DRAMATIC DEVICES AND PHILOSOPHICAL CONTENT IN PLATO ’ S SYMPOSIUM

RESUMO: O Banquete de Platão serve-se de recursos dramáticos diversos, tais como a história-moldura, a organização dos discursos e o ensino de Diotima enquanto meios de orientação do leitor pela mensagem filosófica subjacente, a qual inclui um exame do sistema socrático de educação. Os discípulos de Sócrates demonstram notável entusiasmo pela filosofia, mas parecem incapazes de distinguir o amor por Sócrates do amor pela sabedoria. Agatão ocupa posição de destaque: devido a um trocadilho com o seu nome, a jornada do jantar em sua casa se tornará na ascensão em direção ao Bem. Além disso, ele representa a educação sofística e poética, assim como cada um dos oradores representa algum tipo particular de conhecimento, o que implica que não se deveria simplesmente impingir pedantismo a Eurixímaco, ou tomar o discurso de Aristófanes enquanto um interlúdio cômico. Eles formam, antes, uma complexa rede intertextual. Alcibíades exibe as fraquezas de um homem inábil ou relutante em seguir a totalidade do ensino socrático. Sua solicitação de ser conduzido por Agatão simboliza a incapacidade de encontrar o próprio caminho do Bem, ao passo que a interrupção da ordem bem organizada do banquete pelos boêmios lembra a atitude dos tiranos e de outros homens hostis à filosofia. Apesar dessa crítica aos estudantes de Sócrates, o Banquete finaliza com uma nota positiva. As ações finais de Sócrates ocupam-se das outras pessoas – uma crítica implícita a quem sustenta que a filosofia subverte os laços sociais. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Banquete – Sócrates – educação – Bem Introduction


Introduction
Plato' s fondness for dramatic devices, whether this refers to framing stories, the use of myth or the employment of oracular utterances and divine signs, is well-known.It has also been frequently observed that there is a link between such literary artifices and the philosophical content which he seeks to deliver.The Symposium is a particularly good example of this structure in action, to such an extent that it could accurately be described by Mikhail Bakhtin as the first novel in history.He was not alone: Friedrich Schegel referred to the Socratic dialogues in general as 'the novels of their time' .
The Symposium merits this distinction, not because it is the first example of literature to employ such dramatic devices, but rather because it is clear that the author is using such devices as a means of conveying an underlying meaning and conditioning the reader's response.The dramatic elements include the framing story, the arrangement of the speeches, Aristophanes' hiccups, which disrupts their order, the lesson of Diotima, which means that the core philosophical content of the dialogue is delivered as a story within a story which has been recounted at third-hand and finally the interruption of Alcibiades, which is followed by an invasion of revellers leading O ' BRIEN, C. (2012)."Dramatic devices and philosophical content in Plato's Symposium".Archai n. 9 , jul-dez 2012, pp.73-84.
ABSTRACT: Plato's Symposium uses dramatical devices, such as the framing story, the arrangement of the speeches or the lesson with Diotima, as a means of guiding the reader to the underlying philosophical message, which includes an examination of the system of Socratic education.
Socrates' acolytes display a commendable enthusiasm for philosophy, but seem incapable of distinguishing between love of Socrates and love of wisdom.Agathon occupies a central position: due to punning on his name, the trek to dinner at his house symbolises the ascent to the Good, and he represents sophistic and poetic education, just as all of the other speakers represent a particular kind of expertise, meaning that Eryximachus should not simply be dismissed as a pedant or Aristophanes' speech regarded as a comic interlude.Rather, they form part of a complex intertextual web.Alcibiades displays the shortcomings of a man unable or unwilling to complete the Socratic course of study; his demand to be taken to Agathon symbolises his inability to find his way to the Good, while the interruption of the revellers into the orderly arrangement of the symposium evokes the attitude of tyrannical men and those hostile towards philosophy.Despite this criticism of some of Socrates' students, the Symposium closes on a positive note.
Socrates' final actions in the dialogue are other-centred; an implied critique of those who claim that philosophy undermines social ties.

