BOUNDLESS VISION: A READING OF PLATO'S SYMPOSIUM
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Ashbrook Statesmanship Thesis
Recipient of the 2012 Charles E. Parton Award
BOUNDLESS VISION:
A READING OF PLATO'S SYMPOSIUM
James Velasquez
172a-177a: retelling. During the conversation, we learn
Apollodorus, Glaucon, that the event in question occurred some
time ago, while both of the speakers “were
and the Road to Agathon's
still children.”4 We learn also that Apollo-
dorus was not present at the dinner in
Plato’s Symposium begins with the
question, but rather received an account of
reader being introduced to Apollodorus1, the
the event from Aristodemus5 – the same
narrator of the piece and a close follower of
man who gave an account to Phoenix.
Socrates. He is, at the time of the telling,
The reader is actually shown a sort
speaking to an anonymous crowd – the only
of brief contest here between the two re-
piece of information given to the reader is a
ceivers of Aristodemus's tale. While
description of their being “wealthy business-
Phoenix is only able to muster a vague
men.”2 He starts with a recent event which
account of the story, Apolldorus delivers to
occurred during a journey from his home in
us the majority of the symposium’s events.
Phaleron into the city of Athens. Apollo-
It may not be the Republic, but it isn’t
dorus is hailed by a man named Glaucon,
exactly a “brief” retelling, either. In this
who presses him to retell the story of a
case, the reader is shown a positive aspect of
dinner held at the home of the dramatic poet,
Apollodorus's character: he is able to recall a
Agathon, where he heard that speeches were
good deal of what happened during the
made on the subject of Eros. While a
affair at Agathon’s. Considering the length
“vague” account was given by someone
of the dialogue, we have to ask ourselves if
named Phoenix,3 it was recommended that
we would be able to recall such a story with
he seek out Apollodorus for a more exact
the accuracy of Apollodorus. It is true that,
as we go on, we’ll be shown more of his
James Velasquez is a 2012 graduate of the negatives; yet at the same time, this man is
Ashbrook Scholar Program, having majored “preserving” for us a very important event.
in Political Science and History. Given that Socrates won’t talk about the
evening personally, Apollodorus and
1
Apollodorus, literally “gift of Apollo,” serves as the
narrator for Plato’s Symposium (hereafter cited as
‘Symposium’). He is also referenced in the Phaedo
4
(59a-b) as weeping without restraint at the coming Symposium 173a
5
death of Socrates. Aristodemus was a lover and emulator of Socrates,
2
Symposium 173c as seen from his willingness to be “always
3
Nothing is really known of Phoenix as a character. barefoot.” In his Memorabelia, Xenophon refers to
R.G. Bury suggests in The Symposium of Plato him as “Aristodemus the dwarf” (I.IV.2) and recalls
(hereafter ‘Bury’) that Phoenix represents “at least a conversation between him and Socrates in which
one other account of a banquet at which Socrates, the two discussed the reasons for sacrifice, prayer,
Alcibiades and Agathon figured, and that it is and divination. Aristodemus, at the time, professed
Plato’s intention to discredit it” (xvii). a form of atheism.
1Boundless Vision: A Reading of Plato's Symposium
Aristodemus are the only (semi-)reliable ceremonies, played a part in the sentencing
sources available. and exile of Alcibiades, who was engaged in
Having said that, we do have some an expedition at Sicily. It is also important
judgment to make of Apollodorus. Plato’s to consider that the discussion which was to
structure of the Symposium, again contrasted occur at Agathon’s was quite blasphemous
to a dialogue like the Republic, actually in the context of Athenian piety.9 The
makes an effort to understand the narrator speakers move between gods (Eros,
via his relationships with others. This Aphrodite, Ouranian, Pandemian, etc.),
“introduction” lasts from 172a to 174a, and between creation stories, and between the
it has very little use other than to give the consideration of love as either the greatest
reader a way to relate to this follower of god or not a god at all. This fact reminds us
Socrates. As a result, our assumption has to that the symposium is, first and foremost, an
be that Plato wants some judgment made “upper class” affair. The men present for
before the story begins – something to keep the evening are of a different sort than the
in the back of our minds for the duration of average “Athenian demos” – “intellectuals,”
the Symposium. Apollodorus is not the maybe. They even dismiss the night’s enter-
narrator simply, but a character to be under- tainment – a “flute girl” – that she might
stood – one with his own unique contri- “pipe away to herself or, if she so desires, to
bution to the dialogue as a whole. the women inside.”10 The group’s discussion
As I mentioned, we are told that is isolated from everything and everyone
Socrates does not talk about the symposium else. The result being that traditional Athen-
personally. Glaucon asks whether Socrates ian piety and nomos, law, finds little place
had told the story to Apollodorus, to which among those present.
he replies “good heavens no!”6 Further, Overall, it seems possible, especially
when he reviewed his understanding of given the drunken state of Alcibiades pre-
events, Socrates added nothing personally – sented later in the dialogue, that the night of
he merely “approved the telling.”7 To the symposium and the accusation brought
understand this, some historical context may against Alcibiades are connected. If this is
be relevant. The date of the symposium true, it becomes clearer why Socrates would
itself, as Apollodorus remembers it, falls hesitate in sharing the story personally. At
close to another important historical event in the same time, it raises some questions:
Greek history: the mutilation of the Hermae given what we see in the dialogue, and given
charged against Alcibiades and others in 415 what Alcibiades is charged with, no clear
B.C.8 This particular event is famous in that evidence is really presented of any blas-
it, along with the profaning of religious phemy. Indeed, the real blasphemer, if it
were to be anyone, would be none other than
6
Symposium 173b Socrates himself. It becomes an interesting
7
Ibid point then that Socrates, a presumably just
8
The Hermae were religious statues placed
throughout Athens. In Seth Benardete’s On Plato’s
9
Symposium (hereafter ‘Benardete’), he describes a Sir Kenneth Dover, in his commentary Plato’s
situation in which the city “disregarded all legal Symposium (hereafter ‘Dover’), notes how Diotima
safeguards and executed numerous Athenians on will later be presented as using Mystery-like
rumor” (p. 181). Alcibiades was called back from language. She offers the “final revelation” to those
the Sicilian Expedition under charges of instigating who are willing to journey deep into the “mysteries
the crimes as well as “profaning the Eleusinian of Love” (210a). Dover notes how similar the
mysteries.” Two other symposiasts, Eryximachus language is to one who is admitting initiates into
and Phaedrus, were also implicated in the Hermae “the final secrets of a mystery-cult” (p. 155).
