xvii
INTRODUCTIONnames are signifi cant and suggestive, so this is another way in which
Plato may choose to exhibit something important in a dialogue.^16 The
dialogue’s mise-en-scène would also be worthy of examination, as would
any other clues supplied about the setting, dramatic date, and dramatic
personae at the beginning of a dialogue. One need only recall the open-
ing of the Phaedo, where Socrates shifts from a prone position to sitting
upright with his feet on the ground, to see such dramatic effects. Add to
this the Theseus imagery and the way the removal of Socrates’ leg irons
sparks the discussion of the contraries, pleasure and pain, and it should
be clear to all readers that Plato took great care in crafting these little
dramas. Many dialogues can be regarded as using a kind of prologue
to prefi gure the themes with which the ensuing conversation will be
concerned.^17
If there were some dramatic pretext for the discussion, this detail
would be especially noteworthy. One might notice, for example, that
the inquiry into the immortality of the soul in the Phaedo is motivated
not only by the existential occasion, namely, that Socrates is about to
die, but also by his empathetic concern for the general mood among
his friends, which must fi rst be addressed before Socrates will be able to
engage them in philosophical conversation for the last time, on this sol-
emn day. As the various interlocutors in a dialogue pursue some ques-
tion or discussion point, Plato’s audience must then note the position
defended by each character, the kind of argument he presents, and the
objections his interlocutors raise. In many dialogues, different interloc-
utors maintain different positions on a question, so it is rarely, if ever,
the case that only one argument is presented in a given dialogue or that
the “argument” of a particular dialogue is homological and seamless,
though the conversation may have only one theme or topos. One might
then be led to examine the relations between various characters (given
each one’s particular “psychology”), and the logical line Socrates (or
another character) takes with each one respectively in argument.
Crucially worthy of consideration, in addition, is the way that vari-
ous aporiai function in the dialogues to indicate an impasse in the dis-
cussion or to announce a positive accomplishment on the part of one of
the characters: namely, that he has come to recognize his ignorance and
has thereby become teachable. Astute readers might then notice that
in some dialogues a reason for the apparent perplexity, inconclusive-
ness, or outright failure is supplied in the dialogue. In the Euthyphro, for
example, Socrates seems to be criticizing Euthyphro for setting out to
prosecute his father for impiety when Euthyphro clearly does not even
know what piety and impiety are. One might also notice that the dia-
logue’s aporia concerning the question of piety is not a complete aporia.