172 book reviews

Andre Archie
Politics in Socrates’ Alcibiades: A Philosophical Account of Plato’s Dialogue Alcibiades
Major. Cham: Springer, 2015. xii + 144 pp. $54.99. ISBN 9783319152684 (pbk).

Andre Archie claims to argue that ‘Socrates redirects Alcibiades’ political ambi-
tion to rule over the Athenian people by generalizing the notion of argument’
(p. 3).1 The change of ambition is most probably the case since the dialogue
ends with Alcibiades’ proclaimed determination to ‘cultivate justice (or righ-
teousness)’ (Alc. I., 135e4-5). However, Alcibiades proclamation is immediately
followed by Socrates’ scepticism which is the last rejoinder of the text. The
ending of the Alcibiades thus exhibits one instantiation of a serious problem
Plato – the philosopher – had to face: did Socrates fail in making his associates
better people? And if he did (cf. Alcibiades, Critias, Charmides and others),
why? Did he do anything wrong?2
Archie does not address these question which necessarily invite broad inves­
tigation outside the Alcibiades itself and most probably outside the Platonic
corpus as well. In several aspects he treats the Alcibiades as a complete text
which can be interpreted in itself. Compared to most recent scholarship on
the Alcibiades, this approach is a novelty. However, it is understandable since
most of the interpretations so far felt the need to address the authenticity of
the dialogue and thus compared it in one way or another with other dialogues
in the corpus or even with some historical events in lives of its protagonists.3
Archie is not much interested in discussion concerning the authorship (he
sides with those arguing for the authenticity of the dialogue) and focuses on
the form of the arguments within the dialogue and preconditions of the dia-
logical argument.
In the Introduction Archie explains his main methodological approaches
which enable him to produce a new interpretation of the dialogue: his focus on
the similarities with decision making theory and the concept of frames (p. 5).
However, these new interpretative strategies bring only limited results, since
Archie’s interpretation of the dialogue differs from the older accounts in only
a few important points.4

1  The simple references by page numbers are to the reviewed book; unless specified otherwise
the title Alcibiades refers to the dialogue Alcibiades Major.
2  Cf. B. Williams, ‘Plato: Invention of Philosophy’, in The Sense of the Past (Princeton and
Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2006), p. 149.
3  I have tried to make a summary of this discussion in J. Jirsa, ‘Authenticity of the Alcibiades I:
Some Reflections’, Listy filologické 132, 3-4 (2009), pp. 236-241.
4  Archie himself actually says that his purpose is to show how his ‘reading of Alcibiades Major
is in line with modern commentators’ (pp. 6-7).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/20512996-12340112

AGPT_034_01_13_BR-Jirsa.indd 172 2/23/2017 10:25:34 AM

 book reviews 173

The second chapter provides the reader with a criticism of three different
selective understandings of Plato’s dialogue. Archie rightly criticizes methods
of interpretation which are one-sided concerning the importance of Socrates
on the one hand and his interlocutors on the other. According to him both
approaches forget another important person, namely the reader: ‘the dia-
logues are provocative precisely because they are designed to force readers to
consider their own solutions to the subject matter under discussion’ (p. 16).5
Further, he criticizes Hintikka’s understanding of Socrates according to whom
elenchus does not require any substantive knowledge and presuppositions.
Archie nicely shows how Socrates skilfully uses his knowledge of the interlocu-
tors during the confutation of his partners (pp. 26-27).
The third chapter brings out two modern themes anticipated in the dia-
logue: feminism and multiculturalism (p. 35 ff.). This is a bold claim and I am
afraid that Archie actually properly addresses only the first of these two topics.
After yet another recapitulation of older interpretations, Archie uses Steven
Forde’s text as a bridge to the topic of women in the so-called Spartan and
Persian speech in the dialogue (Alc. I., 121a-124b).6 He argues that the presence
of women shows their civilizing role and feminine moral sense rooted in inti-
macy and caring (p. 47).
The fourth chapter further develops the feminist interpretation of the
dialogue and investigates the role of women in the dialogue (p. 55 ff.). This
chapter is a welcome contribution to literature on gender aspects in Plato’s
dialogues which so far focused mainly on women in the Republic, Diotima in
the Symposium, and Aspasia in the Menexenus. When reading the Spartan and
Persian speeches one cannot resist to link the increased occurrence of femi-
nine topics with ancient tradition of Alcibiades’ own femininity so that the
remarks concerning fashion and expenditures are appeals on Alcibiades’s
vanity.7 Moreover, these mentioned women, mothers, are introduced as only
caring and worrying about their sons. Archie is definitely right that the ­gender
issue is a very important feature of these speeches, but I am just not sure
whether to call it a ‘feminist mode of thought’ (p. 46).