10
incident. Symposium 176e
2Ashbrook Statesmanship Thesis
Recipient of the 2012 Charles E. Parton Award
man who seemed to love Alcibiades and notices that Apollodorus is compelled to
knew of his innocence, chose to say nothing extend his pity to those whom he is speaking
– not in his own defense, nor to make clear to. All of these instances show Apollodorus
what actually occurred at Agathon’s. This is taking on an air of superiority to his fellows.
especially strange in light of the fact that This stands in contrast to Socrates, who
other people are talking about the sym- tends to assume the position of a student at
posium or want to know more about it – the beginning of conversations.
something that Phoenix pointed out to us Instead of a love of wisdom, then,
earlier. Apollodorus seems to desire something else.
Before going into a discussion of the Rather than pursue the Socratic lifestyle, one
symposium itself, we get a few interesting that he seems to liken to the life of a
looks at Apollodorus's character. We learn “philosopher,” he decides simply to pursue
of his decision to become “Socrates's tireless Socrates. For someone who claims to love
companion, since [he] first assumed the task philosophy, it seems odd to go after Socrates
of setting down all that he says and does in such an obsessive, non-philosophic way
each day.”11 We can compare this lifestyle (meticulously “setting down all that he says
of Apollodorus, in several ways, to that of and does each day”). It might be better said,
Aristodemus. He defends this decision to his then, that Apollodorus is much more a lover
current listeners, saying that “nothing gives of the man, Socrates, rather than the active
[him] greater pleasure than spending several pursuit of wisdom. We see something in
hours engaged in philosophy… and I never Apollodorus – anger, thumos – which is
give any thought to the profit to be had from never seen from the man he appears to love.
it. However, when I hear other conver- It seems almost as if he feels that philo-
sations… I immediately get bored and sophy, as it exists through the exploits of
angry.”12 The reader ought to question this Socrates, can actually be ignored and en-
lifestyle – while his statement about enjoy- dangered by the words and actions of others.
ing philosophy and his lack of concern for What Apollodorus cannot see, and what it
profit do seem to be things Socrates would becomes clear that Socrates sees con-
endorse, he departs from him in several sistently, is the enduring connection between
important ways. Unlike Socrates – another life and philosophy. While Socrates happily
person who claims to have a “love for speaks of “pack-asses and blacksmiths and
wisdom” – he becomes “bored and angry.” cobblers and tanners,”14 Apollodorus imme-
In addition, he is disposed to brief outbursts diately becomes “bored and angry” with the
in which he insults those with whom he is “prattle of… wealthy businessmen.”15 Can-
speaking. He describes Glaucon as being not the problem be easily seen in the
“one of the most worthless men alive,” and opposition here? Apollodorus believes in
tells his current conversation partners that something called “philosophy” which is not
they are “unfortunate wretch[es],” some- philosophy. Socrates, on the other hand, is
thing he knows “for a fact.”13 His audience capable of seeing this, and he charms
comments on this, saying that his nagging Apollodorus with the fact. The result is an
extends to all subjects save one – Socrates infatuation with a man who practices what
himself. In addition to this, the reader Apollodorus envies in a world which he
11
Symposium 172e-173a
12 14
Symposium 173c Symposium 221e
13 15
Symposium 173d Symposium 173c
3Boundless Vision: A Reading of Plato's Symposium
rejects.16 It is this mixing of priorities – one This scene in particular – that of
he is both conscious and unconscious of – Socrates standing outside on the neighbor’s
which produces the uneven temper and the porch while those inside call for him to join
feeling of superiority in Apollodorus. – is one of the more interesting ones in the
Our narrator begins his retelling with dialogue. We are never really told what it is
an introduction of Aristodemus. The “ori- that Socrates is thinking about while he’s
ginator of the tale” is said to have bumped absent because he avoids Agathon’s ques-
into Socrates and found him most oddly tioning. Thus, we are left to speculate. It is
dressed. In contrast to his usual look, which easy to say that Socrates had some thought
the reader knows to be dirty and unkempt, which prompted him to forget about the task
Aristodemus finds Socrates “freshly bathed at hand; in other words, his personal
and wearing his sandals.”17 When ques- “philosophizing” was enough to distract
tioned about this, he responds that Agathon him. Aristodemus may offer some support
is “our paragon of good looks,” and that he for this at 175b, where he assures Agathon
thought the party an occasion that merited a that this is something Socrates does
handsome appearance. This irregular beha- habitually. At the same time, this expla-
vior is a submission to a sort of formality – nation might be stopping itself too early. It
another important aspect of the Symposium. is probably true that Socrates caught an
Socrates, instead of going about in his interesting thought and was compelled to
normal mode, chooses to adapt himself to avoid the dinner for some time, but this
the situation; in other words, he chooses to ignores the possible relevance of what he
present himself more according to what is might have been considering. Instead of
considered “in form.” He attempts to be a forgetting the dinner, might it be possible to
“part” of the normal proceedings, but he say that Socrates was actually thinking
becomes abnormal rather quickly by specifically about the dinner?18 While this
refusing to join the gathering until well into is only an idea to consider for the time
the meal. It would be similar to making being, we should make it clear that the topic
reservations for a date at a high-end of Love – that which almost the entire
restaurant and then showing up late. What Symposium is dedicated to – is probably not
this seems to be is an illustration of the the topic Socrates planned on discussing.
