Name der Zeitschrift: Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie Jahrgang: 99 Heft: 4 Seiten: 1-18.

Abstract The aim of this article is to make use of recent research on `political eros ' in order to clarify the connection that Plato establishes between eros and tyranny in Republic IX, specifically by elucidating the intertextuality between Plato's work and the various historical accounts of Alcibiades. An examination of the lexicon used in these accounts will allow us to resolve certain interpretive difficulties that, to my knowledge, no other commentator has elucidated: why does Socrates blame eros for the (...) decline from democracy into tyranny? What does he mean by ` eros ' here, and what link existed between eros and tyranny in the minds of his contemporaries? And finally, who are the mysterious `tyrant-makers' ( turannopoioí , 572e5-6) who, according to Socrates, introduce a destructive eros in the soul of the future tyrant? After a careful examination of the passage from book IX on the genesis of the tyrannical man (focused on the last stage of the metamorphosis, which is concerned with éros túrannos , 572d-573b), I will offer answers to these questions by turning to the writings of Thucydides, Aristophanes and Plutarch while examining the portrait of Alcibiades that Plato paints in the Alcibiades I and Symposium. (shrink)

Historians, writers and artists who wanted to pay homage to Cleopatra once again, referred to and still refer to Plutarch’s Life of Antony, first and foremost. It can seem that this main, if not the only ancient work, being quite a compact story about the Egyptian queen, has been ultimately interpreted in numerous review editions and biographies of Cleopatra. However, Plutarch’s Cleopatra has not been analysed as a separate work — excerpts from Life of Antony have always been combined with (...) other sources in order to obtain a single picture. And in belles-lettres, the work of this ancient moralist have been exploited for centuries in such a way that it is no longer Plutarch’s property. Literary works from different epochs, in the form of interpretations, with Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra at the head of the list, have distorted the ancient moralist’s message. It turns out that when we reject Shakespeare’s prism that we usually use when examining Plutarch’s Cleopatra and we start to analyse Antony’s biography only in the context of other works written by the moralist of Chaeronea, considering them to be a peculiar comment on Life of Antony, we are able to see a completely different picture to the one we are used to. Divine powers, present on the pages of the ancient work and implicating gods and people in love and desire do not have access to the queen. However, everything suggests that in the case of “the romance of all time” we can see in the moralist’s work something he did not write at all. We refer to Life of Antony and we envisage the character of Cleopatra described by Shakespeare and his successors. (shrink)

A crux of Plato’s Symposium is how beauty relates to the good. Diotima distinguishes beauty from the good, I show, to explain how erotic pursuits are characteristically ambivalent and opaque. Human beings pursue beauty without knowing why or thinking it good; yet they are rational, if aiming at happiness. Central to this reconstruction is a passage widely taken to show that beauty either coincides with the good or demands disinterested admiration. It shows rather that what one loves as beautiful does (...) not appear good, a proposal with ramifications for ethical psychology. (shrink)