THE ACADEMIC DIALOGUE

Cicero is often perceived as a much inferior composer of dialogues when judged against the Platonic gold standard. No mesmerising Socrates fascinates the reader. There are no dramatic coups de théâtre. We miss the erotic complexities of the gymnasium and the symposium, and even more the nagging of Socratic dialectic. Above all, Plato writes philosophy of a power and originality beyond Cicero's capacity. In this paper I attempt to do something to redress the balance. I am going to argue that Cicero does things with the dialogue that Plato doesn't – and that Hume (another standard of comparison) doesn't either.

There are two particular dimensions in which Ciceronian dialogue achieves something all its own. First, in its final Academic form (as represented by the major works of 45 and 44 BCE) Ciceronian dialogue is more genuinely open-ended than Platonic. In dialogues such as Academica, De Finibus, De Natura Deorum and De Diuinatione Cicero gives properly argued alternatives a real run for their money, and adopts a variety of literary strategies for indicating that further reflection on their merits and choice between them is left to the reader. If the point of dialogue is to explore and to invite to exploration through debate, the form of the Academic dialogue looks better constructed to achieve this than the Platonic. Contrast, for example, the treatment of Thrasymachus' position in Plato's Republic.