Socratic dilemma between public and pri- After all, the dialogue itself ends with a
vate: a well groomed man prepared for a discussion on tragic and comedic poetry,
dinner who, ignoring the calls of those while Socrates himself spends much of the
inside, is standing aloof on the neighbor’s night flirting with the symposium’s host,
porch. Agathon. It could be possible that Socrates,
instead of distancing himself from the event,
16
This, by the way, foreshadows the problem
18
presented by Alcibiades in Socratic education. In Waller Newell’s book Ruling Passion: The
Plutarch talks about this problem in his life of Erotics of Statecraft in Platonic Political
Alcibiades, saying that the politician would Philosophy (hereafter ‘Newell’), he talks about the
“abandon himself to flatterers, when they proposed spontaneous and unpredictable nature that some
to him varieties of pleasure, and would desert Socratic dialogues take on. He goes on to say that
Socrates” (Plutarch’s Lives Vol. 1, p. 262, hereafter “often one has the impression that Socrates has
‘Plutarch’). The great difficulty is that Socrates come prepared to a discussion with a few ready-
cannot always be present: someone like Alcibiades made themes in mind” (p. 97). This seems to
and Apollodorus – despite their vast differences – support our idea: Socrates wants to make an
both fall into vice when the philosopher is not impression on Agathon by distancing himself from
around. the group, but he also wants to think over how he
17
Symposium 174a should speak.
4Ashbrook Statesmanship Thesis
Recipient of the 2012 Charles E. Parton Award
was actually thinking about what he might also presents a relationship between lovers
like to discuss with those present, speci- which, without some physical aspect – as he
fically Agathon. If we take this approach, it says, the appropriate use of “Ouranian” and
would also be important to note that “Pandemian” – is incomplete. The basic
Socrates develops a sort of distinction, or expectation in each case is that Love, when
“singling out,” for himself here. By refusing exercised with physical connection and
all calls to come in, he actually performs an activity, will somehow lead to a general im-
act of disrespect which assumes some provement in the “goodness” of the person;
superiority to the host. While this may be as it applies to the comparison used by
offensive in some ways, it is intriguing in Socrates, it might make him feel “full.” The
others; it could very well create openings for Socratic depiction of Diotima later on the
the flirtatious advances Socrates will make Symposium will discuss the concept of
later on in the dialogue. physical and spiritual “fullness” and “preg-
So as the two approach Agathon’s nancy.” It is possible that this brief dialogue
house, Socrates loses himself in thought, and between Socrates and Agathon is a rejection
he waves Aristodemus on. This puts his of the exchange of something like “wisdom”
companion into the embarrassing position of via physicality. The rejection, however, is
having come to the party uninvited and quite far from concrete. Socrates is flirting with
alone. The situation, however, does not Agathon with coy implications of physi-
seem to affect Agathon, who welcomes him cality; these are the first signs of a seduction
inside and tells his servants to see that he is which will go on throughout the dialogue –
taken care of. This episode establishes Aga- to the later frustration and amazement of
thon as a gracious host, but, again, it also Alcibiades.
singles out Socrates as a peculiar character. Agathon dismisses the flattery of
Upon returning, Socrates is beckon- Socrates as a mockery – though it seems un-
ed by Agathon to join his couch. Agathon likely any offense was taken – and informs
hopes that by being in close proximity to him that the two of them will “compete on
Socrates he will be able to “absorb some of the stage of wisdom later, and we will let
the wisdom”19 that Socrates came to while Dionysus judge between us.”21 This seems
on the neighbor’s porch. Socrates offers the to settle the issue for the time being, but it
response that it would be a “wonderful also introduces the main “feud” of the
idea… if one could actually siphon wisdom Symposium. To be clear: all of the smaller
from a man who is full to a man who is dialogues and interactions fall as a backdrop
empty simply by touching him.”20 He goes behind this major relationship – Socrates
on to humble himself and praises Agathon and Agathon. This “judgment” between the
for his recent victory at the drama festival. two, however it is made, forms the main
The suggestion of “touch” is an interesting thrust of the dialogue – with Aristophanes
aspect for the discussion on Love that is standing as its opposition.22
soon to follow. Aristophanes, for instance,
talks about the inevitable wish of lovers to 21
Symposium 175e
be “welded” together as a single whole, 22
It is interesting for us to note here that “Agathon”
while the advances of Alcibiades towards literally translates to the “Good” or “Virtuous.”
Socrates pursued physical union. Pausanias While Agathon is a real person, and so I hesitate to
full give ourselves over to symbolism, it is
tempting to think of this dialogue as a contest
19
Symposium 175d between philosophy and comedy over the treatment
20
Ibid of the Good.
5Boundless Vision: A Reading of Plato's Symposium
After finishing dinner, Pausanias, given to the larger narrative structure of the
Aristophanes, Erixymachus, and Agathon Symposium itself. The Symposium is a
voice a collective desire to abstain from minority among the Platonic dialogues in
heavy drinking for the night, the festivities that it is not a simple conversation between
of the previous day having left them in two individuals – or even a group. Rather, it
rather imperfect condition. Eryximachus is a complex narrative that encompasses a
makes the comment that it is a “godsend” if period of over 10 years and several different
Agathon and Aristophanes, the “hardiest speakers. The symposium itself, hosted by
drinkers here,”23 choose not to partake Agathon and attended by Aristodemus and
during the evening. This is especially true Socrates, is given as having occurred around
for someone like Eryximachus, who makes 416 BC.24 This event is recounted by Aristo-
it clear here as well as during his speech that demus, who “couldn’t be expected to recall
sobriety and seriousness are the things he each speaker’s every word.”25 He gives his
does best. recollection to at least two speakers that the
The fact that the two poetic charac- reader is aware of – a man named Phoenix
ters – Aristophanes and Agathon – are the and the narrator, Apollodorus – over the
most able drinkers of the group is something course of approximately ten years. We learn,
interesting to note. The Symposium is here however, that these two characters recall the
divided into three categories of drinkers: the tale very differently. To put it simply, the
“lightweights” (Pausanias, Phaedrus, and reader is being given a recollection (Apollo-
Eryximachus), the “heavyweights” (Aristo- dorus to the “wealthy businessmen”), of a
phanes, Agathon), and those of indifference recollection (Apollodorus to Glaucon), of a
(Socrates). With this, Plato establishes recollection (Aristodemus to Apollodorus).