5  Archie is right to emphasize the importance of the reader, however I think he fails to recog-
nize the importance of the author. His interpretation does not focus on the possible inten-
tions of the author, which might be justified (if explained and discussed). Yet, treating the
dialogue as a dramatic whole without considering that this dramatic whole was written by
someone who most probably holds some ideas of his own seems to be problematic. One
interesting exception is Archie’s remark that ‘Plato typically manages to have the interaction
of the interlocutors in the dialogues somehow mirror the very topic under discussion’ (p. 20).
6  S. Forde, ‘On the Alcibiades Major’, in T. Pangle, ed., The Roots of Political Philosophy (Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1978), pp. 222-239.
7  Cf. D. Gribble, Alcibiades and Athens (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 69-82.

polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political Thought 34 (2017) 157-179

AGPT_034_01_13_BR-Jirsa.indd 173 2/23/2017 10:25:34 AM

 174 book reviews

Chapter five introduces one of the interpretative novelties of Archie’s

approach: decision theory and more specifically the usage of the concept of
Mathematical Expectation in interpretation of the dialogue (p. 69 ff.). Most
of the chapter focuses on formal aspects of argumentation. One of the rel-
evant outcomes for the interpretation of the content of the dialogue is the
revealed conventionality of Alcibiades compared to interlocutors in other
dialogues (p. 79).
Archie makes an interesting comparison between the accounts of priorities
(in a broad eudaimonistic framework) in the sixth chapter, entitled ‘Alcibiades
and Apology’. He convincingly interprets the passages on the relative value of
virtue and external goods from the Apology (e.g. 30b2-4) together with ques-
tioning of the young Alcibiades (104a1-b7). Archie shows that the Apology and
Alcibiades share the same moral doctrine concerning the priorities between
different kinds of goods.
The penultimate chapter introduces listening as an important aspect of the
dialogue (pp. 103-121). It does bring up some themes from the dialogue which
were so far omitted in other modern interpretations. Archie’s discussion high-
lights the role of envy and admiration in the relationship between Alcibiades
and Socrates. Archie uses Plutarch’s On listening and several passages from
Aristotle’s treatises in order to create an interpretative framework for this
chapter. Archie is primarily concerned with the form of argument and when
interpreting particular passages he narrates the main line of conversation so
that the reader gets a general picture of the dialogue and its setting. However,
when doing this Archie passes over several complicated passages without the
detailed treatment which they surely deserve.8
A short Conclusion (pp. 123-125) summarizes the main points of Archie’s
methodology and interpretation.9 In the Conclusion to his book Archie admits:
‘my ambition was to develop the definitive interpretation of Alcibiades Major
but I quickly realized that my aim was futile with such a complex dialogue’
(p. 123). Archie is being humble, but I will use his honest remark for a critical

8  Cf. pp. 96-97 where Archie only summarizes one possible reading of important passages on
caring (127e-129b) and the self (129b-131b) with little discussion concerning the philosophical
problems these passages raise.
9  There are several problems with the text division in the book which result from the fact
that the chapters are basically separate articles put together without much editorial care
(even the styles of references in footnotes differ from chapter to chapter), but these flaws
were already mentioned by another reviewer. See the review by Ioannis D. Evrigenis in Notre
Dame Philosophical Reviews (http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/60036-politics-in-socrates-alcibiades-
a-philosophical-account-of-plato-s-dialogue-alcibiades-major/).

polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political Thought 34 (2017) 157-179

