OF PSYCHIC MAIEUTICS AND DIALOGICAL BONDAGE IN PLATO’S
THEAETETUStime bear children of their own, because their care for their own would
interfere with their care for others. Thus, it seems that serious concerns
underlie Socrates’ apparently playful interest in seeing himself refl ected
in the less than handsome face of Theaetetus.^20 Insofar as this is the
motivation for Socrates’ account, however, it seems to run counter to the
principles of psychic maieutics.
Yet it is not simply the case that the action and context of the
dialogue contradict the account of psychic maieutics. Socrates’ initial
response to Theodorus’ enthusiastic description of Theaetetus, and
his initial attitude toward Theaetetus, set up and deepen the image of
midwifery. After Theodorus speaks so highly of Theaetetus, Socrates’
fi rst question is: “Which of the citizens is his father?” (144b7). Socrates
begins his conversation with Theaetetus by asking about the sorts of
things the boy is learning from Theodorus. And after Theaetetus has
come out with “it appears that knowledge is nothing other than per-
ception,” Socrates suggests that Protagoras used to say the same thing,
only differently, when he said that a human being is the measure of all
things. “You’ve read that?” Socrates asks Theaetetus. “Yes, many times”
(152a4 – 5). At least initially, then, Socrates’ concern for the boy takes
the form of an interest in his social and intellectual background. Or, to
stay with the language of conception and birth, Socrates wants to know
about Theaetetus’ parentage.
The issue of parentage runs throughout the discussion of The-
aetetus’ “knowledge is perception” and Protagoras’ “a human being
is the measure of all things.” In part, this follows from the account of
psychic maieutics. As Socrates is concerned with Theaetetus’ offspring,
he is also concerned with Theaetetus as the offspring of various teach-
ers and experiences. This also leads to the language of orphaned logoi,
which appears when Socrates asks Theodorus to take responsibility for
the Protagorean hypothesis—Protagoras himself being dead and un-
able to defend his offspring.^21 To be sure, there is quite a bit of play in
these passages, but there also seems to be something very serious at
stake in the way in which psychic maieutics is bound up with concerns
about how the present bears the weight of the past.
In the fi rst place, allowing that Socrates’ art of psychic maieutics
proceeds on the basis of some knowledge of or familiarity with its pa-
tients makes much more sense than thinking that Socrates knows in ad-
vance which patients will need to undergo a more or less painful labor,
which “drugs and incantations” (149c9– d1) to use, and so on.^22 Perhaps
more signifi cantly, however, there is a connection between this aspect
of psychic maieutics and the concerns Socrates brings with him to this
conversation. The charges to which Socrates responds in the Apology—
both the “fi rst charges” and the charges of Meletus’ indictment—can