groupings for the speeches which are to This amounts to the omission of several
follow. The first three speakers form a sort aspects of the night in question: Aristo-
of coherent argument between themselves demus omits speakers, and Apollodorus
by taking what the previous speaker said and gives his audience “…only those elements
making adjustments along the way; together, which seemed to [him] most worth remem-
they present the “non-poetic” view of love. bering.”26
The next two, a tragic and comedic poet, At this point, then, we have a couple
consider love as a relationship both between implications of the dialogue’s structure
men and the gods, and between the good and which should be kept in mind. In the first
the beautiful. While they both speak in a place, Apollodorus's narration will leave a
similar form to one another, the conclusions portion of some (or all) of the speeches
are almost complete opposites. Finally, omitted, while others will be out entirely
Socrates attempts to speak to all of the thanks to Aristodemus. Aside from the ob-
previous arguments and presents his own – a vious consideration, being that each speech
speech which is (somewhat) grappled with, may require some additional “filling in the
and clarified, by Alcibiades. These divi- blanks,” Socrates is also implicated. By
sions, denoting respective approaches to
sobriety and alcohol, will have important 24
Dover, p. 9. Date lifted from the Athenian official
contributions to the dialogue and how each record of festivals. “Thus,” Dover continues, “at
character approaches the concept of Love. the party Socrates is in his early fifties. Alcibiades
While on the subject of divisions and is in his thirties; his appointment as one of the
generals of the Sicilian Expedition lies over a years
structures, some consideration must to be ahead.”
25
Symposium 178a
23 26
Symposium 176c Symposium 178a
6Ashbrook Statesmanship Thesis
Recipient of the 2012 Charles E. Parton Award
electing to keep Apollodorus ignorant of the Regardless, he credits Phaedrus with
full story, Socrates commits himself to the the topic for the evening: speeches in praise
incomplete retelling. Secondly, it introduces of the divinity, Eros. He goes on to give the
the order of speeches as an interpretive tool full account of Phaedrus's complaint, which
for the Symposium as a whole. For instance, is that the language of praise has gone much
in 185a-e, Eryximachus and Aristophanes too far into trivial matters while ignoring a
end up switching places after the comedian god as glorious as Eros. He cites a “learned
is caught by an unexpected bout of hiccups. treatise examining The Sundry Virtues of
This prompts us to ask several questions: Table Salt” as an example of “endless
what the connection is between Aristo- scrolls of… trash.”27 He goes on with the
phanes and Eryximachus? What use does suggestion, stating that he wishes to “gratify
“hiccupping” play in describing Aristo- him [Phaedrus].”28
phanes's character or criticizing Eryxi- This small speech from
machus's? What did the old order of Eryximachus serves as an introduction to the
speakers suggest previous to the switch? relationship between himself and Phaedrus
And after? Once Plato establishes an order as lover and beloved. We see the element of
to the dia-logue, any deviations from that gratification as the catalyst for the event – a
order merit the reader’s consideration. case of eros prompting its own praise: a
lover persuaded by his beloved to talk about
love. It seems to be significant in that much
177a-180c: of eros is grounded in the realm of
Erximachus and Phaedrus experience: each speaker goes about
praising eros, in some effect, for how they
After reaching an agreement not to experience it in their lives.29 This is not
engage in drinking for the evening, Eryxi- quite true for Phaedrus, however: while he
machus moves to usher out the flute girl as participates in a relation-ship, he does not
well. It is interesting to note that, in appear to see himself as someone having
preparing for a night dedicated to praise for experienced the effect of eros. The
Eros, Eryximachus has taken it upon himself Symposium’s first speech is thus given by
to remove those things associated with festi- someone who does not himself claim to be
vity (wine and music). Also worth noting is in love, but still envies it. This mirrors the
that, with this, Eryximachus has entirely experience of many young people who hear
separated the symposium from any literal stories or see the deeds of great lovers, and
feminine presence. The symbolic emphasis so long to be a part of the experience
here is important – women are not given a themselves. Perhaps most indicative of this
great deal of credit throughout the speeches. longing is his character-ization of Achilles,
Granted, Agathon’s speech is decidedly ef- his greatest hero, as “obviously the
feminate, and Socrates will change things younger… and therefore not the lover.”30
with his introduction of the prophetess His reward for behaving nobly as a beloved?
Diotima; but, with the possible exception of
27
Aristophanes, the rest of the dialogue Symposium 177b
28
follows a strong bias. Overall, it is a strange Symposium 177c
29
Newell, p. 69: Newell backs this idea up, stating
move, but one which will show its signifi- that “the varieties of personal eros explored in the
cance as time goes on. dialogue are intertwined with different perceptions
of, and expectations from, public life.”
30
Symposium 180a
7Boundless Vision: A Reading of Plato's Symposium
Eternal life in the Isle of the Blessed. Phaed- ing to Phaedrus, are enough to bring the
rus imagines everything that his speech greatest virtues out of human beings in all
wants to place in the lover – manliness, walks of life. He states that a city “com-
courage, sacrifice, and reward – as coming posed solely of lovers and the boys they
to himself. love” would be the “strongest and purest
society of all,”35 while an army36 of the
same, “fighting shoulder to shoulder, could
178b-180c: conquer all the world.”37 It must be made
Phaedrus's Speech clear, however, that these virtues are not, in
the sense that someone such as Socrates
Before getting into Achilles, how- would describe them, true virtues. If one is
ever, Phaedrus starts his speech by exploring courageous because they fear shame, then
the divine origin of all things. He praises the they are not, in the usual definition, “cou-
god, Love, for its being among the oldest of rageous” individuals. They are simply afraid
all the gods and divine powers, citing works of shame, something which could drive a
from the poets Hesiod, Akousileos, and man to act both nobly and ignobly. So what
Parmenides to support his theory that Love Phaedrus presents is either a lack of belief in
was not a minor deity, but rather among the traditional virtue, or an inability of love to
first great powers of the universe.31 “And, actually foster virtue. Either way, this pre-
being one of the oldest gods, he endows us sents problems for Phaedrus's speech – one
with one of the greatest goods: love that which claims such a high place for love.
