This study of Xenophon’s Symposium joins the expanding scholarship on Xenophon, focusing on a work that has so far seldom received book-length attention. The Symposium is perhaps the most sophisticated literary creation among Xenophon’s Socratic works, and is a very rich text: it represents not only discussions of eros, beauty, and kalokagathia, but also a Socrates who discusses dancing and engages in a beauty contest, as well as an array of the leisurely activities of elite Athenians that are excluded in Plato’s account of the symposion at the house of Agathon. It also is an enigmatic text riddled with tensions—indeed, it is a performance of an erotic dance that receives the final word. Gish’s monograph sets out to answer in a unified study many of the questions raised by this dialogue that so far have been addressed only in scattered studies, thus addressing a gap in the scholarship.
The monograph is organized as an interpretative essay that “closely examines [the sections of the dialogue] in the sequence in which they appear and with an eye to understanding the argument of the action of the dialogue as a whole” (p. x). It is based on Gish’s dissertation written between 1998 and 2003, and reflects a scholarly approach to Xenophon that has since been contested, namely Leo Strauss’s hermeneutics. Strauss saw in Xenophon an esoteric writer, one who concealed his intended meanings underneath a simple and sometimes straight out mendacious veneer and left it to the readers to read between the lines and uncover the “true” Socratic way of life.[1] Gish does not hide his adherence to this approach (p. xvii), and it is Strauss’s views that are discussed (or rather reiterated) in the conclusion of the monograph (pp. 313-27). While the rehabilitation of Straussian exegesis of Xenophon would have been viable, Gish sidesteps serious critiques of it that have appeared since the submission of his dissertation.[2]
The introduction lays out the central motivation of the monograph: to uncover through the Symposium, which is unique because of its representation of both words and deeds, Xenophon’s understanding of the best life for human beings—the Socratic way of life (pp. xiv–xv). Gish does not clearly explain his position on the relationship between the Symposiums of Xenophon and Plato, nor their accounts of the teaching of Socrates, but stresses, with little support beyond a reference to Strauss, the superiority of Xenophon’s accounts of Socrates compared to Plato’s (p. xiv). He argues that, while Plato presents Socrates “poetically,” Xenophon does so “rhetorically.” This is not to be taken in the ancient Greek terms as having to do with the art of persuasion but, in Straussian spirit, of insinuation—“leading us by intimations toward the philosophical core” (p. xviii). Gish suggests that, to uncover this core, a “rhetorical archaeology” (p. xviii) is required. By this, he is not referring to the semiotic analysis or historization of a more conventional philological commentary, but a search for signs implanted in the text nudging the alert reader toward a unified interpretation. And so, Gish identifies such signs not only in what is found in the dialogue but also in its title, settings, omissions, and moments of silence.
Chapter One contextualizes the setting of the dialogue. It offers an instructive discussion of the opening line and its emphasis on the value of deeds done “in play” in contrast to “serious” deeds and of the commemorative function of the ancient Greek symposion. Gish offers a useful account of the historical context at the dramatic date of the Symposium and of the Panathenaic games that are the foil to the action of the dialogue. He stresses that this setting emphasizes the agonistic theme, the contest of virtue and lifestyles that will take place in the symposion in the house of Kallias. I was surprised that Gish did not discuss the historical context of the publication of the Symposium and how its fourth-century readers perceived the events of the 420’s, nor (as mentioned above) its relationship to the Platonic Symposium, a question surely relevant for its meaning for the immediate audience of the work. (Gish notes the scholarly debate, pp. x, 286, but does not discuss its implications.) Some of the discussions, such as the minor yet unsupported claim that kalokagathia and the pankration are “worlds apart … by definition” (p. 15), exemplify how Gish’s hermeneutic approach can lead to dubious assertions and speculative interpretations (for instance, the notion on p.134 that Socrates’ mocking Nikeratos’ ignorance of the meaning of the Homeric verses he recites “anticipates the Heideggerian understanding” of truth).
Applying another one of Strauss’ preferred hermeneutic tools, the following chapters delve into the text and proceed by paraphrasing the dialogue with occasional discussions of other authors. This format makes summarizing and evaluating Gish’s argument difficult, but I will note a few highlights. Chapter Two discusses the personalities in attendance at the Symposium, stressing the contest between Socrates’ philosophy and Callias’ sophistic education. Gish entertains an interesting interpretation of Socrates’ trip to the Piraeus as a katabasis, with Callias (with his scandalous reputation) playing the role of Hades. Chapter Three discusses the fascinating interplay of serious and ridiculous elements in the work, the arresting effect of Autolykos’ beauty on the party, and the performance of the jester Philippos, whom Gish sees as a tragic character and compares with the Homeric Hephaistos. Chapter Four discusses the agon between Socrates and the musical performances, with a particularly interesting discussion of Charmides’ witness account of Socrates’ solitary dance that reveals how Socrates’ seemingly absurd behavior is nonetheless the subject of admiration and imitation. These insights would certainly benefit from engagement with more recent scholarship.[3] Chapters Five and Six discuss the speeches of the other participants, usefully outlining the tensions and contrasts between the views of their speakers; Chapter Seven addresses the beauty contest; and Chapters Eight to Ten attend to the speeches of Socrates, stressing their reconciliatory and moderating influence. Chapter Eleven offers an interesting and to my eyes fresh take on the dance of Dionysus and Ariadne, which Gish sees as complementing rather than contradicting Socrates’ speech on eros.
