Symposium - AIC

Nicholas Riegel
contrast to both tragedy and comedy, the chorus of satyrs in a satyr play takes an active part in the
action of the drama; whereas, the chorus of tragedies and comedies is usually relegated to observation
and commentary. And finally, the scene of satyr plays is generally “trees, caves, and mountains,”
whereas the scene of tragedies is usually a palace, while the scene of comedies is usually the common
spaces of a city.
Though satyr plays are a distinct genre from comedy proper, it does not seem to me to follow
necessarily that some of the things said about comedy cannot also be said about satyr play and vice
versa. Even Seidensticker, who is adamant about the difference between satyr play and comedy, 7
admits that they both have essentially the same function, namely “to get the audience to laugh.” 8 Thus
just as Tragedy may be categorized as “that which is performed for the sake of fear and pity,” so
perhaps we may group satyr play and comedy together under the heading “that which is performed for
the sake of laughter.” And it is in this sense that what Socrates speaks about at the end of the
Symposium as comedy, may also refer back to the speeches I have categorized as satyr plays in the
two tetralogies.
The second major objection may be that it is not at all clear that Plato believed there was a
science of tragedy and comedy. At Republic 395A Socrates evinces clear awareness that as a matter
of fact the same person does not write tragedies and comedies. This might be explained, as James
Adam does, by saying that in Republic he is talking about what in fact is the case, whereas in
Symposium he is talking about what should be the case. 9 The case of the Ion is more complex. For at
Ion 534c Socrates seems to say that good poetry cannot be produced by a scientific method. But even
if Plato believes that as a matter of fact, good poetry is not produced by scientific means, it seems to
me, we may still ask why Plato seems to think in the Symposium that if it were produced
scientifically, the same person would be able to write tragedies and comedies? It is true that, as Adam
points out, 10 it is a Socratic principle that there should be one science for every pair of opposites, but
we can still ask, what is it about tragedy and comedy in particular that makes Socrates think, at least
in the Symposium that there could be a single science or craft of both?
Having hopefully addressed these objections, let us turn now to the comparison of the two
tetralogies: the first, we might call the ‘demotic tetralogy,’ and the second is the ‘philosophic
tetralogy.’ In the first tetralogy we will see that each speech fails to adequately address the problems
of love and life in their content. In the second, the methodology and content are correct – or so it
would appear Plato thinks – but still, the speeches fail to bring the reader to the knowledge of the
good and the solution to our mortality. After showing this, we will consider why Plato thinks neither
tragedy nor comedy offers a solution to life, and why he thinks only philosophy can.
III. THE FIRST, OR DEMOTIC TETRALOGY
If we accept the bi-tetralogical structure of the Symposium, we can further analyze each tetralogy as
follows: thesis, antithesis, development, and critique. Thus Phaedrus presents the thesis that love is
good because his effects are good. Pausanias disagrees with Phaedrus that love’s effects are always
good and thus feels the need to posit two kinds of love. Eryximachus agrees with Pausanias, but he
goes further than any of the other speakers in explaining the essence of the good effects of love. At
the basis, however, of all the first three speeches lies the assumption that love consists in two beings
coming together and that the correct object of love is always another human being. Aristophanes
makes this assumption explicit and perhaps also gently ridicules it.
Phaedrus presents the thesis of the first tetralogy: the effects of love are good. Love, he
argues, leads to virtuous activity. One would least of all like to be seen doing something shameful in
the eyes of one’s lover. As proof he adduces the myths of Alcestis, Orpheus and Achilles. It was said
that the all the speeches of the first tetralogy fail because they do not address the central problems of
love, among which are the problems of suffering and death. But here, in the first speech of the first
tetralogy Phaedrus explicitly refers and relies on myths surrounding the deaths of three persons. Even
though Phaedrus does bring up the subject of death, it is clear that he does not do so in order to
emphasize death as a central problem for the question of love and life; rather, he does so only in order
to further his program of demonstrating the good effects of love. For a serious discussion of the
7 “Even if (as is probable) the three dramatic genres arose from the same or closely related cultural contexts, in their fully
developed literary forms each as its separate identity.” Ibid., 49.
8 Ibid., 47.
9 James Adam, The Republic of Plato: Edited with Critical Notes, Commentary and Appendices, 2 vols. (Cambridge:
Cambridge University, 1902). ad loc.
10 Ibid.
279