is.”32 He goes on to say that “… it is Love, Regardless, Phaedrus backs up his
far more than family, connections, or assertions with another set of literary
wealth, which must guide any of us who examples. He invokes the story of Admetus
wish to live a good life.”33 The means which and his wife, Alcestis, as an example of the
love shall use for this end, according to great capacity for self-sacrifice that love
Phaedrus, are the installation of a “piercing brings into an individual. The king of
shame we feel when we act ignobly, as well Thessaly, Admetus, was fated to die if
as the yearning that incites us towards any another body could not be produced to
noble pursuit.”34 In other words, Phaedrus Death in his place – a bargain struck up by
finds love to act both as a means of deter- the god Apollo. While both “mother and
rence – as in the case of performing ignoble father… refused to do so,” Admetus's noble
deeds – in addition to one of encouragement wife took the punishment upon herself and
– as is the case concerning noble pursuits. was slain in his place. In addition to this,
The results of such a powerful gift, accord- Phaedrus brings forward the example of
Orpheus, the mythical musician and husband
31
Bury, p. 22. While Phaedrus claims a that a
35
“unanimous silence” (178b) exists on this point, Symposium 178e
36
the truth is a bit different: “for Alcaeus makes Eros Dover, p. 10. Phaedrus actually seems to anticipate
son of Zephyros and Iris; Simonides, son of Ares the Theban “Sacred Band” here. It was an fighting
and Aphrodite; Euripides, soon of Zeus; Sappho, of force made up of homosexual lovers and their
Ge and Uranos; Ibycus, of Chaos” and so on. This beloveds. From Dover: “… there are reasons for
gets at a larger sort of trend within Phaedrus: he thinking that the ‘sacred band’ of Thebes,
tends to misrepresent his literary references quite composed in just such a way, was formed in or
often. very soon after 378. A dating of [the Symposium]
32
Symposium 178c to the period 384-379 is consistent with its style
33
Ibid and its philosophical content.”
34 37
Symposium 178d Symposium 179a
8Ashbrook Statesmanship Thesis
Recipient of the 2012 Charles E. Parton Award
of Eurydice. He cites the man as an example Alcestis as a model of love’s ability to
of poor faith in the power of love – for he promote noble action, he seems to entirely
“preferred to sneak his way into Hades ignore the other half of the relationship.
while still alive rather than die for the sake Admetus, while stricken with grief at the
of his beloved.”38 He looks down on the death of his wife, immediately breaks a
man for showing himself to be “cowardly promise made to her on her deathbed by
and soft” like “most musicians.” His punish- welcoming a guest and engaging in (some-
ment for this display was, to Phaedrus, what) mirthful hospitality. Beyond this, he
fitting of the crime: “death at the hands of mourns the death of his wife to such an
women."39 Finally, he brings up the afore- extent that he loses his sense and begins to
mentioned example of mighty Achilles and wish that he had not been married at all –
his vengeance taken on behalf of the man part of a series of reactions which force
Phaedrus calls his lover, Patroclus. His act onlookers to think his grief goes too far. His
of revenge – the killing of Hector – was all actions hardly seem reminiscent of a won-
the more impressive because he did so even derfully virtuous human being. Further,
with the knowledge that such an act would while Phaedrus is correct in noting that
mean his death. Phaedrus sees this as a clear Alcestis is returned from Hades, he fails to
indication of selfless love on the part of note how the entire thing took place. Far
Achilles – all the more admirable because of from simply being a “privilege” granted by
the fact that he sees Achilles as the younger the gods, the return was actually due to
(beloved) acting in the place of the elder. It Heracles, embarrassed by his accidental
is for this that Phaedrus believes Achilles acceptance of Admetus's hospitality during a
earned his spot in the Isle of Blessed – a time of mourning, who decided to ambush
place of paradise reserved for those display- Death and force the return of his friend’s
ing the greatest of virtue. With these situa- wife from Hades. It is difficult to say that
tions considered, Phaedrus concludes his this story can be attributed to love winning
speech by restating his faith that “Love is the favor of the gods.
the eldest and most venerable god… who Further, the story he presents about
most surely determines which men will win Achilles and Patroclus is almost entirely
lasting virtue and happiness, whether they unfounded.42 Certainly, Achilles had great
are alive or dead.”40 affection for Patroclus, but the designation
The speech is an admirable display of the two as lovers is difficult to sub-
of skill on Phaedrus's part. He seems to take
proof from worthy figures in Greek society
Alcestis, Dover suggests that “Plato may be using
and put them to use in defining and demon- an older and simpler form of the legend” (93). He
strating the impact love has on the lives of makes the same claim about the changes to the
men. However, beyond a surface reading, Orpheus/Eurydice legend. These arguments might
there are multiple problems with the objects be conceded, as they are not necessarily crucial to
of his admiration.41 First, while he cites my understanding of Phaedrus as a lover.
42
Dover, p. 94. Dover also notes that, while “Homer
does not portray they mutual affection of Achilles
38
Symposium 179d and Patroclus as a homosexual relationship… it
39
Symposium 179d was so interpreted in classical times.” This I have
40
Symposium 180b a more difficult time accepting, as he provides no
41
Dover, p. 93-94. Before going on with this point, it proof for the assertion, and the Achilles point is a
is worth nothing that Dover does not suggest that crucial turn from rewarding the lover to awarding
Phaedrus purposefully altered or misrepresented the beloved. At the least, Homer provides no
his content. To the discrepancies that arise with reasonable ground for this assumption.
9Boundless Vision: A Reading of Plato's Symposium
stantiate. Achilles was a character of vanity, masculine in nature; it’s centered on the
rage, and courage – one who desired for concept of sacrifice – and in no small sense,
himself a glorious name that would be either. For Phaedrus, it seems necessary that
known by the entire world. While Phaedrus a person go so far as to die for their love.
would have his audience believe that the Anything less than this is unbecoming. He
death of Achilles was due to a desire for his seems to ignore, however, the imperfections
lover, Patroclus, the much more sensible that love can inspire: he quiets the excessive
observation seems to be that he simply grief, the rage, the impiety. He speaks, in
wanted to make the greatest name for some sense, as a child speaks – ideals and
himself by being the hero of Troy. The rage glossed over tales that try and “take the bad
and burning for vengeance he felt after the out” for the sake of a good ending. It is not,
death of his companion was a manifestation ultimately, that Phaedrus speaks with an
of the character that was already there – a intentional dishonesty, or one that is focused
fact which puts Phaedrus's case in an even on leading listeners astray, but it seems that
more difficult position. he is speaking on the subject in the way that
He also presents the story of Orpheus he, as a younger man, wishes for it to pan
and his wife, Eurydice. Stricken with grief at out. The character of Phaedrus is not exactly
the unfortunate loss of his beloved – the an ugly one, then, but he is certainly naïve.
victim of a chance snake bite – Orpheus His conception of nobility in sacrifice –
travels into the underworld in order to especially as that serves as an example of
attempt to win his wife back. Far from manliness – might be the wishful thinking of
angering the gods as a result of what a boy who longs to become a man.
