In reviewing contemporary tendencies in reading Plato, G.A. Press (SJPh 56 [2018], 9–34) noted ‘the expansion and ramification of the more literary, dramatic, and nondogmatic’ approaches (p. 11), a fact that he interpreted as the definitive affirmation of what had been a ‘growing insurgency’ twenty years before. The present book, originating from a conference held in Cyprus in 2015, fits within this broader development.
The editors’ intriguing ambition, already expressed in the title, is to propose an investigation on ‘openings’ and ‘closures’. While studies on proems and beginnings have been flourishing in the literature on Plato's dialogues ever since the revaluation of Proclus’ analysis in the Commentary on the Parmenides, endings have been relatively understudied. We could ask ourselves if the incomplete nature of most extant Neo-Platonic commentaries on Plato (most notably Proclus’) has not deprived us of ancient hermeneutical reflections on how to read closures and interruptions, but this would probably amount to idle speculation. What is certain is that, with few exceptions, the closures of Plato's dialogues have not been a subject of systematic or general interest in recent interpretations, and this is particularly evident in comparison with current studies on other ancient dramatic forms, such as comedy and tragedy. It is nevertheless clear, even from a first look at the table of contents, that most of the essays included in the volume focus on beginnings. Endings are often more ambiguous: only in a few cases can we properly speak of ‘closures’, and some papers stress the open-ended nature of most of Plato's production.
The chapters can be broadly classified according to their adherence to three or four main (yet not exclusive) formal tendencies: ones dealing mostly with methodological questions or general analyses of proems (and/or closures); ones applying an implicit or explicit methodology in order to analyse and interpret one or more proems or endings (sometimes in the form of a ‘micro-commentary’, as in the case of L. Brisson's detailed reading of the proem to the Charmides); ones supporting a specific interpretation of a dialogue on the basis of the literary features of its framework (Z. Petraki, Tsakmakis) or as the result of methodological discussions (P. Thanassas). A fourth category of sorts deals with ancient reception (A. Capra's treatment of the reception of the Lysis and P. Remes's study of Proclus’ Commentary on the Alcibiades). Owing to the dense and rich nature of the chapters, it would be impossible to treat all of them in detail.
S. Halliwell's contribution begins by engaging in a fully-fledged overview of beginnings and closures in Plato, highlighting the recurrent openness of both and the general freedom taken by the author in transgressing the tenets of what was later to become the Aristotelian rubric in the Poetics. These are ‘preliminary remarks’ (p. 16) for analysing the Phaedrus in order to test the theoretical indications given by Socrates in this dialogue concerning the structure of: (a) the three speeches contained in the first part of the work; (b) the dialogue in its entirety. Indeed, the paradigm of the logos-zoon does not seem to be coherently applied by Plato to any of these textual units. If we analyse the content of Socrates’ literary analysis, we see, with Halliwell, that some strange things are going on: for example, Socrates’ critical remarks about Lysias’ speech apply to many Platonic dialogues. Halliwell's analysis of the three discourses and of their respective beginnings and endings is valuable and enlightening: in general, one can agree that ‘Platonic practice greatly exceeds in complexity the supposedly unambiguous clarity of Platonic theory’ (p. 22) and that for Plato it is impossible to deal with the problem of literary παιδιά in a technical and precise way. Hence, we cannot but wonder whether the vagueness of formal and ‘normative’ details, as in the case of the famous κεφαλή-theme (tackled on pp. 23–4), could be perceived as problematic by the author. The reception of this point does not seem to have been univocal in antiquity, as witnessed by the problem concerning the precise meaning of the term ἀκέφαλος (recurring, not surprisingly, in Socratic literature: D.L. 2.60; 3.62).
To move on to the more overtly methodological chapters, M. Finkelberg provides a review of the phenomenon of ‘metalepsis’ or frame-breaking in Plato's narrated dialogues: a topic also tackled in her recent book (The Gatekeeper [2018]). The analysis provided is interesting and precise. A philosophical explanation of frame-breaking is proposed, as an attempt by Plato to avoid the reader's ‘immersion’ in dialogical mimesis: the same interpretation is also advanced, albeit in a more nuanced way, in Finkelberg's book (pp. 115–16). In dialogues such as the Phaedo and the Parmenides the various narrative plans also seem to be employed in order to stress the stability of the chain of transmission of Socrates’ words and deeds, through the recollection of people who were absent at the time of the conversation (as the author, Plato, invariably is, even when his absence is not underlined as it is in the Phaedo). This is highlighted by C. Capuccino (p. 51), who also addresses the incoherence that Halliwell evidenced between Plato's explicit poetics and his practice: unsurprisingly, she focuses on proems, a field in which she has produced an important mise à point (C. Capuccino, Ἀρχὴ λόγου [2014]). According to Capuccino, through the analysis of the complex proems of ‘mixed’ dialogues we can recover implicit authorial indications: in particular, the proem of the Theaetetus is the point of departure both for an explication of the origins of mimetic dialogue as the transformation of διήγησις and for the need to save μίμησις (i.e. the imitation of Socrates) as an instrument for philosophical communication, while avoiding his flaws.
