It will be noticed that in this list the passages which find responsions in the language of Alcibiades are all drawn from the discourse of Socrates. This is due to the fact that it is his discourse alone, of the earlier encomia, which treats "Ερως on the side of its ἔνδεια. The previous speakers had, as we have seen, regarded Ερως as altogether lovely, i.e. as τὸ ἐρώμενον. Accordingly, it is to the next list of parallels that we must look for the passages where Alcibiades echoes their sentiments.

The foregoing lists contain, I believe, most if not all of the passages in which Alcibiades, describing Socrates, uses phrases which definitely echo the language or repeat the thought of the earlier encomiasts. When one considers the number of these " 'responsions" and the natural way in which they are introduced, one is struck at once both with the elaborate technique of Plato and, still more, with the higher art which so skilfully conceals that technique. For all its appearance of spontaneity, a careful analysis and comparison prove that the encomium by Alcibiades is a very carefully wrought piece of work in which every phrase has its significance, every turn of expression its bearing on the literary effect of the dialogue as a whole. Moreover, as we are now to see, the list of parallels already given by no means exhausts the “responsions” offered by Alcibiades.

(6) The speech of Alcibiades, although primarily concerned with Socrates, is also, in a secondary degree, concerned with Alcibiades himself. And Alcibiades, like Socrates, plays a double part: he is at once the παιδικά of Socrates the ἐραστής, and the ἐραστής of Socrates the ἐρώμενος. In his role of ἐραστής Alcibiades exhibits a spirit very similar to that described in the earlier speeches, in which every display of erotic passion is regarded as excusable if not actually commendable. We may call attention to the following echoes:

Since in this list echoes are found of the only two earlier encomiasts who were not represented in the former lists (viz. Pausanias and Aristophanes), it will be seen that the speech of Alcibiades contains references, more or less frequent, to sentiments and sayings expressed by every one of the previous speakers. It is chiefly in his description of himself that Alcibiades echoes the language of the first five speakers, and in his description of Socrates that he echoes the language of Socrates. The general impression made on the mind of the reader who attends to the significance of the facts might be summed up briefly in the form of a proportion: as Alcibiades is to Socrates in point of practical excellence and truth, so are the first five speeches to the discourse of Socrates-Diotima in point of theoretical truth and excellence. But while this is, broadly speaking, true of the

inner nature (púσis, rà ěvdov) of Socrates as contrasted with that of Alcibiades, we must bear in mind that in his outward appearance (oxyua) Socrates is "conformed to this world" and, posing as an erastes of a similar type to Alcibiades himself, serves to illustrate the theories and sentiments of the earlier speeches.

Lastly, attention may be drawn to one other parallel in Alcibiades' discourse which appears to have passed unnoticed hitherto. It can scarcely be a mere coincidence that Alcibiades' progress in erotics—in other words, "the temptation of saint" Socrates-is marked by a series of stages (συνουσία, συγγυμνασία, συνδειπνείν, 217 A f.) until it reaches its climax in συγκεῖσθαι, and that a similar ἄνοδος by gradual stages (210 A ff., 211 c ff.) up to the final communion with Ideal Beauty had been described as the characteristic method of the true erastes. It seems reasonable to suppose that the method of false love is designedly represented as thus in detail contrasting with, and as it were caricaturing, the method of true love: for thereby an added emphasis is laid upon the latter.

§ vii. THE DIALOGUE AS A WHOLE: ITS SCOPE AND DESIGN.

No small degree of attention has been paid by the expositors of our dialogue to the question regarding its main purport-" de universi operis consilio." It is plausibly argued that there must be some one leading thought, some fundamental idea, which serves to knit together its various parts and to furnish it with that "unity" which should belong to it as an artistic whole. But wherein this leading idea consists has been matter of controversy. Some, like Stallbaum, are content to adopt the simplest and most obvious view that Eros is the central idea, and that the design of the whole is to establish a doctrine of Eros. Others, again, have supposed that Plato was mainly concerned to furnish his readers with another specimen of the right method of handling philosophical problems. But although either of these views, or both combined, might be thought to supply an adequate account of the design and scope of the dialogue if it had ended with the speech of Socrates, they are evidently inadequate when applied to the dialogue as it stands, with the addition of the Alcibiades scenes. In fact, this last part of the dialogue-the Third Act, as we have called it might be construed as suggesting an entirely different motif,-namely, laudation of Socrates in general, or perhaps rather (as Wolf argued) a defence of Socrates against the more specific charge of unchastity.

That this is one purpose of the dialogue is beyond dispute: many indications testify, as has been shown, that Plato intended here to offer an apologiam pro vita Socratis. Yet it would be a mistake to argue from this that the main design of the dialogue as a whole lies in this apologetic. Rather it is necessary to combine the leading idea of this last Act with those of the earlier Acts in such a way as to reduce them, as it were, to a common denominator. And when we do this, we find as I agree with Rückert in believing that the dominant factor common to all three Acts is nothing else than the personality of Socrates, Socrates as the ideal both of philosophy and of love, Socrates as at once the type of temperance and the master of magic. Our study of the framework as well as of the speeches has shown us how both the figure of Socrates and his theory dominate the dialogue, and that to throw these into bolder relief constitutes the main value of all the other theories and figures. This point has been rightly emphasized by Rückert (p. 252): "utique ad Socratem animus advertitur; quasi sol in medio positus, quem omnes circummeant, cuius luce omnia collustrantur, vimque accipiunt vitalem, Socrates proponitur, et Socrates quidem philosophus, sapiens, temperans. Quem iuxta multi plane evanescunt, ceteri vix obscure comparent, ipse Agatho, splendidissimum licet sidus ex omnibus, ut coram sole luna pallescit."

It seems clear, therefore, that the explanation of the "Hauptzweck of our dialogue which was given long ago by Schleiermacher is the right one "propositum est Platoni in Convivio ut philosophum qualem in vita se exhiberet, viva imagine depingeret": it is in the portrait of the ideal Socrates that the main object of the dialogue is to be sought.

The theory of Teichmüller and Wilamowitz as to the occasion on which the dialogue was produced has no direct bearing on the question of design. They suppose that it was written specially for recital at a banquet in Plato's Academy; and, further, that it was intended to provide the friends and pupils of Plato with a model of what such a banquet ought to be. But it would be absurd to estimate the design of a work of literary art by the temporary purpose which it subserved; nor can we easily suppose that Plato's main interest lay in either imagining or recording gastronomic successes as such. Equally unproven, though more suggestive, is the idea of Gomperz that this dialogue Tepi paros was inspired by an affection for Dion.