Phaedrus described as "sneak[ing] his way Despite all of the faults, however,
into Hades,” Orpheus actually moved all of there is something more to Phaedrus as a
the gods to emotional understanding of his part of the Symposium’s structure. For
plight; indeed, his love so inspired his music instance, the structure of his love is
that the gods themselves granted him a interesting: a lover who gives everything to
chance to retrieve his lover from the grips of the beloved is praised by the gods, but the
death. Unfortunately, he ended up failing the beloved who dies for the lover is even above
test offered to him to retrieve Eurydice, but that. A couple of these aspects will be
his sentiment remained unchanged. His love explored as the dialogue continues. Firstly,
bound him to Eurydice for all his life – a the separation of lover (older) and beloved
fact which enraged a group of women (younger) is something that is retained
(worshippers of Bacchus) and led to his principally by Pausanias, and he will make
death at their hands. The result of this fate, another division into noble and ignoble ways
as the story goes, was a happy reunion with for a lover to consider his beloved (and vice
the woman to whom he had remained versa). As it evolves, Aristophanes will
faithful. This hardly seems to be as lament- simply state that every person is both a lover
able an end as Phaedrus makes it out to be. and beloved, and that there’s no real
Ultimately, while he did well to consideration of noble or ignoble to be
gloss over the imperfections in his retelling, made. Secondly, Phaedrus introduces the
the truths are often different – and consideration of love, eros, as a means to
occasionally directly contrary – to what he virtue. Granted, in his understanding, eros
asserts. His assumed understanding of what does this by manifesting shame, whereas
love inspires, what is noble and good in a someone like Agathon considers it more as
human being, seems to be very rugged and an “infusion” of ability.
10Ashbrook Statesmanship Thesis
Recipient of the 2012 Charles E. Parton Award
In all, Phaedrus establishes a basis To satisfy this objective, he begins
for talking about love – as lovers and be- by associating Love with the divinity Aphro-
loveds with an eye to virtue – which will dite. This, to him, is a common association,
endure throughout the dialogue. It is perhaps but he proposes also that the audience keep
worth noting that the highest character for in mind that “there are in fact two Aphro-
Phaedrus, the beloved who acts for the sake dites so there must be two kinds of Love.”45
of the lover, is almost exactly the opposite After giving their names – Ouranian
of the Socratic “hero”: a lover who serves (Heavenly Aphrodite) and Pandemian
and pursues the beloved endlessly.43 Phaed- (Common Aphrodite) – he makes a state-
rus, however, may actually turn out to be ment that, to Phaedrus, might be somewhat
more sympathetic to this idea than his starling: “…every deed, in and of itself, is
speech seems to indicate. While the theme neither honorable nor base… each depends
of his speech is strikingly thumotic, he ends entirely on how it is done”.46 He holds that
up growing closer to the character of the same is “true with loving and with
Socrates over time. He becomes, for Love.”47 He takes this division and offers an
instance, much more open to the Socratic explanation of how one might discern the
method being employed against Agathon relationships as they manifest themselves in
later on in the dialogue. human beings. The Common Aphrodite, he
says, “is vulgar indeed and lusts after
whatever he happens to find… such men
180c-185c: desire women as much as boys.”48 Heavenly
Pausanias's Speech Aphrodite, however, inspires a Love which
will “always prefer the male child, delight-
Pausanias aims to amend a defect in ing in his more robust nature and his greater
Phaedrus's thinking – that love is solely intellect.”49 He goes on to explain that such
virtuous – by identifying Love as a being a love, associated with the Heavenly Aphro-
with two distinct natures: one worthy of dite, is compelled to take a beloved into a
praise and the other undeserving. He begins lifelong relationship and share with the
by stating that his speech will be of two beloved everything that he has.50
parts: “first… defining that sort of Love Such a relationship is greater than
which does indeed merit our praise, and then the ill-motivated love of Pandemian. Pausa-
by going on to praise the god appropri- nias uses this lesser motivator as the reason
ately”.44 This is the dialogue’s first attempt for Love having “so bad a reputation that
at actually defining Eros simply. some today argue that the gratification of
45
Ibid
43 46
Benardete, p. 182. “Phaedrus, then, sees that the Symposium 181a
47
Olympian gods, who compensate the lover, cannot Ibid
48
be combined with the real thrust of Eros, which Symposium 181b
49
serves the good of the beloved. The problem of the Symposium 181c
50
relation between the beautiful and the good, or Dover, p. 96. Pausanias's two-fold division of
between the lover’s sacrifice and the beloved’s Aphrodite actually has some historical basis.
advantage, is first set out by Phaedrus. The “According to Hesiod… Aphrodite was born from
problem is solved by Socrates in reversing the genitals of Uranus (Sky), which were lopped
Phaedrus. In his solution, the lover gets the good off by his son Cronus and fell into the sea. In [the
and the beloved keeps the beautiful.” Iliad] 5.370-430, on the other hand, Aphrodite is
44
Symposium 180d the child of Zeus and Dione.”
11Boundless Vision: A Reading of Plato's Symposium
any lover at all is itself shameful.”51 He handsome and sexually appealing youth. For
says, however, that such conduct would be all of his talk of virtue and decorum, it is
acceptable only once they submit them- perhaps important to note that Pausanias
selves to “the bounds of decorum and cus- seems to have some very basic connection to
tom,” of which “no one could easily com- physical beauty, regardless of all else.55 This
plain.”52 This point of decorum and custom is further reinforced when he says that
plays a large role for the character of Pausa- “people are right to condemn the hasty and
nias. He goes on to examine the rules of immoral demands which the vulgar lover
decorum in places like Elis and Boeotia – makes upon his prey. But surely, if it were
less sophisticated people, barbaric and tyran- done decently and within the bounds of
nical. He makes note that tyrants especially decorum and custom no one could reason-
are predisposed to finding love quite bother- ably complain.”56 This seems to suggest that
some, for the tyrant is done “no good if his Pausanias's belief comes from attempting to
subjects begin to cultivate ambitious “satisfy” the Heavenly Aphrodite for the
thoughts or form loyalties and strong friend- sake of engaging in the vulgar Aphrodite.57
ships… precisely the sorts of things which Indeed, he goes so far as to put other ignoble
Love has the greatest likelihood of foster- acts – like lying and slavery – among the
ing.”53 good so long as they pursue virtuous ends.
