This thesis has both an strategic and a tactical goal. The strategic goal has to do with proposing some reading of the so called early socratic dialogues that guides the reader, as much as possible, to a major concern with the dialogues literary aspects in its indissoluble connection with its philosophic contente, trying to find themes and discursive manoeuvres that may consubstantiate, in the unprecedented and unique platonic philosophic narrativity, the inextricable relation between form and content, literature and philosophy, mímesis and mimesis disruption at a time. This relation form/content in Plato shouldn t be abridged nor trivialized in interpretive views that just allow platonic dramaturgy and narrativity a secundary and instrumental role in the corpus platonicum composition, assuming the dialogues as a mere literary form for doctrines and philosophic thoughts being expressed. In this general frame, this thesis intends to show how the so called socratic eironeía and platonic irony may have beeen converted in the only (or t least the most perfect) element of approximation or even of identification between the Plato s dualistic view over the world – with all its puzzles and theoretical ambiguities – and the construction of his own literature, where his character Socrates stands out, as enigmatic, atopic, paradoxical, in a word, as dubious as possible for a human being. And there s nothing like a procedure commonly associated to rethoric field, that is, to literature, - irony – to unifiy the platonic dualism and the ambiguities of his protagonist, Sócrates. In this process, we ll see how this irony, withdrawn from its merely linguistic field and shown as the key-element of the sokratikoì lógoi, wil be body (literature) and soul (philosophy) for the most beautiful literary-philosophioc construction of western world, put together by Plato s genius. On the other hand, from tatics point of view, this thesis takes up the importance of the distinction between the use Plato gives to eironeía, in his most ancient meaning in greek, clearly derogatory, in a sense of trickery, deceit, fraud etc, and embody this connotation into his protagonits Socrates, and, in the other corner, the modern notion of irony, shrunken nowadays to mere tropos or figure of speech, something that depicts the tallker as someone elegant and refined with the words. In order to convey all that, I engaged myself into a controversy with Gregory Vlastos, putting myself in the middle of a well known polemic raised by this conspicuous commentator of Plato, whose most influent reviewers are presented here with respect to his notion of complex irony, in order to exhibit how many puzzlings the manifold use of the term eironeía could bring even to the best readers of the dialogues. This tactical moment of all that contention is relevant, once we know Vlastos to be a reference, since the last decades of twentieth century about socratic subjects, and mostly when it comes to his concepts of complex irony and elenctic knowledge. Furthermore, I try toi advance a hypothesis according to which it has been exactly the tendency of Vlastos to underestimate the role of literature in the dialectic manner of Plato deal with philosophy, and thealmost absolute priviledge given by Vlastos to comment on what is said by the characters in an apophantic way rather than taking heed to dramatic contextualization, all this, to my view,has resulted in a reading profoundly uncontextualized and not literary of the philosopher wrntings. That would be too the root of his misleading and limited comprehension of the isterious character Socrates, who in the Vlatos account, instead of clariflying and trying to expose the real motives for his evasiveness and discoursive trickeries, he finishes his analysis by overloadind Socrates with even more invencible puzzles. In Vlastos anxiety to save Socrates (who he takes to be the historic one) from any accusation of bewing sophistic or of using deceitful devcves in the elenchus, Vlastos perhaps had submerged the philosopher in even more aporíai than the ones Socrastes himself were used to create in the dialogues he protagonizes, as the necessary end for his method of questions and answers.