Symposium - AIC

ABSTRACT
Chi è il Socrate del Simposio?
Giuseppe Cambiano
The Symposium consists to a large extent of long continuous speeches. That fits the habitual practice
of the symposia, where people attending them used to speak in turn. However in some dialogues, such
as Protagoras and Gorgias, long speeches are opposed to katà brachy dialegesthai, i.e. the method of
speaking by questions and answers, preferred by Socrates, while, as has been rightly remarked, in the
Symposium Socrates too, although refractory to participate to the symposium, delivers a long speech.
The dialogue, however, contains a section in which Socrates dialectically refutes Agathon, but
immediately afterwards he confesses that he is not the true author of the refutation. He has been able
to refute Agathon, because he himself was refuted by Diotima nearly in the same way. But Diotima’s
refutation of Socrates extends beyond the conclusion reached in the discussion with Agathon and is
followed by a long discourse, inclusive also of a myth, delivered by Diotima, who is repeatedly
presented as a sophé woman and a teacher of Socrates. In this context Socrates’ questions aim at
learning, not at refuting. The conversation with Diotima shows that Socrates’ refutation comes from a
woman who knows what is Eros, whereas in Plato habitually Socrates refutes without any knowledge
of the themes about which he puts the questions. As it is delivered by a person who has knowledge
and can therefore claim to be capable to teach, Diotima’s long speech is presented as a discourse
completely different from the speeches pronounced by the other characters of the dialogue. As it has
been rightly remarked by Thomas Szlezak, at the beginning of the dialogue Socrates is able to present
himself as knowing tà erotikà (177 d 6-8), because he received in past times Diotima’s teaching.
But if Socrates does not display his usual dialectical techne, what is his leading rôle in the
Symposium? Socrates’ long speech is neither an epideixis in the sophists’ way, nor a rhetorical
encomium. In the dialogue Socrates is represented as reporting his repeated meetings with Diotima
and the speeches which were delivered in those occasions. There are other dialogues in which
Socrates displays this same function, but his reports concern recent events and conversations
(sometimes yesterday or the day before, as in Charmides, Protagoras and Euthydemus, and perhaps
also in Lysis). On the contrary, in the Symposium Socrates’ report concerns events occurred many
years before. In Parmenides too we have a report of a meeting occurred many years before, but in that
case it is not Socrates who reports, but Antiphon, as well as in the Theaetetus it is Eucleides the writer
who reports the meeting. An interesting parallel to the Symposium, which would be worthwhile to
analyse, could be the Menexenos, where Socrates reports the epitaphs pronounced by another woman,
Aspasia, teacher of rhetoric to Socrates himself (235e), but the epitaph was delivered ‘yesterday’ (236
b). Then, the Symposium seems to be a unicum, in that it presents Socrates reporting an old story. If
the plague alluded to 201 d is the plague in Athens in 430, Diotima’s stay in Athens should be dated
about 440, whereas – according to Bury, p. lxvi – the date of the banquet should be the year 416 and
the date of the dramatic setting circ. 400. Socrates declares that he will report Diotima’s speech, as he
will be able (201 d), alluding perhaps to the difficult contents of the speech, but also to his ability in
remembering them. In order to report old events and speeches, to memorize is an essential condition.
The Symposium as a whole appears to be an oral report of a past event, that contains within it
Socrates’ report of a much older event. The author of the entire report, Apollodorus, says that Socrates
himself confirmed the reliability of Aristodemus’ first oral account. We may think that Apollodorus
asked Socrates’ confirmation above all about the things said by Socrates himself, particularly about
Diotima’s speech. So the Symposium, as a written product, appears to be a written hypomnema of an
oral report, within which Socrates’ oral report fits as its deepest core. In the Phaedrus, as is known,
there is at least a case in which the paidià of writing seems to be justified, that is in order to store up a
treasure of records (hypomnemata thesaurizomenos) both for himself, when the forgetful old age will
arrive, and for those who will follow the same track (276 d). As a matter of fact the Symposium
presents Socrates orally performing what Plato frequently performs by writing, that is reporting past
events and speeches. I think that perhaps we could interpret this circumstance as a sort of justification
of Plato’s practice of writing. Socrates’ hypomnema contains refutation, arguments with positive
conclusions and also a myth, that is to say precisely the ingredients, in variable ratio, of a Platonic
written dialogue. Furthermore it shows that also a long speech can have philosophical relevance;
indeed, as is pointed out in the Theaetetus’ remark on the philosopher’s portrait, both length or