Matthew B Pincus (University of Virginia)
Crossroads of the Dialogue: Rethinking the “Parabasis” in Plato’s Euthydemus
Commonly recognized as one of the most theatrical and, specifically, comedic dialogues in the Platonic corpus, the Euthydemus also exhibits a peculiar dramatic and narrative structure: the bulk of the work is dedicated to Socrates’ narration (to his friend Crito), while the dramatic frame itself surfaces at the beginning, the end, and—crucially—at the very center of the dialogue (290e–293b). Using a primarily narratological analysis (building on, e.g., Collins 2015; Finkelberg 2018), I contend that Plato, in this central episode, deploys a specific constellation of elements drawn from the parabasis of Old Comedy in order to engage the reader in a process of active literary interpretation, attentive to the dialogue as a whole and to the perspectives embedded within the different narrative levels. This argument thus supplies new evidence for the interrelationship between Plato’s literary art and philosophical thought, while also suggesting a greater aversion to dogmatism and a greater openness to multiplicity of perspective in the Platonic dialogue.
The middle of the Euthydemus—largely an aporetic conversation between Socrates and Crito on the nature of the “kingly art” (βασιλικὴ τέχνη)—is usually discussed in terms of ideas in other dialogues or because its more serious tone seems to contrast with the overt humor of the surrounding narrative (e.g., Erler 1987; Chance 1992; Parry 2003; Sermamoglou-Soulmaidi 2014). Indeed, the latter interpretation has already led a few commentators to liken this episode to a parabasis, but without further elaboration (Kahn 1996; Hösle 2004; Ewegen 2014; Erler 2017). These accounts, however, often rely on shaky assumptions about Plato’s doctrines and development, and they do not satisfactorily account for the narratological peculiarities of the dialogue and of this central passage in particular. Moreover, to treat a parabasis itself as merely a moment of didactic “seriousness” amidst the comic buffoonery is to erase its complexity and so to misunderstand its function (on which, e.g., Sifakis 1971; Hubbard 1991).
I proceed, therefore, first by briefly surveying a few passages from Aristophanic parabaseis as textual sites characterized by different forms of mediation: between the two halves of the play, between theological or biological boundaries, and between the performed and performing worlds. I then demonstrate that Plato draws attention to the central break in the Euthydemus as a kind of parabasis, initially by “inverting” the formal parabatic structure—replacing the comedy’s ostensibly monological interlude (which nevertheless harbors a complex polyphony) with an explicitly dialogical break in an otherwise continuous third-person narration. Finally, tying these threads together, I show how Plato imports the “mediating” features of the comic parabasis and adapts them within the narratological structure of the Euthydemus. Plato’s purpose in doing so, I conclude, is to challenge his reader to interpret the dialogue as a coherent whole, taking into account the tensions between its different perspectives (including their various limitations) and narrative levels. Such interpretation itself becomes a form of philosophical practice, placing the reader in dialogue, so to speak, with Plato.