Ancient Philosophy 13 (1993) ©Mathesis Publications Problems with Vlastos's Platonic Developmentalism Debra Nails 273 Adherents to developmentalism are eommitted to the interloeking premises that Plato's views evolved or developed over his produetive lifetime, and that the ehronologieal order of eomposition of the dialogues ean be reeonstrueted with suffieient eonfidenee to yield a mapping of doetrines to dialogues. With one fur- ther premise, that the earliest dialogues depiet the views of the historieal Soerates, the orthodoxy of Anglo-Ameriean PI atonie studies is off and running. The most influential developmentalist of this generation is Gregory VIastos whose long ehain of artieles over many years, advoeating and elaborating these premises, has been widely aeeepted: 'early' dialogues are marked by Plato's adherenee to the doetrines of the historieal Soerates, 'transitional' ones by a movement away from 'Soeratie' views and the appearanee of seminal theories, and 'middle' ones by a philosophieal maturity in whieh the eharaeter Soerates had beeome a mouthpieee for Plato's very different doetrines. 1 By his own aeeount, VIastos long defended his hypothesis with assumption and interpretation, albeit an erudite interpretation. 2 But Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher ehanges the legaey of Vlastos's proposed ehronology and its implieations for Soeratie and Platonie interpretation by systematieally setting out elear and textually grounded arguments for ten theses about the early Soerates, SoeratesE' and ten opposing theses about the middle Soerates (mature Plato), SoeratesM. 3 Defying eharges of eireularity, VIastos deelares that he is 'ordering these dialogues solely by their philosophical content' (his emphasis 1991, 46n2). 1 VIastos 1991, 46n2 credits Ross 1933,7-24 with the basic content of the chronology, and with having brought together the arguments of what was already a substantial consensus among his fore- bears by 1924. VIastos refines Ross's early-middle-Iate groups with adjustments within the groups, the most influential of which is the partitioning of a group of transitionals. An anonymous referee for Ancient Philosophy rightly points out that the stylometric foundation for Ross's (hence Vlastos's) chronology was laid by Campbell in 1867. The stylometric evidence is complex and controversial; I prefer to limit myself here to Vlastos's doctrinal claims because they are a well-focused effort to defend the developmentalist position. I have argued elsewhere, however, that previous stylometric efforts (partially excepting Ledger 1989) have been flawed: Nails 1992 and forthcoming. On the more general issue of the defects of developmentalism, see the comprehensive treatment by Holger Thesleff 1982, esp. 7-52, and the wealth of references therein, and, for recent and differently focussed approaches, Howland 1991, Nehamas 1992, and Kahn 1992. 2 See VIastos 1983a, 513nl0; 1984, 202nl; 1985, Inl; 1988a, 373n39; and 1988b, 89-11l. 3 VIastos 1991,46 comments that only a 'schizophrenie' could pursue such different philoso- phies as he will shortly outline, but Ludwig Wittgenstein and Hilary Putnam provide familiar exam- pIes of philosophers who have held widely divergent views at different times.