KEY-WORDS: Symposium -Socrates -education -Good
to the collapse of the symposium.
Although an attempt to treat these aspects can have a tendency to adopt a piecemeal approach, and create the impression that the dialogue is merely a series of episodes, this is something which I hope to avoid by treating all these elements as part of an overarching stragegy which Plato adopts to shape and inform our reading of the Symposium.
These devices introduce a discordant element into the dialogue, suggesting the failure of the Socratic elenchus for those who abandon its pursuit prematurely and highlighting the difficulties Socrates himself faces as an educator attempting to lead his youthful charges onto a virtuous path.This criticism applies to the other guests at the Symposium; while the initial impression is of a random collection of representatives of Athenian high society, we find that we are dealing with those concerned either with education, or more specifically those we might expect to be capable of providing further information regarding love: the tragic poet (Agathon), the comic poet (Aristophanes), the scientist/physician (Eryximachus), the lover (Pausanias), the beloved (Phaedrus), the young man about town (Alcibiades), each of whom, like the philosopher Socrates himself, fails to provide the sort of enlightenment which we might expect.These discordant notes are struck early on in the dialogue during the course of the elaborate framing story which Plato constructs as a prelude to the philosophical investigation of the dialogue proper.One must, though, follow Jowett's sage advice: 'If it be true that there are more things in the Symposium of Plato than any commentator has dreamed of, it is also true that many things have been imagined which are not really to be found there' .(JOWETT, 1892, p. 524)

The Framing Story
The framing story is a Beglaubigungsapparat, familiar from other dialogues, which locates the philosophical discussion at a precise time and place, mentions those present at the event and establishes the overall reliability of the account which we are to hear.It happened when Glaucon and Adeimanthus were little, on the occasion of Agathon's first victory.
Apollodorus remembers it well as he has recently recounted the whole story to Glaucon.The problem here, as so often in Plato, is that discordant elements remind us that the narrative need not be so accurate.We never learn the name of the companion of Apollodorus who requests the account.We are far removed in both time and space from the event: it happened long ago and Apollodorus himself was not present; he learnt everything from a follower of Socrates, Aristodemus, who was present, and this remoteness makes Apollodorus' claims of accuracy  Apollodorus cannot even remember the second-hand account which he has learnt from Aristodemus, but rather the account which he recently gave to Glaucon.His attempt at philosophy is limited to the mimetic and he is unable to engage with the account which he received, but must simply recount it in order and by rote.Socrates only 'always appears to be saying the same things in the same ways', according to Alcibiades at 221E, but he is like a Silenus, who can be opened up to reveal deeper meaning.
Such emphasis on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the dialogue can be found elsewhere.In the Theaetetus, Euclides cannot remember the philosophical discussion in question, since it happened so long in the past, but the dialogue is actually represented by an account which he made at the time and which will now be read out by a slave.Such frames can be interpreted in two opposite ways as placing emphasis on either the veracity or the fictitiousness of the account.The Theaetetus frame, though, is different from that of the Symposium.Euclides has been involved in a redrafting process, rather than the simple (and, as is amply indicated, imperfect because incomplete) mimesis of Apollodorus.Euclides composes from notes which he took at the time, and composed a draft which he improved by querying Socrates on various details.This is why I feel that the frame of the Symposium cannot be simply dismissed as a typical example of Platonic paideia, but as a pessimistic reading of the limited nature of Socratic-style education, if not completed.As Corrigan and Glazov-Corrigan note 'play and playfulness between many levels of signification is definitely not alien to his style and must be taken into account in order for one to grasp the very tenor of his philosophical thinking.There is no part of the dialogue that is simply non-philosophical.' (2004, p. 42) Socrates provides the stimulus for Apollodorus to arrive at the house of Agathon, the house of the Good, but he must enter there himself; Socrates, it will be remembered, pauses in the porch of a neighbouring house to listen to his daimonion.Even the dinner arrangements hint at the difficulties facing Socrates as an educator, when Agathon at Symp. 175C requests that Socrates sit beside him, so that he may benefit from his wisdom by contact, forcing Socrates to reply: 'How fine it would be, Agathon…if wisdom were a sort of thing that could flow out of the one of us who is fuller 1.Unless otherwise stated, all translations are by Lamb.
into him who is emptier, by our mere contact with each other, as water will flow through wool from the fuller cup into the emptier.'

