8 | Enicaper ficaed susta nondin is es nonim et dolore MENAHEM LUZ | 9 The Rejected Versions in Plato’s Symposium Menahem Luz University of Haifa, Israel [email protected] ABSTRACT Apollodorus’ prelude to Pl. Symp. is a complex of symposia in general. The conclusions of my rejection of earlier accounts of Socrates’ partic- paper are that the contents of these anecdotes ipation in a symposium. This can be examined can be seen as the raw kernel out of which both contextually as a literary mannerism, or sub-tex- Xenophon and Plato could have responded tually as a rejection of previous literary versions of this topos. Neither approach contradicts the Keywords : Plato, Xenophon, Antisthenes, sym- other, but scholars have found difficulties in potic genre, chronological priority finding any earlier author who could have been rejected. Recently, it has been argued that Xen. Symp. preceded Pl. Symp. acting as a catalyst for Plato’s work. However, if neither was the first on a sympotic theme in a Socratic dialogue, we need not presume that Apollodorus referred to Xenophon, but rather that both responded to an earlier author. Scholars suggest various candi- dates although none has been proven. However, one source has not attracted attention: two an- ecdotes recorded in PFlor 113 where Antisthe- nes depicts both Socrates and himself as critical http://dx.doi.org/10.14195/2183-4105_14_1 10 | The Rejected Versions in Plato’s Symposium MENAHEM LUZ | 11 W.K.C. Guthrie once described the introduc- I shall first discuss viable ways of interpreting tory narrative of Plato’s Symposium as ‘extraor- these literary maneuvers: first, on a dramatic dinarily complicated’.1 That is to put it mildly level as a rejection of solely imaginary versions as the complexity of its opening pages resem- of the event – and then on a sub-textual level bles a set of Chinese boxes each interlaced and as a rejection of previous versions composed set inside its predecessor. There Apollodorus by authors other than Plato.4 I will then brie- alludes to a multiplicity of differing accounts of fly examine previous suggestions concerning Socrates’ participation in Agathon’s symposium, who such rivals authors could have been. Fi- quite clearly rejecting some in favour of others. nally, I will reopen the case for considering In retelling his final version of the event to an Antisthenes as an early author in the sympo- unknown companion, he records a previous tic genre preceding both Plato and Xenophon, conversation with his friend, Glaucon, who had but differing from them in compositional and also questioned the accuracy of earlier versions:2 dialogic style. ‘For someone else who had heard about it from Phoenix the son of Philip had told 1. CONTEXT AND SUB-TEXT me (viz. Glaucon) about it and said that you (viz. Apollodorus) also knew about it If we are to accept Apollodorus’ account for in fact he did not have anything clear literally, it would require us to believe that not to say about it himself’. (172b3-5). only a previous version, but a number of pre- vious versions existed prior to his own descrip- With this Apollodorus agreed: tion of Agathon’s symposium. From the point of view of the drama of the situation, all of these ‘I also said, Your narrator does not seem were apparently oral accounts. Many scholars to have given you a clear account of any- have been happy to regard this involved prelude thing of it at all if you think that the mee- as a mere literary ‘mannerism’ demonstrating ting took place in recent times’. (b8-c2). Plato’s determination to foreswear any histori- cal reality behind his composition.5 However, Apollodorus, however, had received a more while not denying that an element of this mo- original account though not from Socrates tive lies behind many of his dialogues and to himself: a great extent also Plat. Symp. itself, this alone does not explain the extraordinary lengths to ‘but from the very person who had told it which he went in the present instance, nor the to Phoenix, some Aristodemus or other fact that this is the only case where a character from the deme of Cydathenaeon [...] and in his dialogues alludes to rival versions of the he himself had been present at the mee- same conversation.6 Were their sole justifica- ting [...] nonetheless, I questioned Socra- tion a form of literary and historical Distan- tes afterwards about a few things that I zierung, the multi-nested preambles of Plat. heard from the latter and he affirmed that Symp. would be an act of over-kill even by the it was as he had related’. (173b1-6) author’s own standards. In fact, as Apollodorus Here, we can discern four if not five separa- quite clearly states, some of these versions of te layers of narration.3 In the following paper, the event were blatantly wrong (172b, 173b). We 10 | The Rejected Versions in Plato’s Symposium