Apologetic Elements in Xenophon’s Symposium1

 Summary: Viewing the Symposium as an apologetic work provides a useful

perspective for grasping its literary and thematic unity, as well as explaining

some of its tensions and contradictions. Xenophon offers a portrait of

Socrates which shows his excellent character, his social skills, and his great

wit. He also addresses the usual charges of poverty and misery, sexual

wrong-doing, and religious innovation, as well as addressing indirectly

Socrates’ trial and execution. The effort to address some of these issues,

especially the charge of sexual wrong-doing, is complicated by the

contradictory values of Athenian society, and by the contradictory “charges”

laid against Socrates. On the one hand Xenophon affirms Socrates’ innocence

of fornication with the young men of Athens. On the other hand, he affirms

Socrates’ success in seducing young men, and the great erotic satisfaction he

gained from his encounters with them, even using the atmosphere of a

drinking party to offer delicate admissions about Socrates’ behavior with

young men. Rather than seeking a consistent, theoretical account of Socratic

eros, Xenophon offers a seductive portrait of a complex personality who was

himself a master of self-presentation or pimping.

Xenophon’s Symposium is generally regarded as one of

his most charming compositions, even though its literary

structure and thematic focus are not always clear.2 It

seems to be a work of light fiction designed to show how

well-educated Athenians spent their free time. But

despite its superficial charm, the Symposium also

addresses some serious issues, in particular the post-

trial controversy concerning Socrates.3 In this paper, I

will try to show how the effort to address this

controversy informs the details and structure of the

work.

I Fiction or History?

It is generally accepted that the Symposium does not

record an historical event. The most popular argument

against historicity rests on the fact that it is set at a

date (422) when by most accounts Xenophon was a very

young boy. It is sometimes noted that although Xenophon

claims to have been present,4 he does not actually say a

word or appear at all during the evening described. This

seems to undermine the claim of autopsy. Other

Xenophontic claims to autopsy have been similarly

dismissed as fictions.5

But these arguments against the historicity of the

work are not decisive by themselves. We do not really

known when Xenophon was born. The accepted account, in

which he was born around 425, is based on the fact that

he refers to himself as a young man in the Anabasis.6 He

uses his youth as a possible (although in his view

invalid) objection to his appointment as leader of the

expedition (Anabasis 3.1.5). Since the previous leader was

thirty years old at his death (Anabasis 2.6.20), it is

thought that for Xenophon’s words to make sense, he must

have been significantly younger than thirty when he was

chosen to lead the Greek army on its retreat.7 This is

consistent with a passage at 5.3, and another passage at

6.5.26 which implies that he was under thirty.

But the effort to derive Xenophon’s age from this

semi-autobiographical work remains speculative. The

Anabasis is clearly in some sense an apologetic work.

Xenophon’s participation in this expedition made him an

unpopular man in Athens, and even resulted in his exile

from his city of birth. Xenophon admits that he joined

the expedition after Proxenus wrote to him that Cyrus was

“better for him than his fatherland,” (3.1.4) a phrase

which points forward to his ultimate banishment. It is

presumably for this reason that Xenophon makes it so

clear that Socrates did not encourage his participation:

Xenophon does not want to see Socrates’ memory besmirched

by connection with another student’s disloyalty to

Athens.8 In Xenophon’s account, Socrates warned him

clearly against participating (3.4-3.10). But if

Xenophon is concerned to protect Socrates’ reputation

from any ill association with this unfortunate episode,

is it not likely that he would take some steps to reduce

his own culpability as well?

The fact that he refers to himself as a young man

may reflect this concern. The speeches and actions of

our hero are much more impressive when we consider that

he was very young at the time. And his participation is

much more excusable when we reflect that he was a

headstrong youth who did not even listen to his respected

mentor. Given that, it is impossible to rely on his

statements in the Anabasis for establishing authentic

biographical facts.

Similarly, the fact that Xenophon does not speak at

all in Symposium, and is not even mentioned by anyone else

present, does not really show that he was not present.

Our only other Socratic Symposium (Plato’s) is narrated by

Apollodorus who heard it from Aristodemus, who is said to

have been actually present. Like Xenophon, Aristodemus

does not speak during the party, and his presence is

barely mentioned (176c; 218b; 223c-d). It may be simply

a regular feature of Socratic Symposia that the narrator

not play a big role.

Even if we would accept the argument that Xenophon

was not present, that would not preclude the possibility

that he recorded the event truly, or aimed to do so, on

the basis of information derived from other sources, as

he claims to have done in the case of his Apology. In the

end, the only way to determine the historicity of a piece

is through an analysis of its literary character.

Although it is widely recognized that Xenophon’s Socratic

writings are apologetic in character,9 this aspect of

Symposium is not always recognized or given its full

weight.10 By situating the apologetic tendency within the

context of the post-trial controversy over Socrates we

can confirm the work’s fictional character.

Controversies concerning Socrates did not begin, of

course, with his trial and execution. Socrates was a

subject of public attention in his own lifetime,

particularly in the years 423-421. In Aristophanes’

Clouds and other works Socrates was attacked on a variety

of charges including sophistry, injustice, religious

innovation, baneful influence on the youth, and even

theft (see Clouds ll. 177-9). It is generally

acknowledged that the version of Clouds that we have in

our hands is not identical with that performed in 423,

one year before the dramatic date of Xenophon’s Symposium,

so we cannot be sure that the criticisms of Socrates that

appear in our texts also appeared in the original

performance. But there must have been some criticism of

Socrates in the original Clouds, and this would have made

it quite conceivable that guests at a party one year

later could have referred jokingly to some of the charges

against him. In fact, since we know of two other plays

from this period which at least mentioned Socrates

(Ameipsias’ Konnos [also 423] and Eupolis’ Flatterers [421])

it seems quite conceivable that a dinner-party held in

1 This is a revised and expanded version of a Hebrew

introduction to a translation of Xenophon’s Socratic

writings, entitled Socratic Dialogues, edited and translated

by the author, published by Shalem Press, 2002. I thank

John Glucker, Michael Stokes and Louis-André Dorion for

comments on the earlier version.

2 Two commentaries on the work have been produced

recently: A. J. Bowen’s Xenophon: Symposium, Warminster,

1998, and Bernhard Huss’s very thorough Xenophons Symposion

Ein Commentar, Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1999. On Xenophon’s

Socrates see Louis-André Dorion’s book-length

introduction to his edition of the first book of the

Memorabilia: Xenophon Memorables, livre 1, eds, Michele

Bandini, Louis-André Dorion, Paris, Les Belles Lettres,

2000.

3 On the Socratic controversy, see A.-H. Chroust, Socrates,

Man and Myth: The Two Socratic Apologies of Xenophon, London

this period would have featured speeches implicitly

attacking or defending him.

But even so, this would not explain all the

apologetic elements of Symposium. Apologetics are found

not merely in the words of the participants, but also in

the description of the setting by the narrator.

(1957); M. Montuari, Socrates: Physiology of a Myth, Amsterdam

(1981); Socrates: an Approach: Amsterdam (1988).

4 A. J. Bowen denies that such a claim is actually made

(27; 87). This view seems based on an unnatural reading

of the referent of oi|~ in Symposium I.1.

5 See for example Arnoldo Momigliano’s comment that that

it is impossible to believe that “Socrates was waiting

for the arrival of Xenophon to lecture to his own son

Lamprocles on his duties towards his mother.” (The

Development of Greek Biography, Cambridge MA, 1971, p. 54).

Despite the rhetoric, it is surely possible that Xenophon

overheard many such conversations, which would have been

held out of doors, in good Greek fashion, and not

indoors. On this whole question see Dorion XXXIX-LII.

6 See Debra Nails, The People of Plato, Indianapolis 2002, 301-

304 for a summary of the evidence.

Moreover, there are references to the famous trial itself

(5.1-5.2), and this was surely an event which would not

have been a subject of discussion at a party that

occurred over twenty years previously.11 These

anachronistic references show not only that Symposium was

written after the trial (which is uncontroversial) but 7 In fact, Xenophon does not explicitly speak of his youth

at this point but only his age (3.1.25: hJlikiva).

8 Those who believe that Xenophon hardly knew Socrates

should consider the fact that Xenophon would not have had

to distance Socrates from his expedition if Socrates were

not thought to have been his companion.