The Arrangement of the Speeches
The actual arrangement of the speeches on one level is simply as the result of a random seating order, but is obviously of great importance, as Plato However, these last two greatly enrich the dialogue, since they, along with Alcibiades, speak abour love from personal experience.The choice of eros as a topic for discussion raises the issue of education, since it becomes apparent that the lover should be responsible for the enobling of the beloved; in both cases Socrates seems to fail (although his charges must bear some responsibility).The result is that the issue of Socrates's corruption of the youth remains ever present and the Symposium can be read as a more nuanced extension of the defence of Socrates in the Apology.

Eryximachus
One character who deserves detailed treatment is the doctor, Eryximachus.He typically receives bad press and his contribution to the dialogue as a whole is severely underestimated.
He is typically treated as a caricature of a medical professional (rather than as an accuarate historical portrayal of a doctor of the period).He is regarded as someone with a limited understanding of the world, who hopelessly tries to extrapolate from his medical training a frame of reference for subjects beyond the scope of his knowledge where he is out of his depth.Such critics argue that he knows nothing about love, but this does not prevent his pedantic pronouncements.Worse than this, he is simply boring; he insists on turning the discussion to medical matters, irrespective of the wishes of the rest of the company.Such a dismissal of Eryximachus is unfair, inaccurate and fails to appreciate the role which he plays in the discussion.Eryximachus, it is true, has frequent recourse to his medical knowledge, but in this context, he is simply an example of a professional type, a representative of a particular sort of Greek wisdom.Aristophanes never seems to be criticised for behaving like a comic poet because his speech is so entertaining.Similarly Agathon with his polished Greek is a representative of the tragedians.Eryximachus does not bore the company with Eryximachus is also the only speaker aware of Eros' domination of all areas of human endeavour: 'And so not merely is all medicine governed, as I propound it, through the influence of this god, but likewise athletics and agriculture.Music also, as is plain to even the least curious observer, is in the same sort of case (187A  Plato's Socrates.The Penia myth is an example of hyponoia (underthought), the sort of allegory that Plato frequently rejects.

Socrates and Diotima
5 Diotima has impressive qualifications: she delayed the arrival of the plague at Athens by ten years.
Despite this, her account of love is perplexing and perhaps disingenuous.By Platonic sleight of hand, she transforms a discussion of eros into an analysis of desire more generally.Even though Socrates endorses her account, there is some subtle criticism of the manner in which she proceeds: at 208C1, she is compared to an accomplished sophist.Her principal claim is that the primary human desire is directed at immortality, but that since this is impossible to attain, it settles at some suitable substitute, such as the production of offspring ( 206): This perpetuation of oneself through one's offspring is understandable.As Konstan points out, such offspring can be conceived as having a similar relation to us as younger versions of ourself existing at earlier stages of our lives (KONSTAN, 1998, p. 262).
In the case of homosexual males, this desire seems to be directed towards the production of literature as well as the virtue of the beloved, a twofold desire which can be reconciled if one imagines that the object of the literature created is the virtuous upbringing of the boy who is loved.This helps reinforce the importance of the lover as an educator.In both contexts, we shall see, Socrates appears to display shortcomings.

The end of the banquet
The failure of the Socratic elenchus to lead one to virtue, if the course of education is not followed to completion, is reinforced by the degeneration at the end of the banquet: '…when suddenly a great crowd of revellers arrived at the door, which they found just opened for someone who was going out.
They marched straight into the party and seated themselves: the whole place was in an uproar and, losing all order, they were forced to drink a vast