MENAHEM LUZ | 11 are thus dealing not only with an act of disso- introduction would have had to concern not ciation from the veracity of the text, but with a just Socrates’ participation in any symposium dismissal of alternative versions where Apollo- whatsoever, but one convened at Agathon’s dorus is no mere mouth-piece even for Aristo- house for that specific celebration. Nonetheless, demus’ account of the feast since Apollodorus given that we have Xenophon’s totally different boasts of his fine ‘scholarship’ in checking the treatment of Socrates’ appearance at Callias’ details of the story with Socrates himself (172c, symposium composed within the same broad 173b). That the complexity of a multi-layered era as Plato’s composition8 – as well as frag- introduction to Plat. Symp. was a conscious and ments of other writers from that period 9 - we intentional plan may be seen from the way in see that the literary and philosophical topos of which the author develops the introduction’s describing Socrates’ participation in a variety inner logic. Apollodorus’ remarks are a prima of imaginary symposia was well established facie admission that at least two earlier, rival during Plato’s life time though not necessa- versions were meant to have existed as far as rily in relation to one and the same event as the drama was concerned, but that each was that hosted at Agathon’s house.10 However, we deemed worthy to be dismissed: should note that the first philosophical use of this topos was confined to a coterie of specific 1. The rejected faulty version of Phoenix disciples of Socrates and written up during a and his unnamed audience; specific time-period during the first half of 2. And the first ‘version’ passed on by the 4th century BC. We are thus speaking of a Aristodemus later to be collated with literary topos that would at any rate have been Socrates’ recollections and related by subject to change, interchange and dispute Apollodorus as a revised version. among those of his disciples who conjured up the philosophy of a sympotic event and the life Another approach is to understand Apollo- of the master. dorus’ introduction not on a dramatic level in reference to imaginary oral accounts of Aga- thon’s symposium, but on a sub-textual level 2. RIVAL COMPOSITIONS and in reference to rival literary accounts of Socrates’ participation in a symposium that, The debate over whether Apollodorus’ re- on this hypothesis, are rejected in the opening marks should be understood on a sub-textual narration.7 Neither explanation necessarily pre- level in reference to rejected literary versions cludes the other in principle since Apollodorus’ of different Socratic symposia is thus not ne- outburst in the introduction could have simul- cessarily precluded by the previous argument taneously served as a dramatic backdrop for albeit that it still requires objective substantia- any philosophical and literary references to be tion. However, any hypothesis that Plato also made in a conjectural subtext. However, on the meant to ‘reject’ previous literary accounts ne- dramatic level, all of the differing versions if cessarily assumes that earlier ‘rival’ versions not contradictory accounts mentioned by him had existed prior to Plato’s composition. Yet, are meant to refer to one and the same event many have naturally assumed from the polish at the house of Agathon. Formally speaking, and perfection of his Symposium masterpiece any alternative literary accounts implied in the that he was the prime inventor of the genre of 12 | The Rejected Versions in Plato’s Symposium MENAHEM LUZ | 13 Socratic symposia. In order to explain common By contrast, Plato’s character Phaedrus phrases and recurring allusions in the symposia describes a similar unit only as a theoretical compositions of both Plato and Xenophon,11 possibility still yet to be actualized - and thus the traditional view has been to regard Plato makes an anachronistic slip only implicitly: not only as ‘il miglior fabbro’, but also as the original with Xen. Symp. generally regarded as ‘If then there could be some means for the poorer imitation.12 More recently, however, a city or an army to be comprised of lo- the case for Xenophon’s chronological priority vers and beloveds, then it would be im- and even originality has been defended, some- possible for them not to manage a city times with surprising vigour.13 better for they would abstain from all Laying aside arguments based on the sub- shameful deeds while at the same time jective evaluation of the originality and priority esteeming one another - and were they of either author, we are on surer ground when to do battle alongside one another, such we attempt to correlate them on the basis of (troupes) would vanquish almost all men historical evidence.14 Most often cited are re- even when few in numbers.