9 See Dorion LXV-LXX, Bowen, p. 7. On the apologetic aims

of Oeconomicus see my “Why Socrates was not a Farmer:

Xenophon’s Oeconomicus as a Philosophic Dialogue,” Greece

and Rome, 2003.

10 See Thesleff’s comment: “Unlike Plato’s Symposium,

Xenophon shows little trace of any apologetic tendency…

at least until the last two chapters.” (“The

interrelation and date of the Symposia of Plato and

Xenophon,” BICS 25, 1978, p. 165). Huss recognizes much

more apologetics here (38-49).

also that its author did not aim at historical

verisimilitude. They show that he wrote the work as

apologetic fiction, and intended his readers to receive

it as such. Xenophon wanted his audience to see that he

is referring to the trial and responding to later

criticisms of Socrates, and he therefore could not have

wanted anyone to think that this was an accurate record

of an evening in 422. The date of 422 was selected, I

suggest, not simply because an event like this may have

occurred then, but because Socrates was a subject of

public debate at that time. Xenophon wished to use this

portrait of Socrates as an apology, and situating it in

proximity to the original production of the Clouds

provides a pretext for doing so.12 Here we have both

confirmation that the original Clouds did criticize

Socrates, and also additional evidence that the aim of

the composition is apologetics: there would be no need

to set the dramatic date in 422 if not to make the work’s

apologetic elements seem dramatically appropriate.13

But the nature of Xenophon’s apologetics demands

close attention. Xenophon does not aim here, or in any

of his works, to whitewash Socrates.14 We find in

Symposium a rather spectacular confession concerning

Socrates’ involvement with young men. Xenophon goes

beyond Plato in suggesting, very delicately, that

Socrates’ interest was not strictly confined to a visual 11 The events surrounding the trial itself were however a

major issue in the post-trial controversy. Xenophon’s

Apology aims primarily to show that Socrates did not fail

in court, but rather succeeded, since he wanted to die.

Plato’s concern with this issue is recorded in his Apology

(e.g. 38e), Crito (45d-e) and in a strikingly anachronistic

way in his Gorgias (486a-b). See my “Apologizing for

Socrates: Plato and Xenophon on Socrates’ Behavior in

Court,” TAPA, 2003.

12 This may explain other references to the work in

apologetic compositions set dramatically before the

trial. (Plato Apology, 18c; Xenophon Oeconomicus 11.3; see

also 3.7-9)

13 The fact that Xenophon has accurate information about

the relative dates of the performance of the Clouds and

the victory of Autolycus suggests that he was older than

three or four when the events took place. We should not

or spiritual appreciation of noble young men, but

included also physical contact of one sort or another.15

This and other admissions should be attributed not merely

to Xenophon’s forthrightness, and certainly not to his

sloppiness,16 but rather to the peculiar nature of

apologetics in Athens and other similar societies. It

would not do to portray Socrates as a saint who abstained

unerringly from every pleasurable indulgence that custom

frowns on. On the contrary, because Socrates was

attacked as much for his poverty and misery as for his

injustice (see for example Gorgias 485b-486d, Memorabilia

1.6), it was necessary for his partisans to portray him

as having lived a pleasurable and enviable life. For

this reason, Xenophon frequently offers arguments

concerning the great pleasures that are enjoyed even by

the most impoverished philosopher (see Memorabilia 1.6,

Symposium 4.34-44). But Xenophon also has to fulfill the

standard apologetic aim of denying Socratic wrong-doing.

Together, these contradictory aims explain the

imagine Xenophon checking through historical records

before beginning to write, in the manner of James

Michener.

contradictions and tensions to be found in the portrait

of Socrates.

Apologetic aims are evident throughout the

composition, and give it some of its rich color.

Apologetics were a part of Greek public life, and part of

the Greeks’ abiding charm. To some degree the adoption

of an apologetic stance in response to public criticism

may serve as an excuse for highlighting Socrates’ virtues

(compare Isocrates’ Antidosis 6-10) and therewith a life of

human excellence or virtue. But in any case, the

apologetics are woven into the very fabric of the

composition. We will need therefore to examine the

literary character of the work as a whole in order to

elucidate the full range of apologetic themes.

II The Character of the Work

Xenophon’s Symposium has suffered a great deal in the

minds of its readers, not only from comparison with

Plato’s Symposium, but also from the fact that it is a

species of literature that we are no longer familiar

with. It pretends to record conversations that took

place at a drinking party one evening in the house of

Callias, a wealthy Athenian socialite and would-be

intellectual.17 It provides a successful imitation of

such an evening not only in the realistic and often

coarse banter that it records but also in the seemingly

random series of events that it describes. While it does

have a beginning, a middle and an end, it is not always

easy to discern any necessary or probable reason for the

order of the various scenes that follow one after

another. It is not even easy to see what aim or focus if14 Contrast Huss (42-3) who describes a more conventional

apologetics.

15 See Ole Thomsen, “Socrates and Love,” Classica et

Mediaevalia, 52, 2001, 117-168 on the complexities of

Socratic eros.

16 So Louis-André Dorion, LXVIII: “le discours

apologétique de Xénophon n’est pas entièrement

cohérent…”. I hope to explain the apparent incoherence,

yet without having recourse to the complex theory of

political esotericism propounded by L. Strauss (Xenophon’s

Socrates, Ithaca, 1972).

any the composition has. Its lack of literary polish may

be responsible in part for the fact that some

commentators have thought that it is a genuine effort at

historical verisimilitude.

In a sense, the problem is its own solution.

Xenophon’s Symposium succeeds admirably in capturing in

writing the drift of a spontaneous conversation. This

makes it more difficult to appreciate for an audience

that expects the firm literary control we find, for

example, in Plato’s far more contrived Symposium. But the

problem may not have been as acute for ancient readers as

it is for us. In ancient Greece, the line between the

written and the spoken word was not as firm as it is

today. Whether or not the silent reading of literature

was common,18 it is clear that literature was often read

aloud, a practice that today (unfortunately) is often

reserved for bed-time stories to children. A trained

slave would have read for his master and his friends (see

Plato’s Theatetus 143b), and there may have been larger

forums in which a reading would have been performed (see

Diogenes Laertius, III: 35, 37).

While we can still appreciate much of Greek

literature, including works aimed for performance on the

stage, when reading silently, there are some advantages

to reading them aloud. It is much easier to follow the

prickly challenges and the snappy retorts in Xenophon’s

Symposium when they are read aloud. The central interest

of the composition is not any theory that is being set

forth, or any dramatic event which is being portrayed,

but the interchange of pungent remarks and what they

reveal about the underlying relationships and characters

of the various persons.

On the simplest level, the Symposium aims to amuse:

with the possible exception of Plato’s Euthydemus, it is

the closest thing to prose comedy that we have from the

fourth century B.C. But the seemingly ephemeral surface

only serves to hide the serious purposes from readers who

are not yet attuned to the kinds of issues that Xenophon

is likely to be raising here. The serious purpose is 17 Callias is also the host for Protagoras and the other

wise men who appear in Plato’s Protagoras; in Plato’s

Apology, Socrates says that he has spent more on wise men

than any other man in Athens (20a).

indicated from the beginning when Xenophon comments, in a

remark which is first of all an apology for writing the

work in the first place, that in his opinion even the

light-hearted conversations of good men are worth

recording (1.1). It is completely characteristic of

Xenophon that he does not tell us what makes them worth

recording, and that the reader is compelled to search on

his own.

