Symposium - AIC

Eros protrepōn: philosophy and seduction in the Symposium
Olga Alieva
The scope of this paper is to provide some literary background for Pausanias’ speech in the
Symposium and, against this background, to reconsider the notion of Ἔρως προτρέπων in the
dialogue. I assume that one of Plato’s purposes in this dialogue was to question the protreptic function
of Eros as understood in Antisthenes. 1
I’ll try to show, firstly, that Pausanias’ speech echoes Antisthenes’ views that only the wise
man is worthy of love. A natural inference from this conviction would be that the sage has a sort of
“monopoly” 2 on seduction: the idea most explicitly set forth by Pausanias.
Secondly, I’ll turn to the Phaedrus where we also find the notion of Ἔρως προτρέπων. Certain
parallels with “Lysias’ speech” enable to consider Pausanias’ praise of Eros as a sort of “sophistic”
palinode.
But first of all, a brief background should be given concerning λόγοι ἐρωτικοί and their
relation to protreptic.
Ἔρως σοφιστής
In 1944 F. Lasserre suggested that prosaic λόγοι ἐρωτικοί, as we find them in the Symposium and in
the Phaedrus, originated among the sophists, 3 and he even assumes that “Lysias’ speech” in the
Phaedrus is indeed an unknown piece written by the famous orator. 4
In his seminal Protreptik und Paränese bei Platon Gaiser adopts Lasserre’s thesis on sophistic λόγοι
ἐρωτικοί and claims that “Lysias’ speech” has as a “precondition” (Voraussetzung) the existence the
genre. 5 But as a matter of fact, we don’t have to go that far: the only “precondition” here is the
common opinion µὴ ἐραστᾶι χαρίζεσθαι αἰσχρόν which can be used as a departure point for λόγος
παράδοξος.
We do actually find this opinion in the anonymous Dissoi Logoi. 6 One the chapter of this
writing is entitled “Concerning seemly and disgraceful” 7 (Περὶ καλοῦ καὶ αἰσχροῦ) and contains the
following statement: αὐτίκα γὰρ παιδὶ ὡραίωι ἐραστᾶι µὲν [χρηστῶι] χαρίζεσθαι καλόν, µὴ ἐραστᾶι
δὲ [καλῶι] αἰσχρόν. Thereafter, a set of “comparative” examples follows, many of them concerning
sexual comportment. 8 The conclusion of the section, designed as a merely rhetorical exercise, is:
“disgraceful and seemly are really the same thing” (2. 21), or πάντα καιρῶι µὲν καλά ἐντι, ἐν ἀκαιρίαι
δ' αἰσχρά. 9 In other words, under certain circumstances, µὴ ἐραστᾶι χαρίζεσθαι may also be καλόν.
It is this “inversed” thesis that is defended by Lysisas, but we find here a feature which is not
1
In this paper, I can’t linger on parallels with Aeschines in the Symposium, which are also very important. On his notion of
eros see: Dittmar, H., Aischines von Sphettos: Studien zur Literaturgeschichte der Sokratiker, Berlin, 1912; Gaiser, K.,
Protreptik und Paränese bei Platon: Untersuchungen zur Form des Platonischen Dialogs, Stuttgart 1959; Ehlers, B., Eine
vorplatonische Deutung des sokratischen Eros: der Dialog Aspasia des Sokratikers Aischines, München, 1966; Kahn, Ch.,
“Aeschines on Socratic Eros”, in P. A. Vander Waerdt (ed.), The Socratic Movement, Ithaca NY, 1994, 87-106; Idem, Plato
and the Socratic Dialogue: The Philosophical Use of a Literary Form, Cambridge / New York, 1996.
2
I owe this expression to M. Narcy whose book Le Philosophe et son double : un commentaire de l’Euthydème de Platon
(Paris, 1984) helped to formulate many of the ideas expressed in this paper.
3
Lasserre, F., “Ἐρωτικοὶ λόγοι”, Museum Helveticum, 1 (1944), 169–178. Lasserre singles out two forms of λόγοι
ἐρωτικοί: a more ‘primitive’, that is “un propos adressé à un être aimé”, and a more advanced one, that is an encomium of
Eros. “Primitive” λόγοι ἐρωτικοί, according to Lasserre, date back to the elder sophists.
4
This guess is not supported by any evidence. For reasons set out below, I am inclined to agree with prof. Shichalin’s
assumption that Lysias’ speech reproduces in a playful manner some features of Antisthenes’ teaching on eros.
Unfortunately, the work I’m referring to is not translated into English. See: Shichalin, Y. (ed.), Egunov, A. (trans.), Plato,
Fedr, Moskva, 1989 (in Russian).
5
Gaiser, op. cit., 66.
6
The unknown author of this writing adopted Protagoras’ methods; see: Guthrie, W.K.C., The Sophists, London; New York,
1971, 316.
7
Hereinafter the translation is that of Sprague. See: Sprague, R. K., The older Sophists : a complete translation by several
hands of the fragments in Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, edited by Diels-Kranz. With a new edition of Antiphon and
Euthydemus, Columbia, SC, 1972, 279 ff.
8
Diss. log. 2. 16: “It strikes the Lydians as seemly that young girls should first earn money by prostituting themselves and
then get married, but no one among the Greeks would be willing to marry a girl who did that”; Ibid. 2. 12: “To the
Macedonians it appears to be seemly for young girls, before they are married, to fall in love and to have intercourse with a
man, but when a girl is married it is a disgrace”, etc.
9
The author cites a fragment of an unknown tragedy: “And if you investigate in this way, you will see another law for
mortals: nothing is always seemly or always disgraceful, but the right occasion takes the same things and makes them
disgraceful and then alters them and makes them seemly” (2. 19).