Derek Duplessie

In his original and illuminating essay, Tushar Irani offers a re-reading of Adeimantus’s and Glaucon’s challenges to Socrates in book 2 of Plato’s Republic. If correct, his interpretation has far-reaching implications for how we are to understand the dialogue as a whole. At the core of this re-reading is an attempt to rehabilitate Adeimantus’s reputation by demonstrating his central role in determining the trajectory of the dialogue’s argument. In my response I question Irani’s suggestion that Adeimantus’s challenge to Socrates is as distinct from Glaucon’s as Irani suggests it is and, even if so, whether it is distinct in the precise way he suggests it is. Furthermore, I raise possible objections to his claim that large parts of the Republic—and, especially, its political project—are intended to meet Adeimantus’s challenge, not Glaucon’s.

This article argues for the significance of Euripides’ Bacchae to what Socrates, in Book X of the Republic, refers to as the ‘ancient quarrel between philosophy and poetry’. I argue that the play’s presentation of Dionysus – the god of tragic theatre – amounts to a metapoetic treatment of tragic poetry; it is a tragedy about tragedy. The Bacchae can thus be read as a statement of tragic poetry’s self-understanding of its pedagogical and political goals as well as of its possible limitations. I conclude by arguing that there is in fact a deep kinship between tragic poetry (as presented by Euripides) and Socratic political philosophy (as presented by Plato), especially with respect to their relation to, and understanding of, the polis. Ultimately, through analyzing the Bacchae’s presentation of Dionysus, I aim to allow tragic poetry to speak for itself as well as to clarify its relation to Platonic/Socratic political philosophy.