Xenophon certainly has some “philosophical” points

to make. In chapter two, for example, he presents a

humorous treatment of a subject that was a serious topic

of debate in fifth and fourth century Athens: is virtue 18 Bernard Knox (“Silent Reading in Antiquity,” Greek,

Roman and Byzantine Studies 9, 1968, 421-435) has shown that

it was possible. A. K. Gavrilov (“Reading Techniques in

Classical Antiquity,” Classical Quarterly 47, 1997) has shown

that it was not unusual. See also Rosalind Horowitz, “A

re-examination of Oral versus Silent Reading,” Text 11

(1991) 133-166; Rosalind Thomas, Literacy and Orality in Ancient

Greece (Cambridge 1992); Holger Thesleff, Studies in Platonic

Chronology (Helsinki, 1982) 62-64. All would agree that

reading aloud was a very common practice.

teachable? Plato’s Socrates made a lot of hay pointing

out that the most highly respected leaders in Athens were

unable to educate the people (Gorgias 515e-519d), or even

their own children (Meno 93a-94e; Protagoras 319d-320b) and

that there were in fact no recognized teachers capable of

teaching virtue (Apology 24d-e; Meno 95a-96d; Protagoras

passim). In response, Xenophon presents a female acrobat

who performs dangerous stunts by jumping through hoops

studded with knives. Her ability to do this without

fear, clearly not an ability she was born with, shows

that she has learned not only skill in jumping but also

the courage to do so.19 Socrates comments that it is

clearly possible to teach the virtue of courage, since

this girl has learned it (2.12). End of debate. This is

an example of Xenophon’s facile and yet oddly persuasive

manner of resolving difficult philosophical conundrums.20

Socrates himself offers a comment that may help to

explain further the serious purpose at work here. When

the acrobats have performed some of their stunts,

Socrates interrupts saying,

Gentlemen, these people are surely capable of

entertaining us; but it seems obvious that we

claim to be better people than they. Will it not

be shameful then if we do not try to benefit each

other or to delight each other while we are

together? (3.2)

This is not just a suggestion; it is a challenge to all

the other guests. Being a good or excellent person in

ancient Greece, like today, was not a matter simply of

being moral. It meant possessing all the traits of

character in which human beings take pride, and this

includes the ability to make entertaining conversation

(see Aristotle Ethics 4.8). One of the purposes of

Symposium is to record the virtuosity of some masters of

repartee, and thereby to provide a portrait of human

excellence in one of its manifold manifestations. Above

all it exhibits Socrates’ formidable skills in light

conversation. It responds to portraits of Socrates, such

as that in Aristophanes’ Clouds, which made him look like

a unfortunate man and a social misfit.21 In fact,

Socrates is a sought-after guest and a leader of a group

of interesting men. His pungent wit makes him far

funnier than Philippos, the uninvited and unfunny

professional funny-man who appears at the door (1.11),

and most – or rather all – of the other guests as well.

Good character obviously includes much more than

skill in handling conversation at drinking parties. But

drinking parties do in a way shed light on good character

as a whole. The proof of good character is found

precisely in situations of stress: in war, it is the

brave who stand and fight, while the cowards, however

much they may have boasted earlier, flee in fear. While

war is undoubtedly the greatest test of character, the

second greatest test might well be the temptations of

pleasure.22 Wine in particular is a test of men’s and 19 The fact that the word courage (andreia) also means

manliness may contribute to the fact that the girl’s

courage would not have seemed natural to her in Greek

eyes.

20 See also his proof that it is possible to rule human

beings (Cyropaedia 1.1.3) and his explanation of how to

teach moderation by administering blows (Cyropaedia 3.1.19-

26).

women’s characters. As Alcibiades says in Plato’s

Symposium wine causes men to speak the truth (217e), and

Socrates says something similar here (8.24).23 A person’s

true character is revealed most clearly after imbibing a

large quantity of intoxicating beverage. A bad person

will immediately display all the vices that are hidden

when sober. A good person, on the other hand, will be

relatively unaffected, having no secret desires to reveal

which could conflict with usual behavior. The good

person’s mind and desires aim at the same thing. Plato

makes this point in his Symposium: the characters say

that Socrates is never affected by the vast amounts of

alcohol he could consume, and Plato demonstrates this to

his readers ante oculos (176c; 214a; 220a; 223b-d). A

similar purpose is evident in Xenophon’s Symposium: in

order to judge Socrates’ character fully, we need to see

how he behaved at a drinking party.

The idea that drinking-parties are valuable forums

for the display and testing of character is an idea which

appears frequently in the works of Xenophon and even in 21 See Pheidippides’ attitude, Clouds 102-4; K. Dover,

Aristophanes Clouds, Oxford, 1968, xxxiii-xxxiv.

some of Plato’s writings as well (Laws 1-2, esp. 636e-

674c). In the Cyropaedia, set in Persia, Xenophon shows

how dinner parties can provide valuable occasions for

political activity (1.3.4-12; 2.2.1-2.3.1; 5.2.5-22;

8.3.35-50). But he also shows how they reveal the

characters, good or bad, of the participants. This is

shown, for example, in the scene in which Gadatas joins

the Persians for a Persian style meal on the grounds of

his estate (5.2.5-22). He we find Xenophon’s definitive

statement about the value of Persian eating parties. I

will quote a portion of Gadatas’ reflections:

But he soon perceived the temperance of the

soldiers who sat at meat with him; for no Persian

of the educated class would allow it to appear

that he was captivated with any kind of food or

drink, either with his eyes gloating over it or

his with his hands greedy to get it, or with his

thoughts so engrossed by it as to fail to observe

things that would attract his attention if he 22 Aristotle lists the virtue that deals with pleasure

second after that which deals with fear (Nicomachean Ethics

3.6-3.12).

were not at meat; but just as good horsemen do

not lose their self-command when on horseback but

can ride along and at the same time see and hear

and say whatever they should, so also the

educated Persians think that at their meals they

ought to show themselves sensible and temperate;

and to become excited over food or drink seems to

them altogether swinish and bestial. (5.2.17)

These are the occasions on which men show their

character. Symposium offers a portrait of Socrates’

abilities in this field.

Plato takes a different approach. In his earlier

writings, he tends to denigrate them.24 In his Symposium

he still shows signs of discomfort: Plato’s Socrates 23 For Greek expressions of this idea, see Wolfgang

Rösler, “Wine and Truth” in In Vino Veritas, Oswyn Murray and

Manuela Tecusan, eds, Oxford, 1995. Note also the Hebrew

expression, “When the wine goes in, the truth comes out.”

24 See Manuela Tecusan, “Logos Sympotikos: Patterns of the

Irrational in Philosophical drinking: Plato Outside the

Symposium”, in Sympotica, ed., Oswyn Murray, Oxford, 1990,

238-260.

does not frequent symposia; he arrives at this one after

the meal has been consumed; it so happens that the

drinking and the flute-girl are set aside in favor of

speeches on this occasion; and when the drinking does,

inevitably, occur, Socrates is completely unaffected by

it. In the Laws, a work that shows some signs of

Xenophon’s influence (see 694a-695b),25 Plato takes up the

idea with enthusiasm. There the citizens of his ideal

state will be tested primarily through a system of

mandatory and well-regulated drinking parties. But there

is no Socrates in the Laws, and even there the purpose of

a drinking party is to strengthen the character, not to

display one’s wit.

III In Place of a Plot

25 See my “Did Plato Read Xenophon’s Cyropaedia?” in The

Laws: Selected papers from the VI Symposium Platonicum, ed. by Samuel

Scolnicov and Luc Brisson (St. Augustin: Academia Verlag)

2003.

In order to appreciate the problem involved in

discerning the plan and focus of Symposium, it may be

useful to set forth a brief outline of the contents of

the work, bearing in mind that the chapters were not

designated by Xenophon:

1) The reluctant Socrates and the eager but uninvited

Philippus arrive separetely at Callias’ house for an

evening’s entertainment.

2) Dancers and acrobats perform to the witticisms of

Socrates and some of the other diners.

3) At Socrates’ instigation, the guests announce

subjects on which they will speak in order to provide

their own entertainment.

4) The guests each speak in praise of some quality they

possess.

5) Socrates and Critoboulos compete in a beauty

contest.

6) Some insults are exchanged between Socrates and

Hermogenes, and between the Syracusan entertainer and

Socrates.

7) Socrates criticizes the acrobatic performances and

suggests that they be replaced by dances.

8) Socrates delivers his great speech on the virtue of

pure friendship, for the benefit of Callias.

9) Short dramatic performance in imitation of the love

between Dionysis and Ariadne.

A partial remedy to the apparent lack of order can

be found if we consider the dramatic situation that

underlies all the banter.26 In a sense, the central

figure in the Symposium is the one who says the least:

Autolycus.27 This good-looking young man has been invited

by the wealthy Callias to a victory celebration after he

has won the pankration. Callias invited him, as becomes

clear, because he is interested in winning the boy’s

affection. He would have undoubtedly preferred to get

him alone, but this would not have been easy to arrange:

the boy’s father would probably not have agreed to it,

and it is not clear that Autolycus himself would have

either. The best Callias can do is to invite the boy,

26 See also Huss, 30-37.

27 See Huss 39, Thomsen 170-172.

together with his father, to a victory dinner at his

house.

