Καὶ τὸν Σωκράτη καθίζεσθαι καὶ εἰπεῖν ὄτι εὖ ἄν ἔχοι, φάναι, ὦ Ἀγάθων, εἰ τοιοῦτον εἴη ἡ σοφία…
I don’t understand how εἰπεῖν and φάναι fit together. I take the meaning to be: [Aristodemus said that] and Socrates sat down and said that it would be a good thing, Agathon, if wisdom were such that…
There seems to be one too many infinitives for “to say”.
Mark
This is the Symposium (not the Apology), where the narrative of the dinner party is second-hand and in indirect speech with infinitive verbs, and the speeches are in direct speech.
See LSJ φημἰ ΙΙ.4:
inserted parenthetically, though the sentence has been introduced by λέγει, εἶπεν, etc., ὁ Ἰσχόμαχος . . εἶπεν· ἀλλὰ παίζεις μὲν σύ γε, ἔφη X. Oec. 17.10, cf. Pl. Chrm. 164e; ἡ κρίσις . . διαρρήδην λέγει διότι, φησίν, ἔδοξε τἀληθῆ εἰσαγγεῖλαι Lys. 13.50.
https://logeion.uchicago.edu/φημί
In direct speech:
Καὶ ὁ Σωκράτης ἐκαθίζετο καὶ εἶπεν ὄτι “εὖ ἄν ἔχοι,” ἔφη, “ὦ Ἀγάθων, εἰ τοιοῦτον εἴη ἡ σοφία…”
I’ve always wondered why Plato adopts such a strange way of narrating the Symposium. Maybe he wanted to give the important and more difficult parts – the speeches – greater salience, making the complex ideas easier to follow, by putting them in direct speech, and, at the same time, to mark the distinction between the narrative frame and the speeches clearly – without being able to take advantage of quotation marks. Also, indirect speech distances the narrative, and continuously reminds the reader that the narrative consists of Apollodorus reporting what Aristodemus said to him.
Hi Bill, the most interesting (speculative) reason I’ve read for Plato’s approach to indirect speech in dialogues like the Symposium is by Ryle in Plato’s progress (pages 37 and following). The argument is that whereas Plato typically delivered (orally, at festivals etc.) other dialogues himself playing the ‘Socrates’ role, this one may have been delivered to the public (orally) while Plato was over at Syracuse. Apollodorus could be played in Athens by someone else basically while Plato was out of town. This fits into a broader argument that the dialogues should not be thought of as being released in bookstores, but acted out at major festivals (hence the frequent topical allusions to festivals in the dialogues). I won’t give all the details and proposed evidence for this speculation, but worth checking out: it’s interesting whether or not one buys in. I quite like the book as Ryle is trying to do for Plato what Jaeger did for Aristotle (showing the development in their ideas over the course of their lives, aligned with what we know about the facts of their lives).
Cheers, Chad
Chad: Ryles’ idea sounds ingenious; I’m skeptical, but on your recommendation I’ve ordered the book. From what little I know about Ryle, though, I’m curious to see how he squares Plato’s thought, especially Plato’s psychology and idealism, with his own ideas.
Thanks!
Bill
Thanks, Bill! I should have noticed that φάναι was separated out by commas and thus parenthetical to the sentence. It would not have occurred to me to look for the explanation in LSJ.
Plato’s Progress does sound intriguing. I already have my companion book Leo Strauss: On Plato’s Symposium. Not far enough along to have an opinion.
Mark