Socrate teleologo nel conflitto delle rappresentazioni

One of the most interesting aspects of the recent revival of Socratic studies is the possibility to deal with the vexed question of Socrates' intellectual identity employing new interpretative categories. By focusing on the multifaceted representations of Socrates, and avoiding to grant the Platonic dialogues an eminent position, it is possible to look at the information provided by different sources considering them as equally valid; on this basis, one can attempt at minimizing, as far as possible, the effects of an obscurantist process which made the most part of 4th-cent. Socratic literature pass into oblivion, as the Platonic texts, in their state of ‘splendid isolation’, were regarded as the only possible source to reconstruct Socrates’ philosophical approach. The awareness of the existence of different traditions, all developed from a shared Socratic matrix, is well known to scholars nowadays; in particular, many studies focused on the role of Xenophon’s texts as testimonies which transmitted, both in ancient and modern traditions, an autonomous exemplary and high-profile image of Socrates, allegedly close to the original historical character. Relatively new and promising seems to be a tendency to consider the testimonies provided by the Socratics as a whole as an intellectual dialogue that aimed at an important and shared goal: defending Socrates’ innovative intellectual approach, both on ethical and political levels, from the incomprehension of the city. This dialogue, however, and the differences among the different representations of Socrates betray conflicts and profound divergences in the interpretation of the meaning of the Socratic inheritance. Therefore, the process of reconstruction Socrates’ character on the basis of such a dialogue of images entails not just outlining those ‘stable’ traits, which can be regarded as ‘authentically’ Socratic, but should rather reconstruct the intellectual disagreements at the basis of different representative strategies. On the basis of such considerations, in this paper I wish to underline the methodological importance of reinterpreting the Platonic dialogues from an intertextual perspective. Within this kind of interpretative approach, which reflects the aim of this conference (i.e. examining everything that is around Plato), Xenophon’s and Plato’s conflicting positions on attributing Socrates an interest in teleological questions seems to me an interesting point to analyse, as it is connected both with the investigation of natural phenomena and with the interpretation of the relationship between the gods and human beings. Xenophon’s attribution to Socrates, in Mem. 1.4. and 4.3, of a specific and complex teleological theory has been recently examined in detail by D. Sedley. Plato’s general silence on this question is noteworthy; however, there are two significant exceptions to this silence: a passing remark, in the Phaedo’s autobiographical flash back, to Socrates’ juvenile interest in naturalistic inquiry, followed by the crucial turning-point of the ‘second navigation’; the discussion in the Euthyphro of piety and the services due to the gods in order to win their favour, which comes to an end without identifying the characteristics of the object of inquiry. The aim of this paper is to set a comparison between the divergent pictures that emerge from Plato’s and Xenophon’s testimonies on a particularly hot topic, considering the charges of impiety brought against Socrates and the defensive purposes of the authors. The goal of this contribution is to clarify the mechanisms of these representational strategies, which led Xenophon to outline a strong and complex continuity between Socrates’ naturalistic, ethical and religious interest, while Plato is rather inclined to minimize it, emphasising on the one hand his disinterest in the logic of natural events per se, on the other highlighting Socrates’ provocative and unorthodox attitude towards contemporary religious customs.