Conclusion
The Socratic elenchus is not without value.It

(
by having verified certain details with Socrates, Symp.173A-B) sound hollow.There are several speeches after Phaedrus' which Aristodemus could not remember, implying an imperfect knowledge of the guest list and the seating arrangements.The recitation of the narrative itself might be seen as engaging in philosophy; it takes place during the city (anîon, Symp.172A2) which evokes Diotima's ladder (epanîon, 211B), just as the descent into the Piraeus at the opening of the Republic evokes the return of the philosopher into the cave after having attained a vision of the Forms (CORRIGAN & GLAZOV-CORRIGAN, 2004).The secondary movement, the walk to Agathon's house, or the house of the Good also highlights the process of philosophising: as Socrates comments, the good go of their own accord to the banquets of the Good (Symp.174B continuously draws attention to it.There are four alterations made to the original order: 1) Agathon is displaced by the arrival of Socrates, 2) Eryximachus must speak earlier on account of Aristophanes' hiccups and 3) Agathon and Socrates are displaced by Alcibiades and 4) finally all of the guests are displaced by the invasion of the revellers.There are a number of means of interpreting the order of the speeches: the five preliminary speeches can all be regarded as on the same level, but inferior to Socrates, or each speech can be regarded as surpassing the speech which preceeds it.I would reject such an interpretation since this would characterise Phaedrus as the weakest speaker, which cannot be the case from a Socratic perspective, since he requests instruction.Additionally, it would mean that Agathon would be the strongest speaker, apart from Socrates, whereas elements of his speech can be viewed as a triumph of style over substance, even though Agathon is a central figure.Alternative structural attempts focus on grouping the speeches into pairs, based upon perceived similarities.So, for example, Phaedrus' and Agathon's speeches both mention one Eros, while Pausanias' and Eryximachus' mention two.One can also reject the claim that the speeches have any significance on the grounds that Aristophanes' hiccups draw attention to the accidental nature of the arrangement.More recent scholarship tends to propound the notion of an intertextual web: the speeches interrelate to produce a more holistic understanding of the truth which Plato is investigating.In this way, the Symposium becomes a recreation of the ideal mechanism for engaging in philosophical activity and goes from competitive encomiasm to a shared enterprise.My own preference is for the intertexual web interpretation, though I feel that the more significant speeches are from the experts; Eryximachus, Agathon, Aristophanes and Socrates, rather than the laymen, Phaedrus and Pausanias.
details; rather this knowledge is sought out.His discourse on drunkenness is in response to the complaints of Pausanias, Aristophanes and his host, Agathon, regarding their hangover from the previous night's carousing, and he uses his medical expertise to support the general mood of the gathering at Symp. 176.In any case, ancient doctors frequently wrote on the issue of symposia and drunkenness; the examples of Mnesitheus, Heraclides of Tarentum, Hippocrates and Diocles can be cited in this regard.2 Aristophanes requests his help to stop his hiccups at Symp. 185D: 'I look to you, Eryximachus, either to stop my hiccough, or to speak in my stead until I can stop it', and this request contains an example of Plato's playfulness, since the name Erxyimachus literally means 'hiccup-fighter' .Erxyimachus' technical expertise is well-attested in the efficacy of the cure which he suggests.This is reinforced by the presentation of both Eryximachus and his father, Acumenus, as notable physicians at Phaedrus 268A.Furthermore, the criticism of Eryximachus' extended medical discussion ignores the breadth of his knowledge which also encompasses philosophy and music.Indeed, he discusses music (187A-E) at greater length than medicine (186B-E).(EDELSTEIN, 1945, p. 87) The primary objection one can make against him as a fellow guest is his decision to send away the flute-girl (176E); while supplying further ammunition to those who would make him a bore and a pedant, it reinforces his significance as the instigator of the philosophical discussion.It is Eryximachus who suggests praise of Eros as a suitable subject (176E), though admitting that the idea came from Phaedrus (177A).He is symposiarch, along with Phaedrus, and as such all of the speeches are either addressed to one of them or they are mentioned in the conclusion or one of them is drawn by the speaker into the discussion.(EDELSTEIN, 1945, p. 95) Eryximachus, then, is not simply another speaker, but a major figure in the framework of the dialogue.Eryximachus is also typically criticised for his dogmatism and his criticism of the speakers who preceded him.This is appropriate to the context and not a feature unique to him.All of the other speakers make some criticism of their rivals, as one would expect in the competitive environment of the symposium.So Pausanias criticises Phaedrus (180C), Aristophanes points out what he perceives as the shortcomings of both Eryximachus and Pausanias (189C), and Agathon (194E) and Socrates (198D)both criticise all of the preceding speakers, although Socrates does this with his usual grace(EDELSTEIN,   1945, p. 88).Indeed, Eryximachus' speech displays greater understanding than the other speeches with the obvious exception of Socrates' discourse.He is the most philosophical of the other speakers, illustrated by his citation of Heraclitus at 187A: 'The One at variance with itself is drawn together, like harmony of bow or lyre.'3He also mentions the Empedoclean theory of love and strife as responsible for the cohesion of the world: 'Love is not merely an impulse of human souls towards beautiful men, but the attraction of all creatures to a great variety of things, which works in the bodies of all animals and all growths upon the earth, and practically in everything that is; and I have learnt how mighty and wonderful and universal is the sway of this god over all affairs both human and divine (186A).Such references should not be dismissed as pedantic or pretentious; Eryximachus is the only speaker to appreciate the importance of opposing forces in the preservation of the universe.This will be picked up later on by Socrates in his portrayal of Eros as the result of a union of opposites and his discussion of Eros' desire for the opposite.
