Symposium - AIC

Olga Alieva
“worldly” passion in contempt. 56
Interestingly, Lysias’ speech bears many traits of Antisthenes’ teaching on eros 57 . Thus, Lysias thinks
that those in love suffer from an illness that makes them mad; 58 he stresses that one should yield to
those who would be grateful for that; 59 he doesn’t approve of pleasure (at least, he says so) 60 and aims
at mutual benefits of those engaged in a relationship. The parallelism between the speeches of
Pausanias and Lysias may therefore be explained by the fact that in both pieces Plato alludes to
Antisthenes.
Literary context seem to provide an important background for understanding the meaning of
philosophical protreptic in Plato. It turns out that for Socrates it makes little difference if a sophist is
praising or rebuking Eros. To take an image from the Phaedrus itself, “Lysias” and Pausanias think
they are urging “to buy a horse and fight against the invaders”, but none of them has a slightest idea of
what a horse is (260b). 61 Not that I wished to compare Eros to a donkey but the thing is that neither
Lysias nor Pausanias have an idea of what they are praising and urging to.
Socrates defends a radically different sort of rhetoric: one aimed at pleasing not the listeners, however
“wise” they are, but gods themselves. At this point, the problem of χαρίζεσθαι gains a more broad
meaning. As Socrates himself claims in the Phaedrus, a wise man will study rhetoric not “for the sake
of speaking and acting before men, but that he may be able to speak and to do everything, so far as
possible, in a manner pleasing to the gods (θεοῖς κεχαρισµένα). For those who are wiser than we,
Tisias, say that a man of sense should surely practice to please not his fellow slaves (οὐ …ὁµοδούλοις
δεῖ χαρίζεσθαι µελετᾶν τὸν νοῦν ἔχοντα), except as a secondary consideration, but his good and noble
masters” (273e5–9).
This entails that both rhetorical and erotical χάρις must be turned (“converted”) not to the “fellow
slaves”, however wise they might be, but to gods alone 62 . Thus, dealing with Ἔρως προτρέπων, Plato
offers his solution to the problem of δουλεία ἑκούσιος and to the combination of eros and exhortation
in speeches. The protreptic power of Socrates’ speeches, described by Alcibiades at the end of the
dialogue (216 ab), originates in gods themselves, is addressed to the gods and — eventually —
converts his listeners to the divine 63 .
P.S.: A question of chronology
Though Phaedrus is now believed to be a later dialogue, 64 it has also been observed that certain motifs
would be more appropriate in an earlier writing. Thus, Hackforth notes that some reminiscences of
Isocrates’ speeches could hardly be detected by Plato’s readers some 15-20 years after these speeches
ὄνειδος πεποιηκότες; cfr. 183a2: ὀνείδη; 183b1: τῶν µὲν ὀνειδιζόντων; 183b4: ἄνευ ὀνείδους; 183c7: ὀνειδίζωσιν; 183c8:
ὀνειδίζωσιν; 184c1: µηδὲ ἐπονείδιστον etc. In both cases the common aim is to convince the youth that there is no ὄνειδος in
gratifying a (non-)lover.
56
Phaedr. 232e3-6; 233b1−6: πολὺ µᾶλλον ἐλεεῖν τοῖς ἐρωµένοις ἢ ζηλοῦν αὐτοὺς προσήκει; 231e2-4: αὐτοὶ ὁµολογοῦσι
νοσεῖν µᾶλλον ἢ σωφρονεῖν, καὶ εἰδέναι ὅτι κακῶς φρονοῦσιν, ἀλλ' οὐ δύνασθαι αὑτῶν κρατεῖν. This idea is clearly of
Antisthenian provenance, see note 29: θεὸν τὴν νόσον καλοῦσιν.
57
This idea was expressed and elaborated by Y. Shichalin in his edition of the Phaedrus (above note 4).
58
See note 56.
59
Phaedr. 233d5-8: Ἔτι δὲ εἰ χρὴ τοῖς δεοµένοις µάλιστα χαρίζεσθαι, προσήκει καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις µὴ τοὺς βελτίστους ἀλλὰ
τοὺς ἀπορωτάτους εὖ ποιεῖν· µεγίστων γὰρ ἀπαλλαγέντες κακῶν πλείστην χάριν αὐτοῖς εἴσονται; cfr. DL VI, 3 = SSR V A
56: καὶ χρὴ τοιαύταις πλησιάζειν γυναιξὶν αἳ χάριν εἴσονται.
60
Cfr. above note 49.
61
Cfr. DL VI 8 = SSR V A 72: συνεβούλευεν [sc. Antisthenes ] Ἀθηναίοις τοὺς ὄνους ἵππους ψηφίσασθαι· ἄλογον δὲ
ἡγουµένων, “ἀλλὰ µὴν καὶ στρατηγοί,” φησί, “γίνονται παρ' ὑµῖν µηδὲν µαθόντες, µόνον δὲ χειροτονηθέντες.” May we
suggest that Antisthenes himself if subject to the reproach which he addresses to the Athenias?
62
This theoretical consideration is manifested at the practical level: Socrates’ speech in the Phaedrus is marked by the
ostensible change of addressee, whereas in the Symposium the role of Socrates as “mediator” between the gods and the
people is emphasized (202e-203a).
63
Alcibiades says that Socrates’ speeches are “divine” (222a3: θειοτάτους), they contain “images of virtue” inside (222a4:
ἀγάλµατ' ἀρετῆς), just as their author that conceals “divine images” (216e6-7: ἀγάλµατα·θεῖα). The “wondrous power” (216с
6−7: τὴν δύναµιν ὡς θαυµασίαν) of Socrates becomes more clear when we bare in mind the divine origin of his protreptics.
64
Erler, Hackforth and Robin take the Phaedrus to be later than the Republic, see: Erler, M., Platon / Die Philosophie der
Antike, Band 2/2, Basel 2007, 216; Hackforth, R., Plato’s Phaedrus, Cambridge, 1952, 7; Platon, Oeuvres complètes IV 3:
Phèdre / texte établi et trad. par León Robin, Paris, 1985, ix. Not many scholars now place the Phaedrus among earlier
dialogues. See: Moore, J.D. “The Relation between Plato’s Symposium and Phaedrus”, in Patterns in Plato’s thought: papers
arising out of the 1971 West Coast Greek Philosophy Conference, ed. by J.M.E. Moravcsik, Dordrecht; Boston, 1973, 52-71;
cfr. also J. Dillon’s “Comments on John Moore’s Paper” in the same volume. Bury also defends the prority of the Phaedrus,
see: Bury, R.G., The Symposium of Plato, Cambridge, 1909, lxvii.
159