In the conclusion, the daimon of Leo Strauss makes his full appearance. Rather than discussing the findings of his reading, Gish instead opts to discuss Strauss’ interpretation of Socrates. He expounds on some of Strauss’ idiosyncratic claims: that Xenophon’s and Plato’s accounts of Socrates, despite differing in form, are identical in substance; that these Socratic writers throughout their works sought to distinguish the life of the “gentleman” from that of the “philosopher,” which in the Symposium reach a rare agreement; the focus on moderation, and, of course, the claim that “the unsaid is more important than what is said” (p. 319). These are not listed to be evaluated in light of the findings of the previous chapters, nor against the findings of recent Socratic scholarship. Instead, Gish now switches gears from a Straussian exegesis of Xenophon to a Straussian exegesis of Strauss himself. In a telling formulation, Gish discloses this as the up-to-this-point hidden intention behind his reading of the Symposium: “Insofar as Strauss, too, imitated the style of Xenophon the task of revealing Strauss’ interpretation of Xenophon and his Socrates becomes inextricably woven into an interpretation of the Symposium itself” (p. 317).
In other words, for those interested in Strauss or in his still profound influence this monograph will offer at minimum an interesting case study. Scholars interested in the Symposium and in Xenophon’s Socrates will also find valuable insights here. The overarching argument that Xenophon’s Symposium represents the life and figure of Socrates in “a playful agōn” (p. 307) with other ways of attaining kalokagathia and as a moderating figure is generally convincing, if not groundbreaking. Yet the method of paraphrase, often without discussing other views or ways of reading the text, and the occasional failure to produce evidence to back up what various details would mean for the historical audience left me often frustrated. Unfortunately, this publication gives the impression that a chasm still separates Straussian from non-Straussian readings of Xenophon. Yet whereas the latter have formulated arguments criticizing the Straussian approach, the former seem to be content to re-echo it. For those looking for a new interpretation that is in dialogue with current scholarship, this volume is of limited utility.
References
Danzig, G. “The Best of the Achaemenids: Benevolence, Self-Interest and the ‘ironic’ Reading of the Cyropaedia.” In C. Tuplin and F. Hobden (eds.), Xenophon: Ethical Principles and Historical Enquiry (Leiden: Brill, 2012), pp. 499–539.
Dorion, L.-A. 2001. “L’exegésè straussienne de Xénophon: Le cas paradigmatique de Mémorables IV 4. ” Philosophie Antique 1, 87–118.
———. 2010. “The Straussian exegesis of Xenophon.” In V.J. Gray (ed.), Xenophon, Oxford Readings in Classical Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 283–323.
Gray, V. 2011. Xenophon’s Mirror of Princes: Reading the Reflections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hobden, F. 2013. 2013. The Symposion in Ancient Greek Society and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, D. M. 2012. “Strauss on Xenophon.” In In C. Tuplin and F. Hobden (eds.), Xenophon: Ethical Principles and Historical Enquiry (Leiden: Brill, 2012), pp. 123-159.
Strauss, L. 1970. Xenophon’s Socratic Discourse: An Interpretation of the Oeconomicus. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
———. 1972. Xenophon’s Socrates. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Wohl, V. 2004. “Dirty Dancing: Xenophon’s Symposium.” In P. Murray and P. Wilson (eds.), Music and the Muses: The Culture of “Mousikē” in the Classical Athenian City (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 337–64.
Notes
[1] Strauss 1970; 1972. For an overview and attempt of a rehabilitation of some of Strauss’ ideas, see Johnson 2012.
[2] See in particular Dorion 2001 and its revised English version Dorion 2010; Gray 2011, pp. 246–290 and Danzig 2012, who address primarily readings of the Cyropaedia, also make relevant points. Although Gish lists recent publications (including Gray’s) in the preface (p. x), he admits that “I have noted herein any contributions relevant to my argument, which, it must be said, has not been significantly altered since its first formulation.”
[3] E.g. Wohl 2004; Hobden 2013, pp. 216-22.