He makes us smile and laugh with his personality, but his archetype makes us wonder/ponder what we have lost of ourselves by losing him to his death, why we shed tears at all, at the loss of him or ourselves, or better still he makes us ponder/wonder what someone means to someone else over the self preservation. Why would we want know someone if we know they are going to go away and cause us pain?
What is the legacy? What is worth remembering and holding onto? the archetype is the founder over just the personality, but it was the personality in the first place the perked up our ears and made us go back for more and to find out what he was searching for also ourselves.
Is question over need for answer personality or archetype?

Or am I just failing to see his archetypal nature?

I don't know what you mean by that. Socrates taught us that philosophy consisted of argument and analysis. Aristotle said of him that his philosophy was "a quest for definitions".

I realized about an hour after posting this that the (ironic) reason could be that we know him only through the narrative of someone else, namely Plato. A similar thing happens with Jesus although he seems more archetypal. They are both characters presented to us in the 3rd person. Somehow this makes them more personal, at least for me.

Now I'm no longer sure what I was trying to get at here. Maybe it's more an issue of narrative versus exposition rather than personality versus archetype.

We also know him through Xenophon and Aristotle.

Socrates, like Jesus, never wrote (as far as we know) anything himself, and we must rely upon a few contemporary or near-contemporary accounts for our understanding of him. He was indeed fortunate to have had such an impact on Plato, for it is Plato's philosophical portrait that has had such an influence on succeeding generations up to and including our own. Yet, and perhaps this is inevitable, he remains importantly enigmatic and archetypal, as the testimonies of the philosophic tradition demonstrate. Who Socrates really was, and what he really taught, is perhaps less important that what he became for various philosophers and for Western Civilisation.

The Cynics thought of Socrates like a figure head/patron saint much like the Neapolitan's looked at Janus as a representation of their own way of life. Socrates to them embodied the perfect aesthetic guide to life. The Stoics adhered to his thoughts on virtue as the only intrinsic good. The Skeptics adhered to his profession of ignorance, etc, etc. Justin Martyr (Christian apologist) went so far to say that Socrates was the predecessor of Jesus Christ (which incidentally, Neo-Platonists like Marcello Ficino would reexamine during the renaissance). Even in Eastern philosophy, Socrates was held in very high regard and became immensely influential. Medieval Islamic scholars and theologians regarded Socrates like a mentor and defender of monotheistic notions (against idolatry). Of the few early philosophical figures who transcended social and ideological boundaries, Socrates is undoubtedly among them. Socrates becomes even more of a transcending paradigm after the renaissance and eighteenth century. Nietzsche, Hegel, Kierkegaard, and even Michael Foucault respect him one way or another. I think most of them would agree that Socrates was the perfect embodiment of abstractual excellence. And since when would we put Nietzsche and Justin Martyr in the same room?

In a way, I think philosophers look to Socrates the way the religious look to messiah's, prophets, saviors, etc. The key elements of both are very closely correlated with each other, like a pivotal idea(s), an adherence to belief(s), and even martyrdom, and the list could go on and on. As a small example, maybe people who do not entirely believe in religious dogma reach towards Socrates and the Socratic method (for example) to fill the void. The absence of faith leads to a scramble for analytical reason? LOL!

But Socrates would not have become what he became for various philosophers had they cared for who he was, and what he taught. For one example: "We must follow the argument wherever it leads".

So you are saying that his archetypal/symbolic status is a distraction from his teachings? I suppose much of what other philosophers have said about the character of Socrates has been a setting him up as an example so that said philosophers can then appeal to his authority rather than practice good reasoning.

Socrates is both archetype and a personality. Just remember everyone, that Plato was not the only account of Socrates. Aristophanes wrote a satirical play about Socrates called the Clouds, and Xenophon also wrote about him as well--so did Aristotle. At first, Socrates seemed to be an historical figure to Plato, and then Socrates became Plato's archetype of the philosopher, and after that, he became a side character in the later dialogues.

What this means is that Socrates is an enigma that people have many differing opinions on--including his contemporaries.

What many philosophers believe Socrates symbolizes is different from what what he did.