AGPT_034_01_13_BR-Jirsa.indd 174 2/23/2017 10:25:34 AM

 book reviews 175

reflection. The dialogue’s complexity and difficulty is repeatedly said to be the

only reason why the interpretation cannot be ‘definitive’. I am not sure this is
a correct approach to the interpretation of ancient texts in humanities.10 The
notion of ‘definitive interpretation’ suggests the idea that the humanities pro-
ceed and develop in the same fashion as the natural sciences. It is so in many
cases, however the humanities are richer than this. The definitiveness of inter-
pretation is made impossible not only because of the complexity of the text in
question. It seems to me that the definitive approach is mistaken since each
and every interpretation originates in a different cultural époque, assumes
a different shared pre-understanding, and answers different questions raised in
different times. This approach does not eliminate truth and truthfulness from
interpretation, but I think it makes problematic any idea of ‘definitiveness’.
Archie seems to be uninterested in the fact that most speakers in Plato’s
dialogues are historical figures. Plato’s primary audience for which he writes
the dialogues are either contemporaries of his protagonists or they are just one
or two generations younger. To illustrate the point, a contemporary attempt
on a similar dialogue concerning political power could be written with Václav
Havel, Dick Cheney, and Julian Barnes as its speakers. Using historical figures
of course invites questions about the relation of the fictional dialogue with
what the reader knows about the figures.
Alcibiades was the prominent figure of public life in Athens. Therefore it
is a pity that Archie never explains Alcibiades’ background and importance,
and instead he repeats several times in the narrative from the opening of
the dialogue that Socrates is the only true lover of Alcibiades. The importance
Archie places on this opening is not developed any further, despite the fact
that this love-and-hate story has its dramatic continuation in the Symposium.
Alcibiades’ complicated feelings about Socrates, which he expresses in his
speech in the Symposium, might even play some role in Plato’s apology of
Socrates. Alcibiades gives the true picture of his feelings towards Socrates in
the same way that Aristophanes depicts the feelings of Athens about Alcibiades
himself. In the Symposium, Alcibiades says: ‘Sometimes, believe me, I think
I would be happier if he were dead. And yet I know that if he dies I’ll be even
more miserable. What can I do about him!’ (Symp. 216c2-3) And in the Frogs,
the god Dionysus reports the feelings of the city about the exiled Alcibiades

10  Here I rely on S. Collini, ‘The Character of the Humanities’, in What Are Universities For?
(London: Penguin, 2012), pp. 61-85; compare J. Annas, ‘Ancient Philosophy for the Twenty-
First Century’, in B. Leiter, ed., The Future for Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2004), pp. 25-43.

polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political Thought 34 (2017) 157-179

AGPT_034_01_13_BR-Jirsa.indd 175 2/23/2017 10:25:34 AM

 176 book reviews

in the following way: ‘The city of Athens loves <him>, and hates <him>, and
longs to have him back.’ (Aristophanes, Ran. 1425)
However, Plato shows that Athens actually needs someone like Socrates.
Socrates seems to be the only one who can possibly pacify and set right such
people as Alcibiades. As a virtuous Alcibiades was perhaps one of the last
chances for Athens to prosper and win over the Spartans, so was Socrates
the only chance for Alcibiades to become virtuous. But then, Alcibiades got
spoiled on account of desires arising from his appreciation of his own beauty
and influence, these features – as Xenophon tells us – so much admired by the
city itself (Xenophon, Mem. I,2,24; cf. Isocrates, Busiris, XI,4.).11
Archie makes a generally good case for new approaches in interpreting
Plato’s dialogue. His aim to write a political account of the Alcibiades is a step
in the right direction. Unfortunately, the book is too short to develop all the
mentioned ideas as much as they would deserve.12

Jakub Jirsa
Charles University in Prague
jakub.jirsa@ff.cuni.cz

11  I have used this comparison in J. Jirsa, ‘Alcibiades’ speech in the Symposium and its ori-
gins’, in A. Havlíček and F. Karfík, eds., Plato’s Symposium (Praha: Oikoumenh, 2007),
pp. 291-292.
12  The present article was written with the support of the Czech Science Foundation
(P401/14-07313S).

polis, The Journal for Ancient Greek Political Thought 34 (2017) 157-179

AGPT_034_01_13_BR-Jirsa.indd 176 2/23/2017 10:25:34 AM