From here, he examines the complex Considering this, one might actually want to
political and social structure of relationships put the question to Pausanias: what is
in the Athenian regime. He suggests that all virtue? If he sanctions all of this ill activity
conduct – even that normally considered for the sake of “virtuous love,” why is it
shameful or unbecoming – becomes praise- clothed in such a lack of virtuous activity?
worthy when in the cause for a noble and Beyond this, it ought to be consider-
virtuous love. He calls this a part of the great ed that Pausanias is glorifying the reality of
combination of two customs, “the one the city’s view towards the relationships be-
governing the love of boys and the other tween a man and boy. The true view of
governing boyhood education and virtue in
general.”54 Through this method, it is pos-
sible for a lover both to find himself loving
for a noble cause and for his beloved to 55
At the same time, his connection is not exclusively
return those feelings for the sake of virtue physical. While it likely began with an eye to the
while still not renouncing the aspect of tragedian’s beauty, much more was at work.
physicality that comes along with a relation- Agathon, sometime between 411 and 405 BC, went
to Macedonia to continue his work as a poet.
ship. When he left, Pausanias actually decided to follow
Such a speech comes off in a very him and continue the relationship (Kenneth Dover,
positive light – especially as it follows the Greek Homosexuality, II.C.4.:84). In everything
sort of “all inclusive” definition given by a that Pausanias says, it is important to keep in mind
character like Phaedrus. Still, several aspects that he maintains a very permanent devotion to his
beloved.
of the speech do seem strange. Firstly, 56
Symposium 182a
Pausanias himself is the declared lover of 57
Benardete, p. 183. “Pausanias, one might say, is
the young man Agathon – an extremely how Socrates appears to Athenian father.
Pausanias offers the same patter, and the law is
incapable of distinguishing between the genuine
51
Symposium 181e and the spurious versions of Socrates.” This, of
52
Symposium 182a course, has huge implications for the later trial and
53
Symposium 182c execution of Socrates. Fathers may be afraid for
54
Symposium 184d their sons.
12Ashbrook Statesmanship Thesis
Recipient of the 2012 Charles E. Parton Award
Athens was a bit more wary.58 If it were the 185c-186a:
case that Pausanias came fully with the Aristophanes and Eryximachus
intent of acting for the “Heavenly Aphro-
dite,” why did he commit himself to dis- During Pausanias’s speech, the next
honesty? Ultimately, we see the totality of speaker in line, Aristophanes, found himself
Pausanias's character as one which attempts suffering from a case of the hiccups. Apollo-
to veil itself with law and simply “satisfy” dorus recalls the cause imperfectly, attribut-
the nobler ends for the sake of base desire. ing it to “overeating, the excess of hot air or
His division between base and noble may be something else, I couldn’t say.”59 The
accurate, but his division is not accompanied afflicted Aristophanes implores his couch
by a personal resistance or rejection of the partner, Eryximachus, to “…either [hiccup]
vulgar. In any such soul, it is impossible to cure these hiccups or else speak in my
pursue that which is “good” – the erotic [hiccup] place until I recover” (185d). The
desires get in the way. physician agrees to do both of these things:
Pausanias does end up introducing a take the turn of Aristophanes and provide
topic which has a good longevity within the for him three possible cures to administer
dialogue: that of finding a “mean” between while he speaks. Eryximachus prefaces his
extremes. Indeed, this will form the main speech by saying that Pausanias, while
line of thinking within Eryximachus’s having a “sound beginning to his speech,
speech, but it is one which is also picked up hadn’t quite ended it properly.”60
by Socrates later on. While Pausanias uses This interruption from Aristophanes
this mean as a way to get at a sort of seems to serve several purposes. In the
“decency” between lovers, Eryximachus simplest way, it’s upsetting. When com-
will use it to form the final end of eros – pared to all other events in the Symposium,
balance. The problem with Pausanias's with the entrance of Alcibiades being the
speech lies in that he is unable to connect only possible exception, it strikes us as the
the base desires to the noble desires in any most “destructive” scene in the dialogue.
necessary way. His understanding suggests The hiccups, which surfaced while Pausa-
that a truly noble love should consist of nias was talking, detracted from his speech;
purely noble concerns – only a lover with they created a spectacle during Eryxi-
base desires would wish that the object of machus’s speech as well, since the sight of
his love become involved in the “willing Aristophanes “stimulat[ing] the interior tis-
servitude” that he speaks of at 184b. sues of the proboscis” sounds hard to ignore,
and finally, they changed the current order
of speakers. Each event here serves specific
ends.
58 The beginning of the hiccups came
Dover, p. 2. “It is clear from Greek literature, art
and myth that at least by the early sixth century during Pausanias’s speech.61 Apollodorus at-
B.C. the Greeks had come to think it natural that a
59
good-looking boy or youth should excite in an Symposium 185c
60
older male the same desire for genital contact and Symposium 185e
61
orgasm as is excited by a pretty girl. They did not The jury is out on this point. Benardete has the
consider homosexual relations incompatible with hiccups seen as a “funny noise whose cure consists
concurrent heterosexual relations or with in the funny noises of gargling and sneezing.
marriage… but the sustained relationship between Aristophanes finds it funny that funny noises heal
Pausanias and Agathon which we encounter in [the funny disorders; but Eryximachus does not find it
Symposium] is something unusual.” funny; we certainly must find it strange at least that
13Boundless Vision: A Reading of Plato's Symposium
tributes this, in his memory, to the effect of Pausanias is a front, and Aristophanes points
“overeating, the excess of hot air or some- this out with his “bronchial eruptions.”