The chapter by M. Erler is the only one systematically dealing with endings, more precisely with aporetic endings: the explication of the philosophical meaning of dialogic conclusions necessarily entails a detailed analysis of the various passages – allowing the reader to see, for example, that by the end of the Protagoras Socrates’ friend Hippocrates has clearly abandoned the idea of becoming a student of Protagoras (p. 77) – but also an attempt to define the dialogue's place within the relative ‘fictive’ chronology of Socratic dialogues. Aporetic closures invite us to read the text again, but also to check other dialogues in search of explications and solutions: this paradigm is applied to the Euthyphro–Apology sequence, in which the problem of piety emerges through its centrality in the accusations levelled against Socrates. The intertwining of dialogues is at the centre of S. Rangos's study on proems and closures in the Third ‘Thrasyllan’ Tetralogy: the link between the four dialogues in one of the ‘loosest’ tetralogical structures is investigated through the analysis of frames and literary form.
Some interesting insights are provided by the contributions concentrating on single dialogues. To cite a few, the proem to the Parmenides is studied in detail by D. Horan, who shows that the introduction is indispensable in order to assess the value of the second part of the dialogue, in which the γυμνασία that Plato proposes to the reader cannot be reduced to an effort at mnemotechnics. The frame of the Theaetetus is at the centre of Tsakmakis's chapter, which looks for clues to situate the dialogue in a precise context: the Academy. In Pavlou's chapter, the frame of the Protagoras is analysed through the σχολή/ἀσχολία polarity: this motif has a prominent place in many other dialogues, but its centrality in the Protagoras is evident. The alleged ἀσχολία that Socrates invokes in order to leave Callias’ house turns, in the outer frame, into a σχολή, which gives rise to the narration of the whole dialogue: it is tempting to interpret the commitment leading Socrates to end his discussion with Protagoras as the need for him to practise philosophy in the streets of Athens – by contrast, one may add, to the sophist who likes to ἔνδον διατρίβειν (Prt. 311a6).
The chapters by A. Capra and K. Morgan form a graceful diptych devoted to eros that proves particularly rewarding for the literary interpretation of Plato. The order of these two essays could have been reversed, as Morgan offers a more general analysis of the presence of traditional motifs of erotic literature, while Capra focuses on the reception of Plato's Lysis, and especially of its prelude, in Alexis’ Phaedrus, thereby revealing a new chapter in the ancient history of the dialogue, parallel to what can be reconstructed through a recent interpretation of the Academy mosaic from Pompeii.
Let us now turn to the ‘opening’ and ‘closure’ of the volume itself. The book opens with a general introduction, which is succinct and somewhat imprecise: is it accurate, for example, to state that ‘the scrutiny of Plato's first words begins with Proclus’ commentary on the Parmenides’ (p. 1)? Proclus’ exposition – as most of the chapters underline – is rather a witness to the fact that the problem had been debated throughout antiquity. The importance of M. Burnyeat's article First Words (PCPS 43 [1997]) is unquestionable, but Proclus’ approach to Platonic prooimia had been reappraised at least since F. Muthmann's 1961 dissertation Untersuchungen zur ‘Einkleidung’ einiger platonischer Dialoge and had been reaffirmed in D. Clay's Plato's First Words (YCS 29 [1992]). These are no doubt minor flaws, but it is difficult to overlook them, as they occur in the προοίμιον of the work. The ‘closure’ provides a useful index and a comprehensive bibliography, which constitutes an important instrument for the interpretation of literary elements in Plato's dialogues. A commendable attempt has been made to represent the multifaceted and multilingual tradition of Platonic studies, even if an overall tendency to privilege articles and books in English is still visible, and some titles that would be expected are missing (such as, for example, Muthmann's dissertation).
Overall, this rich and thought-provoking book constitutes a remarkable contribution to the interpretation of Plato's dialogues. Moreover, it shows that the interest in literary elements cuts across different hermeneutic paradigms. The wide range of possible applications of this exegetical tool to different hermeneutic approaches is clearly illustrated by the volume, which offers the reader a rich variety of points of view, and does so by necessarily adopting a rather loose structure. Far from being a flaw in the project, this diversity is bound to give rise to a fruitful debate on hermeneutic strategies for reading literary elements in the dialogues.
