This paper aims to investigate the role of mutuality and role reversal in the erotic theory and practice that Plato and Xenophon ascribe to Socrates in their Symposia. The starting point of the analysis is the fact that in both accounts of Socrates’ erotics the rules set by the traditional ethos of 4th-century Athens – namely, hierarchy, asymmetry and one-way desire in pederastic relationships – are waived. In the praise of eros Socrates delivers in chapter 8 of Xenophon’s Symposium, he establishes mutuality as one of the chief elements of his erotic theory and, moreover, as a distinguishing trait of erōs tēs psyches (cf. 8.16 ff.). Similarly, according to the praise of Socrates pronounced by Alcibiades in Plato’s Symposium (215a-222b), Socrates breaks down the hierarchical relation: as Alcibiades complains, even though he presents himself as an erastēs, he ultimately proves to be the erōmenos (222a-b). The paper explores these two accounts and compares two different interpretations of this perplexing aspect of Socrates’ erotic doctrine.
Socrates Erotikos: Mutuality, Role Reversal and Erotic Paideia in Xenophon’s and Plato’s Symposia
Francesca Pentassuglio
2018-01-01
Abstract
This paper aims to investigate the role of mutuality and role reversal in the erotic theory and practice that Plato and Xenophon ascribe to Socrates in their Symposia. The starting point of the analysis is the fact that in both accounts of Socrates’ erotics the rules set by the traditional ethos of 4th-century Athens – namely, hierarchy, asymmetry and one-way desire in pederastic relationships – are waived. In the praise of eros Socrates delivers in chapter 8 of Xenophon’s Symposium, he establishes mutuality as one of the chief elements of his erotic theory and, moreover, as a distinguishing trait of erōs tēs psyches (cf. 8.16 ff.). Similarly, according to the praise of Socrates pronounced by Alcibiades in Plato’s Symposium (215a-222b), Socrates breaks down the hierarchical relation: as Alcibiades complains, even though he presents himself as an erastēs, he ultimately proves to be the erōmenos (222a-b). The paper explores these two accounts and compares two different interpretations of this perplexing aspect of Socrates’ erotic doctrine.Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.