thing else.” The concept of indulgence – Secondly, we know that Eryxi-
whether considered from the viewpoint of machus is a prideful man – he believes in his
overeating or from “hot air” – seems profession not only as a guarantee of skill in
relatable to the character of Pausanias. As medicine, but of skill generally, even in
mentioned, his glorification of the Athenian love. Further, his speech is mechanical in
view on man and boy relationships, some ways: he tries to bring together oppo-
partnered with his loving of Agathon (a sites, to harmonize, and to produce equili-
rather attractive youth), and his questionable brium. This is what doctors do – something
definitions of virtue, put him in a poor light which he states. Aristophanes, by hiccup-
as a defender of the “Heavenly Aphrodite.” ping, cuts into the prestige of such a speech;
Even if it were granted that Pausanias was not only by hiccupping, but by performing
entirely sincere in his speech, he still seemed the prescribed “solutions” as well. Thus,
to put himself in the position of satisfying Aristophanes makes light of this sort of
Ouranian for the sake of Pandemian. He “beyond sexual” lover (a concept which
always comes back to the concept of Aristophanes will develop during his
gratification: when it is “okay” to gratify speech). The hiccups seem to serve the
one’s lover or beloved. The reader is left, purpose of applying a critique to the belief
then, with this praise of “decorum” or furthered by Eryximachus – indeed, a poetic
“decency” instead of a praise of love. “but what about this…” to the first three
Aristophanes, in being taken by hiccups, speakers as a whole.
serves as a critique of this attempt by Pausa- Finally, the hiccups result in a re-
nias. This is in line with what the job of a ordering of speakers. Again, this highlights
comedian tends to be: tearing through false the relevance of speaking order in a way
motives and appearances, showing things as similar to the division of “lightweight” and
they are. Instead of focusing on customs and “heavyweight” drinkers. This particular inci-
motions, why not focus on the true motiva- dent is unique, however, since it actually
tion for it all – physical gratification, bodily changes the way in which the reader is given
indulgence? This concept will be taken up the speeches. Instead of simply indicating
more fully in Aristophanes's speech, but the the importance of order, this incident
basic point comes in the form of a question: demonstrates it: Aristophanes and Eryxi-
why are you, Pausanias, afraid of showing machus will now play different roles in the
love for the body? Why the decoration? To dialogue than what they formerly would
the comedian, the decency being sought by have. Instead of a progression from Pausa-
nias to Aristophanes to Eryximachus, as was
bodily disorders establish the harmonious structure intended, the latter two have their places
of the speeches of the Symposium” (p. 184-185). exchanged.
On the other hand, Rosen recognizes a narrative As a small thought experiment be-
function as well as an instance where “Plato cari-
catures Aristophanes in vengeance for the come- fore going on, one can consider how the
dian’s portrait of Socrates in the Clouds” (p. 91). Symposium might have looked without
Bury identifies most strongly with this latter Eryximachus following Pausanias; in other
view, saying that “the incident shows up words, if it had followed the original pro-
Aristophanes in a ludicrous light, and at the same gression from Pausanias to Aristophanes.
time it gives further occasion to Eryximachus to air
his medical lore; so that we can read in it the We notice rather immediately that the two
intention of satirizing gently both the personages” actually follow each other very well. In fact,
(xxiii).
14Ashbrook Statesmanship Thesis
Recipient of the 2012 Charles E. Parton Award
it is almost a more sensible progression than is the doctor. Alternately, Pausanias also
the one we are actually given. While Eryxi- presents decency as a virtuous way to “earn”
machus takes love into the cosmos, Aristo- one’s physical desires – a path which is fol-
phanes gives a speech which centers itself lowed to its end, although more nobly, by
on human love – much like Pausanias. In Aristophanes. The ultimate slavery to one’s
addition, he provides a strong counter to lover – a physical “welding” of bodies – will
Pausanias's assertion of decency by describ- become a higher fulfillment of the devotion
ing an eros which is not only “indecent” in championed by Pausanias.
the traditional sense, but proud of that By drawing attention to the swap-
indecency. Indeed, he verbalizes much of ping of these two characters, Plato indicates
what we just assumed the hiccups implied. both their interchangeable nature as well as
Given the compatibility of the two, then, we the purpose for placing them where they
must consider why Plato decided to make ultimately ended up. Aristophanes needed to
this change. precede Agathon due to the theme of poetry
In the first place, Eryximachus intro- which exists in the latter half of the dia-
duces the idea of the “good in itself” to the logue, and Eryximachus needed to precede
discussion at 188d. This becomes much Aristophanes in order to demonstrate the
more important during the discussion be- function of comedy and to introduce the
tween Aristophanes, Agathon, and Socrates, concept of “the good.” However, they are
but it suffices to say that this theme was related to each other, and the arguments they
largely absent from both Phaedrus's and present both find some source in the speech
Pausanias's speeches. For Aristophanes's delivered by Pausanias.
speech to generally avoid the discussion of With all of this said, and a remedy
virtue and instead pursue “the good,” Eryxi- prescribed, we proceed to Eryximachus’s
machus had to forward his own argument speech.
and bridge the difference. Secondly, Eryxi-
machus’s speech does not stand up sensibly
next to Agathon’s – either in form or in con- 186a-188e:
tent. Aristophanes, as mentioned earlier, is Eryximachus's Speech
almost exactly opposite what Agathon
offers. As a result, the two highlight each He begins by agreeing with the
other’s differences very well. proposal that there is a “twofold division of
Thirdly, and perhaps most impor- love.” However, he is unable to accept that
tantly, it seems as though Plato is suggesting Pausanias has given us a complete view.
that the way of thinking proposed by Pausa- Instead of “his hypothesis that love exists
nias can be followed to the end proposed by only in human souls of that is it stimulated
either Eryximachus or Aristophanes – both only by human beauty… love is aroused by
are “most logical conclusions.” It can be numerous stimuli and can be found in the
taken as an assessment of the current laws, whole spectrum of life forms.”62 He goes on
with the result being a far-reaching harmony to suggest that love is indeed found to be a
to be achieved in human sciences – the part of animals, plants, and practically
nomos among them. Eryximachus takes this everything else; it permeates all matter and
route by suggesting that “harmony” is affects those things human and divine. What
something that all aspects of life ought to be Eryximachus sees as “beautiful” and what
turned towards. Insomuch as Pausanias
seems to be the political man, Eryximachus 62
Symposium 186a
15You can also read
