Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

PL EN


2016 | 7 | 1 | 25-54

Article title

Plato: Smp. 212e4-223a9. Alcibiades: An Eulogy of Which Socrates? That of Plato, That of Antisthenes and Xenophon or That of All Three?

Content

Title variants

EN
Plato: Smp. 212e4-223a9. Alcibiades: An Eulogy of Which Socrates? That of Plato, That of Antisthenes and Xenophon or That of All Three?

Languages of publication

IT

Abstracts

IT
In the Symposium, there are two revelations: one is that of the woman of Mantinea, the other that of Alcibiades. The former (201d 1–212e 3) proposes a Socrates reshaped by Plato, but what Socrates does the latter (216a 6–217a 3) express? Can the praise for Socrates contained in the latter also be considered a tribute by Plato to his teacher? The opinions are divided. I looked at two scholars: Michel Narcy (2008) and Bruno Centrone (20142 ), whose judgments, as they are set out and argued, are irreconcilable. The contrast may be determined by a certain ambiguity in Plato’s attitude towards Alcibiades. Part One – In order to clarify this ambiguity and to overcome the contrast between the two scholars I have tried to show how in the praise of Alcibiades there overlap different portraits of Socrates that refer to the tradition, to different experiences of various Socratics and of Plato himself in Apologia, and how this differs from the others and from himself by proposing a whole new portrait of Socrates as a representative of an Eros megas daimōn, revealed by the woman of Mantinea, in contrast to an Eros megas theos. Part Two – As instead regards the accusation of hybris, the hypothesis is this: for Plato his colleagues, and especially Antisthenes and Xenophon, offering an image of Socrates founded exclusively on his way of life and not also on the erotic aspects alluding to the supersensible world, seem to end up arousing laughter and looking like “fools” (nēpioi), like Alcibiades, who at the end of his speech, after making the audience laugh, is unmasked by Socrates for his clumsy attempt to impart a “life lesson” to Agathon, which he did not need at all, paying at his own expenses for his ignorance of the revelation through arriving late at the party.
EN
In the Symposium, there are two revelations: one is that of the woman of Mantinea, the other that of Alcibiades. The former (201d 1–212e 3) proposes a Socrates reshaped by Plato, but what Socrates does the latter (216a 6–217a 3) express? Can the praise for Socrates contained in the latter also be considered a tribute by Plato to his teacher? The opinions are divided. I looked at two scholars: Michel Narcy (2008) and Bruno Centrone (20142), whose judgments, as they are set out and argued, are irreconcilable. The contrast may be determined by a certain ambiguity in Plato’s attitude towards Alcibiades. Part One – In order to clarify this ambiguity and to overcome the contrast between the two scholars I have tried to show how in the praise of Alcibiades there overlap different portraits of Socrates that refer to the tradition, to different experiences of various Socratics and of Plato himself in Apologia, and how this differs from the others and from himself by proposing a whole new portrait of Socrates as a representative of an Eros megas daimōn, revealed by the woman of Mantinea, in contrast to an Eros megas theos. Part Two – As instead regards the accusation of hybris, the hypothesis is this: for Plato his colleagues, and especially Antisthenes and Xenophon, offering an image of Socrates founded exclusively on his way of life and not also on the erotic aspects alluding to the super-sensible world, seem to end up arousing laughter and looking like “fools” (nēpioi), like Alcibiades, who at the end of his speech, after making the audience laugh, is unmasked by Socrates for his clumsy attempt to impart a “life lesson” to Agathon, which he did not need at all, paying at his own expenses for his ignorance of the revelation through arriving late at the party.

