(1) perhaps i've done this before, and (2) i am certainly no expert on the origins and history of the the works of plato, or the process by which they came through all that stuff into the modern world.
two of the texts i have taught most often are the republic and the symposium. i do not believe they were written by the same person. of course, authors write in different moods or even to some extent in different styles, but this is kind of ridiculous. i do think the republic is just a nightmare of self-congratulation, self-aggrandizement, lies; it's a straight-up evil text, a mein kampf for ancient greece, but overall less plausible. also, what the hell, i am very unimpressed by the quality of the argumentation and also the way the dialogue form is deployed, which is the worst kind of set-em-up-and-knock-em-down bulljive. the most frequent form of words is "very true, socrates!" it displays the operations of an extraordinarily rigid and deluded mind.
the symposium, on the other hand, is a rollicking drinking party with many wild voices yapping about love, written with a loose delight, even as it does move toward that more-or-less platonic metaphysics of the forms etc. most of the platonic corpus celebrates and insists on reason and at least apparently disqualifies everything else - the emotions, the body, the material universe - as evil and unreal. the symposium loves the body, loves poetry, loves art, loves sex, and then tells you that these are routes to transcendence. now i ask you: are those the same position?
i'm going to speculate that the symposium is a slice of what might have been a pretty vast socratic apocrypha, and in particular it is the source of 'neo-platonism' and the cult of beauty that runs through figures such as plotinus, shaftesbury, and, let's say, liberace. it's a text that your mentor shows you late at night; he keeps it hidden in a secret case in the wall of his bedroom. right, then he seduces you, because that's essential to your education; it seems to me, simplifying a bit, part of a semi-secret gay philosophy that was taught in whispers throughout the christian and islamic eras. marsilio ficino had you reading it while he did you. obviously, the republic was known to be written by plato by his student aristotle, who argues directly against it in the politics. is there as clear an early attribution of the symposium?
and if you connected up this and that development - michelangelo, cardinal francesco maria del monte, winckelmann, the leo strauss exoteric/esoteric approach to plato studies and the various platonic activities of allan bloom, etc - you might see the temporal scope. but perhaps it's always been the scripture of a mystery religion with sex ceremonies etc. well, at least it's not the republic.
so who could help me with this? things don't pop up easily on the internet. but it would surprise me just a bit if what we have today as the text of the dialogues of plato comes to us with a perfectly clear and unbroken chain of provenance from the academy, and even if it did . . . . indeed ficino himself is one of the bottlenecks or nodes, though very obviously the text of the symposium was known to plotinus, for example. on the other hand, perhaps our plotinus is also ficino-dependent? i guess i know enough to know that there are some contested texts: letters, principally. but what if there are multiple authors right there among the canonical dialogues? i feel that there are., but i have no idea how my sense of the texts, styles, positions (all understood through translations) comports with what could plausibly be true in terms of the philology.
Recent Comments