The Neoplatonic Socrates

Chapter 1. Socratic Love in Neoplatonism

chapter 1 Socratic Love in Neoplatonism Geert Roskam Introduction: a tricky Question In his famous speech at the end of Plato’s Symposium, Alcibiades aptly expresses his feelings of perplexity concerning Socrates. He complains that it is far from easy to recount in detail the latter’s singularity (ἀτοπίαν)1 and assures his listeners that Socrates in outward appearance may look like an ugly satyr but in actuality has inside himself divine images of pure gold.2 This duplicitous characterization fits in very well with Alcibiades’ own character (and with his drunken condition) but also perfectly suits the figure of Socrates and his notorious ambivalence. The opposition between outward ugliness and inner beauty is only one of the many contrastive elements that Socrates reconciled in his own person, a feat that often makes him an impalpable figure. One need only think of the admirable balance of παιδιά and σπουδή, frequently combined and crystallized in his notorious irony that so troubled Thrasymachus—and many later critics.3 Moreover, despite the fact that the god at Delphi declared that nobody was wiser than Socrates,4 and regardless of his repeated victories in intellectual debates, Socrates, time and again, underlines his own ignorance. He was a brilliant dialectician but also a brave soldier. He was known to be a heavy drinker but also a rigorous ascetic.5 He consistently avoided engaging in politics yet claimed to be the only true politician in Athens.6 It is not difficult to go on for a while like this, combining different, seemingly opposing elements of Socrates’ life and character, but the items above already suffice to understand Alcibiades’ perplexity. In many respects, Socrates seemed a walking contradiction, and it is particularly difficult—not to say impossible—to 22 Chapter 1 do full justice to all aspects of his intriguing personality. It is hardly surprising that many of these oppositions reappear in later ancient thinking about Socrates, sometimes even in a more radical form. Several philosophical schools that endorsed diametrically opposed views claimed to be the heirs of Socrates (Cynics and Cyrenaics , Stoics and Skeptics), and all sects elaborated diverse images of him. He was both despised as an Attic clown (scurra Atticus—the Epicurean view)7 and admired as the model par excellence of virtuous conduct (in the so-called Exemplum Socratis tradition).8 He was regarded as a would-be tyrant9 and as an inspiring paradigm of resistance against tyrants.10 Each age and each author thus developed their own view of Socrates. We may here recall and apply the insights of reception studies, which have rightly stressed the importance of the receiving context.11 Socrates was no monolithic, fixed figure that remained far beyond each attempt at interpretation, a kind of eternal and sublime paradigm that always had to be imitated in the same way. Each period with its divergent social, literary, and/or ideological contexts creates a different image of Socrates, on the basis of creative reinterpretation and refiguration of the data provided by the ever-growing previous tradition. Later interpretations of Socrates can only be understood correctly through a careful study of the dynamics of this process of innovative adaptation. This also holds true for the Neoplatonic view of Socrates. The Neoplatonists often gave attention to the figure of Socrates;12 even a quick search in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae reveals that his name occurs very frequently in the work of most Neoplatonists. Yet the TLG is not always the best place to start, and in this case I believe it is not. In fact, hardly any conclusion can be derived from the mere frequency of the name—it may often refer to Socrates as a character in one of Plato’s dialogues—and moreover, crucial passages about typically Socratic issues risk neglect. A broader approach is needed in order to examine whether the Neoplatonists could give a place in their systematic and well-structured philosophy to the philosopher who so eagerly looked for definitions but seemed to escape such definition himself. What is their image of Socrates, and how did they interpret his philosophical thinking? Did they still take him seriously as a contributor to philosophy , or did Plato and later Platonists necessarily take precedence over him? The present volume offers a rich and nuanced answer to these questions. In this contribution, I deal with one aspect of this large question: how did the Neoplatonists think of the topic of Socratic eros? This is no doubt a very important aspect of Socrates’ portrait: erotic...