Callias has organized not only a meal, but also some

expensive entertainment. He has hired a Syracusan

entertainer to provide one male and two female after-

dinner entertainers: they play instruments, dance,

perform acrobatic stunts, and even do some acting. A

professional comedian, one Philippos, arrives uninvited

(11-13).28 But even with this addition, no really

impressive guests have appeared. When Callias runs into

Socrates by chance, he has an opportunity to fill this

gap in the evening’s plans: Socrates and his friends

will fill this role and lend some additional splendor to

the evening. Unfortunately for Callias, however, they

have no real interest in joining Callias’ little party,

and only agree to do so when Callias seems genuinely hurt

(1.7).29 Despite all his money Callias is unable to

arrange an entertaining evening on his own. Socrates and

friends, despite their less fortunate material

circumstances, are clearly more in-demand than he is.

When we contrast Callias with the impoverished but

infinitely more charming Socrates, we begin to see that

money is a poor excuse for a lack of personal charm.

This dramatic situation suggests a rivalry between

the host and his chief last-minute guest. If the reader

keeps this personal rivalry in mind it becomes easier to

follow what is going on in the composition as a whole.

From the beginning, Socrates makes his attitude towards

Callias clear enough: despite his polite words, he 28 Devorah Giluli (“Entertainment at Xenophon’s Symposium,”

Estratto da Athenaeum – Studi di Litteratura e Storia dell’ Antichita` , Vol.

XC, 1, 2002, 207-213) discusses this rare portrait of a

gelotopoios (208). Thesleff offers some interesting

comments on the possible adaptation of this scene by

Plato in his portrait of Alcibiades (1978).

29 We are meant to contrast Socrates and his friends, who

are pressed into service, with the uninvited clown

Philippus who appears at the door.

thinks little of Callias’ claim to wisdom (1.5). Later,

he offers polite thanks for the entertainment, which has

offered indulgence to almost all of the bodily senses

(2.2),30 but he does not really mean it: when Callias

offers to bring out some perfumes as well, to indulge the

sense of smell, Socrates makes a big fuss out of refusing

them (2.3-6). Later he comments that it is disgraceful

for gentlemen to sit around watching silly acrobatic

stunts, and challenges his fellow-partiers to provide

their own conversational entertainment instead (3.2; see

7.3-4). And he seems to challenge Callias’ claim to

Autolycus when he says to the boy’s father, quoting

Theognis, that “from the good you will learn good things,

but if you spend time with the worthless, you will lose

what wisdom you have.” (2.4). Socrates expresses the

wish that Autolycus will search out a good teacher of 30 The sense of touch is the only sense that Callias has

not offered to pamper, but Charmides’ remarks at 3.1 may

be intended to suggest some sexual activities. Compare

Phaedrus 230b-d, which also describes the pleasures of all

the senses in a context suggesting that seduction is the

goal.

virtue (2.5), and in this context at least he defends the

proposition that virtue is teachable (2.9). Socrates is

never rude, but he takes complete control over the small

group assembled in Callias’ home. Callias paid good

money for the evening’s entertainment, but Socrates seems

to make out better than he does.

Autolycus is an object of concern not only for

Callias and Socrates, but also for his father Lycon.

Unfortunately for Callias, the boy seems strongly

attached to his father. When asked what he is most proud

of, the boy sets aside his recent athletic victory, and,

leaning on his father, claims to be most proud of him

(3.13). Callias congratulates the father, despite his

obvious jealousy.

Socrates plays an interesting role in this rivalry.

His belittling of Callias shows that he is in some sense

a rival for Autolycus. But after having taken charge of

the evening and demonstrated his superiority to Callias

in infinite ways, he coolly shows his indifference to

Autolycus, while at the same time preventing Callias from

getting too close to him. His great speech in chapter

eight aims to reform Callias, and to persuade or force

him to behave properly towards the young man. Socrates

does this by attributing to him the higher form of love,

love of the soul. That this is an educational stance,

designed to persuade or force Callias into really

behaving as Socrates says he does, is made explicitly

clear – for those who would not have noticed it on their

own – by Hermogenes the pedant (8.12). After Autolycus

has heard from an authoritative source that the higher

form of eros involves no physical contact, it will be

exceedingly difficult for Callias to persuade the young

man otherwise.

Socrates’ main point is not merely that it is better

to fall in love with a boy’s character than with his good

looks, but also that such love can be in itself

erotically gratifying even while it remains free of any

physical consummation.31 Here Xenophon negotiates

carefully between his various apologetic aims,

attributing to Socrates genuine erotic experience with

the handsome young men, while preserving him from the

charge of wrong-doing.32 By making this argument,

Socrates not only shields Autolycus from Callias, he also

makes it unlikely that he himself will ever succeed in

fornicating with the young man. Socrates’ remarks

naturally win the hearty approval of Autolycus’ father

Lycon, who comments that Socrates is a true gentleman

(9.1). This surprise ending (with which one may compare

the ending of Plato’s Lysis) is clearly designed to show

that Socrates did not take advantage of his

conversational abilities in order to have sexual

relations with young men. One of his prosecutors, Lycon,

knew this full well, and even benefited personally from

Socrates’ discrete and upright handling of his sons’

love-affairs (see also 4.24).

IV: Confessing and Boasting

Socratic apologetics are prominent in all of

Xenophon’s Socratic writings, and even appear in each of

his major non-Socratic writings.33 In addition to the

official charges of corrupting the youth and disbelieving

in (or disrespecting) the gods of the city, Socrates was

also ridiculed as a “loser” both for losing his trial and

for living an unenviable, miserable and squalid lifestyle

(X. Apology 1; Memorabilia 1.6). In the Symposium, Xenophon

addresses these issues far more candidly than he does in

any other place. He uses the light-hearted setting as a

cover under which he can reveal some truths that would

have seemed inapporpriate anywhere else. And here too an

apologetic intention can be discerned.

In chapters three and four, the guests take turns

describing the thing that each holds to be of greatest

worth (3.3) or the thing that he is most proud of (3.4).

While each of the speakers aims primarily to praise

himself, it is also true that most of the speeches 31 See Thomsen, 124, passim.

32 This is also the aim of the magnificent myth in Plato’s

Phaedrus: it explains how Socrates could have derived

enormous erotic pleasure from his companionship with

young men without touching them, and it even explains why

other souls might fail to derive as much pleasure from

such things as Socrates did.

33 Anabasis (3.1.4-7); Hellenica (1.7.15); Cyropaedia (3.1.38-

40).

concern charges that were addressed to Socrates before,

during, and after his trial: poverty, corrupting the

young, introducing new gods.

Perhaps the most prominent subject is wealth and

poverty. Socrates was not the only one who would have

been taunted in Athens for his lack of resources. The

richer members of the Athenian polity naturally thought

that their wealth made them more important and even

better people than their less fortunate neighbors. When

in chapters three and four the guests take turns boasting

about their most valuable possessions, it is almost

inevitable that their mildly tactless host, Callias, will

try to create the impression that being wealthy has its

advantages. Rather than coarsely boasting of the

personal advantages his money affords him, he lays claim

to higher things: his money, he claims, enables him to

make others just.34 By giving money to the poor he makes

it unnecessary for them to resort to theft.35 Not only is

he better off than his guests, he is also a better person

than they are, since he actually makes people just, while

they just talk about it (see Memorabilia, 1.4.1 and Republic

331d).

Socrates’ friends have no intention of taking this

lying down. Antisthenes, who is always ready for a

fight, refutes Callias, arguing that he does not make

people just at all, since they are not grateful for the

money he gives them, as just men would be. But Callias

has an answer to this, and Socrates pipes in to support

him. His support for Callias seems to stem less from his

love for Callias than from his desire to keep Antisthenes

in his place. As becomes apparent later, although

Socrates and Antisthenes are intimate friends, they are

not on the best terms.36 At the same time, Socrates gains

a useful ally: in chapter six he calls on Callias to

help him in attacking Hermogenes (6.3).

Critobulus’ speech offers a response to Callias as

well. Although somewhat wealthy himself (see Oeconomicus

2), Critobulus boasts of his beauty. He points out that

if the other members of the room love him as well as they

claim to do (that is, as well as he loves Cleinias), they

must be ready to do almost anything for him (just as he

would do anything for Cleinias). Critobulus claims that

beauty is more useful than strength, courage, wisdom or

wealth, since by inspiring love in others, it enables one

to get whatever one wants without expending any effort at

all. He boasts that his sexual needs are satisfied by

very willing partners. And he challenges Callias on the

claim to making other people good: while Callias might

make people just, the beautiful inspire their lovers to

strive for all the virtues.