Year

Volume

7

Issue

1

Pages

25-54

Physical description

Dates

published
2016-03-17

Contributors

References

  • Brancacci, A., 1990, Oikeios logos. La filosofia del linguaggio di Antistene, Napoli.
  • Brancacci, A., 2010, “Sull’etica di Antistene”, in: Rossetti, Stavru (2010), pp. 89–117.
  • Centrone, B., 2014, “Introduzione”, in: Nucci (2014), pp. V–LX.
  • Dorion, L.-A., 2010, “L’impossible autarcie du Socrate de Platon“, in: Rossetti, Stavru (2010), pp. 137–158.
  • Dorion, L.-A., 2014, “Antisthène et l’autarcie“, in: Suvák (2014), pp. 282–307.
  • Ferrari, F. (cur.), 1994, Platone, Simposio, Introduzione di V. di Benedetto, Premessa al testo, Traduzione e Note, Milano.
  • Friedländer, P., 2004, Platone, trad. it. a cura di A. Le Moli, Milano (Titolo originale: Platon, Vol. 1–3, Berlin–New York 1964).
  • Giannantoni, G., 1997, “L’Alcibiade di Eschine e la letteratura socratica su Alcibiade”, in: Giannantoni, Narcy (1997), pp. 351–373.
  • Giannantoni, G., Narcy, M., 1997, Lezioni socratiche, Napoli.
  • Hadot, P., 2005, Esercizi spirituali e filosofia antica, Nuova edizione ampliata. A cura di e con una prefazione di A.I. Davidson, Torino.
  • Mazzara, G. (cur.), 2007, Il Socrate dei dialoghi, Bari.
  • Mazzara, G., 2014, “Platone – Il motto di Delfi dell’Alcibiade I tra enfatizzazioni e ritrattazioni di Socrate?”, Peitho. Examina Antiqua 1 [5], pp. 13–41.
  • Montoneri, L. (cur.), 1964, Senofonte, Scritti socratici, Bologna.
  • Narcy, M., 2007, “La Teodote di Senofonte: un Alcibiade al femminile?”, in: Mazzara (2007), pp. 53–62.
  • Narcy, M., 2008, “Socrate nel discorso di Alcibiade (Platone, Simposio, 215a–222b)”, in: Rossetti, Stavru (2008), pp. 287–304.
  • Nightingale, A.W., 1993, “The Folly of Praise: Plato’s Critique of Encomiastic Discourse in the Lysis and Symposium”, Classical Quarterly 43, pp. 112–130.
  • Nucci, M. (cur.) 2014, Platone, Simposio, Traduzione e Commento, Torino.
  • Reale, G. (cur.), 2000, Platone, Apologia di Socrate, Milano.
  • Rossetti, L., 2007, “L’Eutidemo di Senofonte: Memorabili IV 2”, in: Mazzara (2007), pp. 63–103 (ora anche in: L. Rossetti, Le dialogue socratique, Paris 2011, pp. 55–99).
  • Rossetti, L., 2015a, La filosofia non nasce con Talete, e nemmeno con Socrate, Bologna.
  • Rossetti, L., 2015b, “Phaedo’s Zopyrus (and Socrates’ Confidences)”, in: Zilioli (2015), pp. 82–98.
  • Rossetti, L., Stavru, A. (cur.), 2008, Socratica 2005, Bari.
  • Rossetti, L., Stavru, A. (cur.), 2010, Socratica 2008. Studies in Ancient Socratic Literature, Bari.
  • Santoni, A. (cur.), 1997, Senofonte, Memorabili, Introduzione, Traduzione e Note, Milano.
  • Stavru, A., 2010, “Introduction”, in: Rossetti, Stavru (2010), pp. 11–55.
  • Suvák, V. (ed.), 2014a, Antisthenica Cynica Socratica, Praha.
  • Suvák, V., 2014b, “Antisthens between Diogenes and Socrates”, in: Suvák (2014), pp. 72–120.
  • Trabattoni, F., 2008, “Socrate, Antistene e Platone sull’uso dei piaceri”, in: Rossetti, Stavru (2008), pp. 235–262.
  • Zilioli, U. (ed.), 2015, From the Socratics to the Socratic Schools, Classical Ethics, Metaphysics and epistemology, New York–London.

Document Type

Publication order reference

Identifiers

YADDA identifier

bwmeta1.element.ojs-doi-10_14746_pea_2016_1_2
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.