Socrates quibbles: You cannot desire what you possess; “Love is in love with what he lacks and does not possess”, hence Love lacks beauty and goodness.
The dialogue form contains dynamism, as arguments unfold amongst different speakers, particularly here where seven successive speakers make a speech concerned with love – sometimes dialogues can be very much of the teacher and naive interlocutor style, in which case the second speaker’s role is only to point up what would otherwise be a didactic monologue. The variation in speeches, the responses in one to another, and the intermittent chit-chat all combine to make this a lively and volatile text.
Equally, the dialogue is frozen in time; the arguments sit like a tableau; discussion may follow after them but it is impossible to interrupt the speakers and query their line of reasoning. A dynamic, inviting text in which one may not participate.
The dialogue form has practically died out today, as a source of pleasure or instruction. Erasmus’s colloquies (inspired by Lucian’s dialogues) are great examples of the form, roving over 1500s contemporary life with a keen and satirical eye. Why not update the genre? Is it simply a matter of taste and fashion (for novels and poetry), or is the form in some way unsuited to expressing the thought worlds of modern life?
ealasaidbooks 