But Critobulus not only attacks Callias, he also

offers a stinging attack on Socrates’ reputation as a

seducer of young men. He concludes his speech by arguing

that beauty is not only more useful than wealth, it is

also more useful than wisdom. The proof is that he,

Critobulus, could obtain kisses from the attractive young

performers more easily than Socrates could, despite all

his wisdom. Socrates does not deny that obtaining kisses

from attractive young people is a worthwhile end; nor

does he deny that wisdom can be used to further that end.

More surprisingly, he does not even deny that beauty is a

more effective tool for this purpose than is wisdom. But

he is unwilling to grant Critobulus any superiority to

himself in the vital art of winning kisses, and therefore

insists that he is deeply offended at the suggestion that

he is less beautiful than the latter, and challenges him

to a beauty contest.

Critobulus was not the only person who suspected

that Socrates used his wisdom for the sake of winning

young lovers, and both Plato and Xenophon make it clear

that he did not suffer from any dearth of them. Such

suspicions may have been part of the reason that Socrates

was accused of corrupting the young men.37 But Xenophon

does not offer a whitewash. Although Socrates frequently

warns others against the kisses of the beautiful (see

especially Memorabilia 1.3 and below) here at least he

seems eager to win them for himself. This portrait of

Socrates seems designed to address the issue of his sex-

life not by denying his interest in young beauties, but

by emphasizing it.

Critobulus’ passionate speech induces the straight-

laced and prudish Hermogenes38 to play the part of accuser

by protesting that Socrates has not done enough to curb

the erotic passion of Critobulus.39 In Xenophon’s view it

seems that the charge of corrupting the youth clearly

included at least by implication a charge of sexual

misconduct.40 Socrates’ response here reminds us of

Xenophon’s response to the charge that Socrates had

corrupted the young in the Memorabilia, where this aspect

of the charge is generally avoided.41 There he argues

that Socrates cannot be blamed if his students

degenerated after leaving his supervision. Here Socrates

does not deny Critobulus’ sad state, or his own role as

mentor, but he denies any personal responsibility for

causing his corruption.42 Critobulus was already like

that before he ever met Socrates. His father deposited

him with Socrates in the hope that Socrates could work

some improvement on him.43 And, Socrates claims, there

has been some small, infinitesimal, improvement: whereas

previously Critobulus would stare at Cleinias without

blinking, now he blinks while doing so. Although the

exchange is presented humorously, there is no reason to

discount the implication that Socrates was thought to

have had a corrupting influence on the sexual behavior of

his young friends, nor the fact that his words in self-

defense seem completely un-reassuring on this point.

In order to respond, Socrates adopts the absurdly

unconvincing persona of a prude, insisting on the folly

of maintaining contact with beautiful young people such

as Cleinias (4.25-26). This scene may be designed to

show us how to interpret Socrates’ frequent moralistic

outbursts on this subject. While the advice he gives is

probably sound,44 it is also the sort of thing that a

jealous lover might say in order to prevent others from

competing with him for the attentions of beautiful young

people. This is what Charmides suspects is Socrates’

motive, and he attacks Socrates, pointing out that he has

seen him, in contradiction to his own advice, engaging in

intimate contact with Critobulus while reading a book

together:

Why in the world do you frighten us, your

friends, away from beautiful people? I saw you

yourself, by Apollo! he said, when you were both

tracking something in the same scroll at the

house of the school-teacher, sitting with your

heads together, and with your bare shoulder

touching Critobulus’ bare shoulder! (4.27)

Here again we see Socrates making use of his only

substantial charm, the attraction of intellectual

investigation, to get close to and even touch a beautiful

young person. One has to appreciate Xenophon’s delicate

way of putting it. But here is more than mere

accusation; we have eyewitness proof of guilt. Socrates

cannot deny the facts. He voices his regret in the

loudest tones, places the blame squarely on Critobulus,

and makes public arrangements to avoid being drawn into

sin in the future.

On the surface, the argument with Charmides ends to

Socrates’ distinct disadvantage. Socrates is forced to

acknowledge that he violates his own moral teaching. But

his loud protests do not seem particularly heart-felt.

We should bear in mind that while rubbing shoulders with

the young might seem like a serious charge when it is

voiced indignantly in a public forum, it might also be

something to boast of in a private gathering dedicated to

drinking and to having a generally good time. Socrates

may be quite pleased if the other guests go off with the

impression that he has corrupted no small number of

beautiful youths.

Certainly Socrates has no serious intention of

renouncing the kisses of beautiful young people. He is

still eager to prove that he can win a beauty contest

with Critobulus, and later he insists that kisses from

the attractive young judges be the reward for the winner,

and not mere ribbons (5.9). Clearly Socrates was quite

willing to risk the very dangers he warned others

against, even after publicly promising to abstain from

them.

After convicting Socrates on this charge, Charmides

makes his own speech, in which he returns to the topic of

wealth and poverty. Although he speaks about himself,

his words carry some implication for Socrates. Having

been both rich and poor, Charmides can say without any

doubt, that being poor is far better, and he lists the

numerous advantages of being poor in Athens together with

the disadvantages of being wealthy (compare the pseudo-

Xenophontic Constitution of the Athenians, esp. 1.10-13). Then

he suffered from the envy of the poor; now he has nothing

to fear. All the advantages of the poor, and all the

disadvantages of the rich, naturally redound to Socrates’

favor.

Prominent among the advantages that Charmides now

enjoys is the fact that the poor have a better

opportunity to spend time with Socrates. Although

Charmides was the one who attacked Socrates for his

contact with Critobulus, this does not make him any less

interested in spending time with Socrates himself. If

this ravishingly beautiful young man (see Plato’s

Charmides 154b-d) sincerely objected to anything in

Socrates’ behavior, it was to the fact that he was

flirting with someone else instead of himself.

This whole line of argument – both the praise of

poverty and the praise of Socrates -- is obviously not

pleasing to Callias, and he has to intervene. He cannot

do anything about Charmides’ infatuation with Socrates,

but he exposes the fraud in Charmides’ boast about

poverty by asking him if he would really pray to the gods

not to allow him to become rich. Charmides “’fesses up”:

if he had the opportunity, he would face the danger of

becoming rich again with great courage. Callias wins on

wealth; but Socrates still seems to have him beat with

regard to the hearts of young men.

Antisthenes continues the theme of wealth and

poverty, bringing it to a more theoretical level. As we

have noted, he is the most aggressive of the guests. He

constantly questions and challenges the statements made

by everyone around him, but he rarely wins his point. He

is also, together with Hermogenes, the most serious of

the guests. On the surface he reminds us of Socrates.

But in fact, Xenophon’s Socrates is not an offensive or

earnest interrogator, as he is frequently in Plato, and

the Socrates of Xenophon’s drinking-party is not – on the

surface at least – terribly serious. Antisthenes is more

a caricature of Socrates than a replica. He is far more

irritating, and is never graceful, light-hearted or

genuinely amusing. Both Antisthenes and Socrates make

use of dialectic arguments; but while Socrates does so in

order to build agreement with his at first sight absurd

propositions (4.56-64; 5.3-6), Antisthenes does so in

order to show up his opponents (3.4-6; 4.2-3 and see

6.5). Xenophon seems to use him by way of contrast, as

if to say that Plato and Socrates’ detractors got it

wrong: Socrates was a well-mannered and entertaining

gentleman. It was Antisthenes, one of Xenophon’s rivals

in Socratic composition, who played the offensive

philosopher.45

Unlike Callias, Antisthenes boasts openly that he is

most proud of his wealth -- although he readily admits

that he hasn’t got a penny. In Memorabilia too (2.5) he is

presented as experiencing serious financial difficulties.

But this does not mean that he is not wealthy. Wealth,

he explains, is found in a man’s soul, not in his oikos.