It is time now to turn to the central speech of the dialogue.Socrates' preliminary remarks draw attention to the relationship between narrative form and philosophical content: he praises Agathon for the beauty of his speech, but points out that he has failed in his exposition of love.Socrates then claims that he will expound the truth concerning love, but instead of delivering the encomium which we expect, he describes a lesson which he received on the nature of love from a Mantinean priestess called Diotima.There are numerous advantages to Socrates adopting this tactic.Firstly, it allows him to avoid the crassness of correcting his host, Agathon, at his own dinner-party in celebration of his recent dramatic victory and prevents Socrates from claiming an erotic wisdom of his own, but allows him to speak from a position of knowledge while not compromising his typical claim of ignorance (though erotic matters are one of the few things he claims to know about).Diotima is also differentiated from the other speakers: as a priestess, she speaks with a divinely-sanctioned authority and as a woman she exposes the limited perspective of the earlier speeches which, with the exception of Aristophanes, privilege male homosexual love.It also allows the introduction of the Penia myth, a use of mythology which is not really in character for 4. Agathon has 'only' won the Lenaia, although Socrates' claim that he was victorious before 30,000 Greeks, rather than a more likely figure of 14,000 Athenians, suggests that he has won the Greater Dionysia.cf.Emlyn-Jones,   2004, p. 397.
amount of wine' (Symp.223A-B).This movement from the order of the encomiastic speeches to the typical activity of the symposium (which had been delayed with the banishment of the flute girl) evokes the revellers who destroy philosophy at Rep. 500: 'Think this also, then, namely that an intolerance of the many toward philosophy is by those outsiders who come to philosophy, where they do not belong, like a band of revellers.They are continually abusing each other and being quarrelsome, they invariably make their speeches about men, which is least suited to philosophy.' (Rep.500B1-6, trans.Corrigan and   Glazov-Corrigan).Alcibiades too was a reveller unsuited to philosophy whose ad hominem remarks concerning Socrates were inappropriate for the forum in which they were delivered.The revellers are like the tyrant and his fellow-revellers in the Republic; they destroy the collaborative nature of the symposium, where the rule had previously been that each guest should drink according to his pleasure and as much as he wanted, whereas they force the guests to drink copious amounts of wine.The revellers are closely linked to Alcibiades, as well as the notion of tyranny; he too bursts into the symposium uninvited and in a drunken state.At Rep. 491B-495B, he is an example of someone who might have become a philosopher-king, but this potential was never actualised because his Socratic-style education was prematurely interrupted.The second time revellers are mentioned in the Republic is in connecton with the tyrant who with his fellow-revellers is like a parasite on his father's estate (568E).The revellers of the Symposium are similarly tyrannical in their treatment of the guests.It is no coincidence that the disruption of the revellers reminds one of the earlier disruption of Alcibiades, a man of tyrannical nature, whose attempt to impose his will on the company is only defeated by the moderation of Eryximachus, a further reminder of the manner in which Socrates failed to inculcate virtue in him.
can convince us of the pointlessness of our current behaviour.But it alone is incapable of leading us towards virtue, a point which Plato makes abundantly clear in the Symposium.The difficulty with Socratic education is not that it is ineffective in making its pupils unaware of their deficiencies, but rather that it forces the student to choose between abstract ideals and political engagement.Alcibiades' failing, as he admits, is due to his philotimia.Not just Alcibiades, but all of the Socratic acolytes of the Symposium, Agathon, Aristodemus, as well as Apollodorus in the framing story, confuse the desire for wisdom with the eros of Socrates.The Symposium is a more nuanced defence of Socrates on the charge of corrupting the youth than that of the Apology.Socrates might have failed Alcibiades, but that is because, as we learn from the Republic, not everyone has the sort of soul that is capable of engaging in philosophy.Furthermore, Alciades must take responsibility for not pursing his course of study to completion.Alcibiades, Agathon, Apollodorus and Aristodemus are convinced by Socrates that their lives are not worth living, but without the insights afforded by philosophical activity, they are

as the Symposium is an account at a distant remove and via two informants, Apollodorus is an inferior version of Socrates:
).