also well-organized and exposes the principles of circle division that structurally can be expressed as follows: A B C D E F G H I H G F E D C B A or it means that each identical unit is repeated twice in text. So, we have omission of three elements and it should be mentioned here that it is the single case when element A is left out. In the wholeness, we have the structural organization of the circle division.

Thus, I have made an attempt to find out whether there is any symmetry in separate passages or words. It appeared that in six cases, the separate episodes got different from each other structural organization and original form. Four of them have a blend of circle and parallel divisions but in two cases - absolute circle division. It should be mentioned that slight omissions are found only in few cases, the parts that are left out. Generally, the elements are exactly fixed in the structural and entire system and create proper, well-organized and highly interesting structure.

So, the question arises: What is the reason for existence of omitted elements? Did Plato do this on purpose? Maybe he failed to find the right elements and fill them? Or suppose that these elements had been existed before but lost and they didn't come down to us? Answering these questions is not easy. Proceeding from the context, we cannot say that Plato didn't have desire to repeat some units and it was made deliberately. Also, we can't say that the author of genius style found it difficult to put some elements in the context in order to maintain the style of structural composition. Perhaps, we are dealing with a text with some part of it lost but it is also a doubtful point.

Why did Plato apply such style of structural and compositional organization in his artistic creation? I believe it is obvious that Plato was quite familiar with this style. It is stipulated by the specificity of a philosophical dialogue. One of Plato's goals is to create a sense of puzzlement in his readers and follow the discussion with him. In order to follow his dynamics and not to forget the conclusions, he highlights and emphasizes the point and that is why he repeats each element twice in structural organization of the episodes. First he repeated it for its distinction and the second time for emphasizing, to remind the readers. Thus, he managed to fulfil this intention through the above-mentioned principles of structural and compositional organization, in artistic form and structure. For a change, he chooses the principle of the "pair repetition" and circle and parallel division which made a great impact on readers. This is how Plato manages the transmission of a traditional form of oral communication - dialogue and its establishment in the genre of written dialogue. It was this style that caused his isolation from the sophists and he chose the true way characterized for philosophical discussion, discursion and writing.

Unfortunately, only several attempts of structural research into Plato's dialogues exist. In future it is necessary to consider compositional and structural peculiarities of this Platonic dialogue in relation to the principles of structural composition of other dialogues. This gives an opportunity to group Plato's dialogues in accordance with their structural and compositional principles. If we investigate Plato's dialogues through structural analysis, a new in-depth interpretation to his artistic creations becomes possible.