For Antisthenes (although as he admits it was really

Socrates who taught him this: see also Oeconomicus

2.4ff.) wealth means having everything you need, and

Antisthenes has that. He boasts that his life is so

enjoyable that he could wish only for less pleasure than

what he has. He visits women so ugly that they are

exceedingly grateful for his company. Similarly, his

hunger and deprivation make any food he may get more

enjoyable than the best wines and delicacies. But he

also enjoys ethical advantages: since he desires so

little he is in no danger of greed or injustice, but

keeps his hands far from the possessions of others, and

shares his spiritual wealth with all. He who needs money

so desperately that he is willing to commit crimes or

perform services unworthy of a free man is obviously

poverty-stricken, no matter how much property he may

possess. Tyrants and kings who make vicious wars for the

sake of money, and even perform such crimes as selling

other human beings into slavery, are among the poorest

men alive: they would never do such things unless they

were in very great economic need. The truly wealthy are

those who need nothing that they do not have. And again,

for Antisthenes, as for Charmides, the best thing of all

about being poor and unemployed is that he has plenty of

leisure-time to spend with Socrates (contrast Ischomachus

in Oeconomicus 7.1-2).

This speech offers arguments that clearly place

Socrates in a good light, and Xenophon employs some of

them on Socrates’ behalf in other places (see Apology 16-

18, Memorabilia 1.6). Antisthenes acknowledges that he has

acquired this spiritual “wealth” from Socrates. But

Xenophon has made a deft move in giving this speech to

Antisthenes rather than Socrates. Here, at a symposium,

this kind of defensive apologetics is not good form.

Although Socrates says similar things elsewhere, he knows

enough to say something less conventionally self-

promoting at a drinking-party. At a drinking party self-

promotion may be rampant, but it is supposed to be

cleverer. Xenophon has defended Socrates without making

Socrates do the work. Callias feels obliged to respond

to the implicit attack on his wealth, this time with some

forced and unconvincing efforts at humor (4.45).

In addition to being charged with corrupting the

youth, and being ridiculed for his poverty, Socrates was

charged with impiety. Both Plato’s character Euthyphro

and Xenophon’s narrator assume that the daimonion was the

main reason for the charge against Socrates of

introducing new deities (Euthyphro 3b; Memorabilia 1.1.2).

In Euthyphro the charge is of “inventing” new gods, and not

merely introducing them (3b). In Plato’s Apology, Meletus

accidentally reveals that in his opinion Socrates does

not believe in any gods at all (26c). Obviously his

accusers did not think that Socrates sincerely believed

that the gods spoke with him, and there were rumors that

he had simply invented his connection with the divine

(see Memorabilia 4.8.1).

Xenophon addresses this charge explicitly in the

Memorabilia, arguing that the gods really did speak with

him (1.1.4-5). But in other places his treatment is not

so straightforward. At times, Socrates seems to make use

of the daimonion for diplomatic purposes. In Xenophon’s

Apology, for example, Socrates claims first that he sees

no reason to prepare a defense speech (3). Then,

strangely, he claims that he actually did try to write

one, but his divine voice forbade him (4). But after

attributing this decision to the daimonion, Socrates has

no trouble explaining in detail the reasons the daimonion

had for giving this advice (5-9).46 Here he seems to be

using this voice as a diplomatic device in order to get

Hermogenes off his back. Examples of this diplomatic use

of the daimonion can be found in Plato as well.47

The truth is revealed most clearly, however, in

Symposium, where jokes provide the cover necessary for

honest revelations.48 When Antisthenes complains that

Socrates is always avoiding him, he lists the daimonion as

one of the excuses he uses:

And Antisthenes said: How transparently you act as a

pimp on your own behalf, Socrates! You always do

that. At one time you use the daimonion as an excuse

to avoid talking with me, and at another time you go

in search of someone else. (8.5) 49

Here Antisthenes recognizes just how insincere Socrates

is about his daimonion, and he is outraged.50

Hermogenes also takes Socrates too seriously, as is

his usual habit. His is the only speech that Xenophon

describes as being completely serious (4.49). Socrates

later berates him for his brooding silence at a drinking

party (6.1-6.5). We recall that it was to get Hermogenes

off his back that Socrates attributed his decision to the

daimonion (Ap. 1-5). Hermogenes takes these claims so

seriously that he boasts of his own special relationship

with the gods, and Socrates pretends to be curious about

this special relationship (4.49). Seriousness has its

place; but at a drinking-party, it is laughable -- which

is one very good reason for taking drinking-parties

seriously.

It is of course Socrates who steals the show in

chapter four. Being an excellent wit, Socrates claims

that he is most proud of his expertise in the art of

pimping. In chapter three, he claims that he could have

made a great deal of money from this profession if he had

actually practiced it (3.10). On the surface, this claim

seems to confirm the accusation made against Socrates

that he encouraged his students to make use of any

profession, no matter how base, in order to make money

(Memorabilia 1.2.56-57). Xenophon makes it clear, however,

that this was a misunderstanding.51

By explaining that pimping means teaching people

how to present themselves to others, Socrates kills

two birds with one stone, simultaneously explaining

the origin of slanderous stories about him, and

laying claim to abilities which he was ridiculed for

not possessing. During the controversy over his

trial and execution, Socrates was ridiculed for his

inability to repell the law-suit (Apology 1.1; see

also Plato’s Gorgias: 486a-b, Crito 45e). He seemed to

have proven a poor speaker in court.52 By claiming

expertise in “pimping” Socrates boasts that he could

have won the case had he tried. Why didn’t he try?

By calling this skill pimping, Xenophon explains part

of the reason: in his view the efforts that go into

winning a good reputation among mediocre people are a

kind of prostitution.53

But at the same time, in Xenophon’s portrait,

Socrates actually does engage in “pimping”. Books two

and three of the Memorabilia are devoted in large part to

showing how he taught his friends to win the high regard

of their friends and of their city (see especially his

conversation with Critobulus in 2.6). He did this,

Xenophon explains, by convincing them that in order to

win respect they must first of all be deserving of

respect (see 3.3.8-3.3.10). Socratic pimping was

actually a lesson in moral excellence.

This account of Socrates’ success at teaching self-

presentation skills raises a serious difficulty in

accounting for his condemnation by his own city on the

flimsy charges that were brought against him. Xenophon

cannot explain this, as Plato does, as resulting from the

essential conflict between the man of virtue and the

city, since in his view Socrates’ virtue included the

ability to win the high regard of others. In Xenophon’s

view, true virtue usually wins out in the end. So how

can a virtuous man like Socrates have failed? Obviously

he did not fail. This reasoning makes it inevitable that

Xenophon would argue in his Apology of Socrates that Socrates

wanted to die. Paradoxical as it may seem, this is the

only possible explanation of Socrates’ behavior in court.

This is the answer Xenophon sets forth, and he explains

forcefully that in Socrates’ situation this was really

the best thing to do (X. Apology 5-9, 32; see also Plato’s

Apology 29a-c; 39e-41d and Phaedo).

Thus, Xenophon treats not only the charges and

prejudices against Socrates, he also discusses the trial

itself. His final word on the subject is the famous

beauty contest he arranges between the ugly Socrates and

the beautiful Critobulus.54 Socrates’ behavior here seems

to be a comic parody of events surrounding his own trial

and execution. He instigates the contest in the first

place by making unreasonable and ludicrously boastful

claims about his own beauty. He then invites Critobulus

to a preliminary hearing (anakrisis: 5.2) where he attempts

to prove by dubious reasoning that his own bulging eyes

and upturned nose are actually beautiful, in a sense.

Given Socrates’ ugly appearance, the conclusion of the

trial is foregone. But his losing does not cause him to

be any less proud than he was before the trial (see X.

Apology 24). He explains that Critobulus has undoubtedly

bribed the judges (5.10).

The scene criticizes both sides of the dispute. By

making the contest into a beauty contest, Xenophon

parodies the manner in which Athenian courts made their

decisions. Did the Athenians delve any deeper into the

question of justice when they held their trials? Were

they persuaded by anything other than the “beauty” of one

of the two competitors? If we recall that Socrates

referred to the ability to win approbation from others as

a kind of “pimping” we can see Xenophon’s consistency in

using physical beauty as a metaphor for the charms that

make for success in the competitive world of ancient

Athens. And just as he ridicules the Athenian courts, he

also shows how Socrates, ugly as he is, treats the courts

with contempt and thereby seals his own fate.

V: Homosexual Fornication

There are some further polemics, especially in the

final chapters, which seem aimed at the charge that

Socrates engaged in or approved of homosexual behavior.

While homosexual behavior was common in ancient Athens,

it did not always meet with approval, particularly not

from the parents of the young boys who were the objects

of older men’s passions. One of the functions of a

paedagogos seems to have been to protect these young boys

from the overly enthusiastic advances of their elder

admirers.55 As we have indicated above, one of the

reasons for hostility to Socrates may have been the

belief, right or wrong, that he was too successful in

seducing young boys. It may be worthwhile, then, to

point out some of the ways in which Xenophon’s Symposium

seems to be designed to offset this belief.56

Normal male participants in a drinking party could

be expected to take an erotic interest in beautiful young

performers and other guests of either sex. Among the

participants in Xenophon’s Symposium are several young and

handsome men -- Autolycus, Charmides, Critobulus, even

Callias the host – and relations between them and their

admirers are prominent features of the story. The party

was organized by Callias because of his interest in the

young and handsome Autolycus (1.2; 1.8-9); we witness the

exchange between Socrates and Critobulus in book four,

where Socrates seems jealous of Critobulus’ love for

Cleinias (4.21); and we also witness Antisthenes’ public

profession of love for Socrates in chapter eight (8.4).

Among the attractive young entertainers is one young man,

and it seems that the winner of the beauty contest looks

forward to winning his kisses, as well as those of one of

the young female performers.

But of course there are heterosexual features as

well.57 If one of the entertainers is male, the other two

are female; and the contestants in the beauty contest do

not show any sign of being less eager for their kisses

than for those of the young man (see 4.18-20).58 In the

last chapters, there are signs of a deliberate effort to

emphasize the heterosexual interests of the guests: at

the end of the party, all the married men mount their

horses and ride home to lie with their wives while the

unmarried swear that they will marry (9.7). While

Socrates has spoken against physical contact between

males, nothing is said against the conjugal visits

envisioned here. The guests reach this level of

enthusiasm after watching a performance of a short erotic

skit between the god Dionysus and his female friend

Ariadne. This skit is presented in response to Socrates’

request that the Syracusan present some dances (7.5).

The fact that instead of dances we have this heterosexual

skit may suggest that Xenophon has done some re-writing

here.59 And if that is right, one of his purposes may

have been to emphasize the heterosexuality of the

entertainment at this symposium.60

In fact, the entire ending of the work, chapters

eight and nine, seems to be aiming at showing the good

effects Socrates could have in improving and refining the

sex-lives of his friends and acquaintances. In his great

speech in chapter eight, Xenophon’s Socrates refers

critically to speeches made in Plato’s Symposium.

Socrates says that he is not sure that there are really

two Aphroditai (as Pausanias had claimed), but he does

agree that there are two very different sorts of erotic

love, and he devotes most of his speech to praising the

higher form of love: love of the soul, or as Thomsen has

pointed out, love of friendship. Socrates aims here to

improve Callias; but Xenophon is clearly aiming his

arrows at Plato whose Symposium may have struck him as

creating the wrong impression about Socrates. Xenophon’s

Socrates points out the hypocrisy of Pausanias and others

like him who tried to convince young boys that it would

improve their characters if they agreed to have sexual

relations with them:

But the greatest good that comes to one who

wishes to make his beloved a good friend is that

he must strive to be a virtuous person himself.

For he who does base things himself cannot make

his beloved good; nor if he is shameless and

intemperate can he make his beloved restrained

and modest. (8.27)

If you truly love the boy’s soul, Socrates seems to be

saying, then keep your hands off his body. The highest

form of homosexuality is not homosexuality at all; it is

a kind of erotic infatuation with young boys.

Socrates responds also to the suggestion of Plato’s

Phaedrus (although he calls him Pausanias) that an army

composed of homosexuals would perform well in war.61 He

finds this suggestion absurd:

But Pausanias, the lover of Agathon the poet,

defended those who wallow together in licentiousness

and said that an army composed of lovers and beloveds

would be strongest. For he said that they would be

ashamed to abandon each other in battle. But it

would be quite extraordinary if those who are used to

paying no attention to censure and to having no sense

of shame before each other should nevertheless be

ashamed to perform a shameful action. As proof he

brought the example of the Thebans and the Eleians

who are experienced with such things, and he claimed

that even though they sleep with their beloveds, they

still set them in their ranks for battle. But there

is no proof from this, for the situation is not

similar: for them this practice is acceptable, but

for us it is exceedingly shameful. (8.32-34)

It is true that Xenophon’s own Critobulus had made a

seemingly similar suggestion concerning the value of good

looks in a general (4.16). But he was only speaking of

infatuation, and was certainly not suggesting that a

general engage in sexual relations with his troops. If

there was anything ambiguous about his words, the speech

of Socrates, which we have quoted here, makes it clear

that Socrates at least would not have approved of such

relations in an Athenian army.

In his description of improper relations between a

man and a boy, Socrates makes comments which present

homosexual relations in a bad light. He asks what there

is about an older man that would induce an attractive

young man to engage in sexual relations with him (8.19),

and in this context he finds an excuse for providing a

rather disagreeable description of such relations. He

points out that older lovers satisfy their own desires,

while providing the young boys with the most disgraceful

experience (8.19: ta; ejponeidistovtata). He points out

that by using persuasion on a young boy, an older lover

corrupts his soul or character and not just his body

(8.20). He adds that the young man will have no more

affection for the older lover than a merchant has for his

customers, and that there is nothing attractive in the

appearance of an elderly gentleman. And he also points

out the lack of mutuality in homosexual relations:

For a boy does not share with the man the

pleasant feelings of sexual relations, as a woman

does, but dispassionately witnesses someone who

is possessed by Aphrodite. For this reason, it

is not surprising if the boy feels contempt for

his lover. (8.21)

The emphasis on the asymmetry of heterosexual relations

in contrast with heterosexual relations, on the

disgraceful and unpleasant position in which it places

the boy, and the contempt he naturally feels for the

older man, makes it clear that Socrates had strong views

concerning this kind of relationship.

Xenophon’s efforts to clarify these matters suggests

that this too had an apologetic purpose.62 Socrates did

not participate in a party devoted to glorifying the

shameless pursuit of young boys, as one might conclude

from reading Plato’s Symposium. In fact he knew better

than most to distinguish between a proper and an improper

affection for young men,63 even if there are hints that he

did not always observes the limits himself.

VI Apologetics as Literature

The Symposium achives a variety of apologetic aims.

It presents us with a socially adept Socrates, the

sought-after companion of the most desirable young men in

Athens, who completely dominated his companions with his

extraordinary wit, while avoiding the social vices of

others. Although in places Xenophon denies any wrong-

doing on Socrates’ part, his main aim here is to show how

much pleasure Socrates derived from his life in Athens.

He presents him as a bon vivant and offers hints concerning

Socrates’ enjoyment of physical contact with attractive

young men. Similarly, he is willing to acknowledge the

clever diplomatic use he made of his daimonic sign. In

the context of a symposium such admissions are

appropriate, and even redound to Socrates’ advantage. At

the same time, and in partial contradiction of all this,

he stresses Socrates’ moral purity, particularly in the

final chapters. These contrary tendencies do, however,

have one thing in common: they offer praise for

Socrates.

There is nothing offensive about the apologetic,

Socrates-promoting character of the work., or about the

presentation of a boastful Socrates. In ancient Athens

boasting was not off limits, and self-promotion was a

full-time business. Both Xenophon and Plato show us a

Socrates whose pride at times knows no bounds. In

Plato’s Apology, Socrates argues that he deserves great

honor for his service to the city (36b-37a). In

Xenophon’s Apology Socrates claims that “until now, I have

never had to acknowledge to anyone that he lived a better

life than I do” (5). If this is the way Socrates lived

his life, there is nothing surprising if his friends and

students continued singing his praises after his death.

Just as the need to make a good impression can bring

out the best in a human being, so too the need to defend

Socrates drove his apologists to create provocative and

inspiring portraits. The prosecution of Socrates, both

in the court and outside it, forced his friends and

admirers to delve deeply into human matters and to create

a literature that contains unique and rewarding portraits

of human excellence. To the extent that we value the

work of Plato and Xenophon we may be grateful not only to

the authors themselves, but also to Meletus, Anytus,

Lycon, Polycrates and their various cohorts, for prodding

them to it.

34 One may compare Callias with Cephalus in Plato’s

Republic. In both cases, Socrates and his companion(s) are

politely forced to join a celebration that they do not

really want to participate in. Socrates takes complete

control of the party which has assembled at the home of a

rich man; the wealthy host speaks about his wealth, and

explains the nature of the benefits he derives from it;

he claims that the primary benefit of wealth is moral,

rather than material. Cephalus claims that wealth is

useful because it enables one to be just: to pay one’s

debts to men and gods, and to die with a good conscience.

Callias claims it enables him to make others just.

Callias makes explicit what is only implicit in Cephalus’

words: that while the others may speak beautifully about

justice, he himself actually performs acts of justice.

Cephalus lives up to Callias’ boast better than Callias

does: he excuses himself from the discussion and goes

out to offer sacrifice. Callias remains to enjoy

Socrates’ speeches. Other small signs of intertextuality

include the presence in both of Niceratos son of Nicias

(Republic 327c – one of only two occurrences in Plato, just

as the Symposium is the only place he occurs in Xenophon )

and the mention of a horse-race (Republic 328a; Symposium

1.2).

35 There was a mild controversy among Greek thinkers on

the question whether or not crime was caused by poverty.

See The Athenian Constitution (5) attributed to Xenophon, and

Politics of Aristotle, 2.4, 1267a3-1267a18.

36 Antisthenes, of course, was one of Xenophon’s rivals

in the writing of Socratic compositions.

37 I plan to show this in more detail in a future

publication. For the time being, we may note that the

word diafqeivrein in a legal context has a strong sexual

implication. See Aeschines, Against Timarchus, 182-3.

38 See Socrates’ words later (6.1-2), and compare with

Aglaitadas in the Cyropaedia (2.2.11-16).

39 On Socrates’ role as educator of Critobulus see also

Memorabilia 1.3 and 2.6; Oeconomicus 1-6; and Plato,

Euthydemus 306d.

40 Socrates’ exchange with the Syracusan (4.52-54) on the

“corruption” of his young acrobat reflects this usage of

the term.

41 But even in Memorabilia, Xenophon uses a double-edged

apologetics, displaying both Socrates’ outward moralism

and his personal susceptibility to the charms of youth.

His moralism seeks to prevent Critias from gaining access

to Euthydemus (Memorabilia 1.2.29-30); but jealousy may be

the cause, for, as we find out later, Socrates also

desired Euthydemus (4.2-3). In the opening summary of

his defense of Socrates against the charge of corrupting

the youth, Xenophon points out first that Socrates was

the strictest of men in control of his own passions

(Memorabilia 1.2.1), and in concluding the defense, he

points out that Socrates always reproved his companions

if they had base desires (Memorabilia. 1.2.64). And yet,

he only praises Socrates’ ability at self-restraint, and

does not claim that he observed self-restraint.

42 Compare Memorabilia 1.2 on Alcibiades and Critias, and

Plato’s Gorgias (456d-457c), where Gorgias is presented as

upholding a similar argument, and Isocrates’ Antidosis (99)

where Isocrates demonstratively does not.

43 See Huss’ comments on the apologetic aim of this

comment (42).

44 It is in fact the sort of good advice that Cyrus gives

to Araspas (Cyropaedia 5.1.8-17).

45 See D. Gera, Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, Oxford, 1993, 48;

Dorion, CLII.

46 According to Plato, the daimonion told him only when to

abstain from what he desired to do. In that sense it

resembled the reason or nous which Socrates claims has the

job of judging and vetoing suggestions made by the

imagination (Republic 439c-d).

47 On the divine voice see Xenophon’s Memorabilia 1.1.2-5;

and Plato’s Apology 31c-d. On its use for diplomatic

purposes in Plato compare Phaedrus 242b, and Theatetus 151a.

48 This is a well-known phenomenon in Greek stage comedy.

See for example the remarks of J. Henderson, Aristophanes

Lysistrata, Oxford 1987, xxx-xxxi.

49 These comments may have been inspired by the Phaedrus

passage cited above. See Thomsen (139) on the gender of

a[llou tou.

50 Josephus’ comment (Contra Apion II 263) that Socrates was

joking when he spoke about his daimonion seems to derive

from Xenophon’s Symposium.

51 Socrates’ claim that he could have made a lot of money

also refutes the charge that he was an incompetent

householder (see Oeconomicus 11.3 ; Memorabilia 1.6).

52 See my “Apologizing for Socrates” above, note 11.

53 I discuss this line of reasoning further in “Why

Socrates was not a farmer: The Oeconomicus as a

Philosophical Dialogue,” above note 9.

54 The implicit comparison between the two “trials” is

noted by W. Higgins in his perceptive discussion of

Symposium. See his Xenophon the Athenian, Albany NY, 1977,

19.

55 See Pausanias’ speech in P. Symposium (183c-d).

56 Philo found Xenophon’s Symposium far less offensive from

this point of view than Plato’s. See On the Contemplative

Life, VII 57-63.

57 Homosexuality was by no means the dominant form of

sexuality in ancient Greece. In Aristophanes’ Lysistrata,

the decision of Greek women to abstain from the beds of

their husbands is presented as a threat capable of

bringing an end to the Peloponessian war. While one has

to allow for significant comic exaggeration of the

fidelity and monogamy of husbands and wives here, it

would be impossible to present a plot of this sort if in

reality men had little interest in sexual relations with

their wives. J. Henderson’s remarks (xxxiii-xxxvi) on

the comic exaggeration are worth noting, as are his

observations on the presence of feminine threats of this

sort in Greek literature, and most likely in life as

well. In his note on ll. 865-9 he suggests that despite

exaggeration, the portrait of marital fidelity presented

here is more realistic than the usual comic portrait of

the “sexually freewheeling and opportunistic male.”

Certainly love of women was a very widespread phenomenon,

and in Cyropaedia Xenophon takes it for granted that the

greatest possible sexual temptation of soldiers on a

campaign would be a woman (5.1.7).

58 On male and female kisses see “A Theocritean Echo in

Achilles Tatius,” Andreas Fountoulakis, Classica et Mediaevalia

52, 2001.

59 This has been argued by Thesleff, 1978, 157-170,

accepted by Bowen (8-9; 118), but disputed by Huss (14)

and Dorion (LIV, n. 1). I will provide some arguments to

support Thesleff in a future publication.

60 See also the praise of (heterosexual) married life as

endorsed by both gods and men in Socrates’ recapitulation

of Ischomachus’ speech to his wife in the Oeconomicus

7.29-31.

61 The question of the relation of Xenophon’s comments to

Plato’s Symposium has been a subject of controversy.

Some scholars have believed that Xenophon refers to

another work on the subject that served also as the basis

of Plato’s Symposium. Karl Joel argued that this was

Antisthenes’ peri; dikaiosuvnh~ kai; ajndreiva~ (Der echte

und der xenophontische Sokrates, Berlin, 1893-1901, vol. II,

912). But Thesleff argues correctly (1978, 157) that any

common source must have been a dialogue. Since Xenophon

refers to the words of Pausanias, it has been thought

that both Plato and Xenophon base themselves on some lost

work by Pausanias. (See Bury, The Symposium of Plato,

Cambridge, 1932, lxviii.) But as Dover has shown,

chronological considerations make it extremely unlikely

that the hypothetical source was a work by Pausanias

(“The Date of Plato’s Symposium,” Phronesis 10, 1965, 2-

20). Athenaeus knew of no work by Pausanias, and assumed

that the reference was to Plato (5.56). The

discrepancies between Xenophon’s reference and the actual

contents of Pausanias’ speech in Plato do not show that

he is referring to another speech, but that precision was

not expected in such matters. (Or is it possibly a hint

that Xenophon is indeed referring to Plato’s work?) On

the imprecision of Socratic writers in literary

references see “Did Plato Read Xenophon’s Cyropaedia?”

above, note 25. K. Dover (1965, 11-13) and J. Cooper

(“Notes on Xenophon’s Socrates,” Reason and Emotion,

Princeton, 1999, 16-21) argue convincingly that Plato’s

Symposium is the target of Xenophon’s Socrates’ words

here.

62 This may reflect changes in taste and sentiment:

towards the middle of the fourth century, we find a

general tendency to denigrate homosexual relations.

Plato’s words in condemnation of homosexual activity in

Laws (636c-d; 836c; 838e-839a; 841d) are stronger than in

any other place.

63 Compare also Republic 403b-c.