Symposium - AIC

I: INTRODUCTION
On the Early Speeches’ Developement of a Methodology
Philip Krinks
The objective of this short paper is to re-examine the early speakers’ reflections on method. I argue
that each early speaker adopts an explicit methodological focus for his speech, which responds to his
predecessors’ focuses. The early speakers thereby collectively and progressively generate a
methodology for praising erōs. This connection and progression between the early speeches gives
them a tighter relation to one another, and the dialogue a greater degree of unity, than might otherwise
appear.
For Phaedrus, the method for praising erōs is to focus on what it causes (Section II); for
Pausanias, on erōs as a praxis (Section III); for Eryximachus, the praise should be complete, reach the
telos (Section IV); for Aristophanes, a praise should do justice to the power of erōs (Section V); for
Agathon, to the intrinsic character of erōs.
I also make the observation, as a corollary (Section VII), that it is these five methodological
focuses which then structure Socrates’ speech.
II: PHAEDRUS AND CAUSALITY
II.1 Phaedrus and his predecessors
Although Phaedrus is the first speaker in the dialogue, he has a long tradition of praise discourse to
draw on. Phaedrus sees that the conventions of prose encomium, which would be used if one were
praising a legendary hero, or heroically depicted aristocrat, can be adapted for the praise of erōs. The
conventional pattern for praising a hero would be in outline:
- This hero is of distinguished genesis
- His genesis is responsible for him being virtuous
- So he is responsible for great erga
II.2 Phaedrus’ focus: what erōs causes
Phaedrus evolves this pattern. erōs lacks noble lineage, but does have great antiquity. 1 Therefore:
‘Since erōs is very old, he is cause (aitios) of very great goods for us human beings’ (178c2-3) 2
Phaedrus relies on a methodological principle, drawn from conventional encomiastic practice, that
someone should be praised if he is cause of benefits for other human beings. Phaedrus has to evolve
the standard pattern, however: it is implausible to state, given what had been said about erōs in poetry
and prose in the preceding decades, that erōs is virtuous. Phaedrus removes the direct reference to
virtue in the middle step of the conventional structure. 3 He maintains the ideas that shame and love of
honour play an important and positive ethical role 4 , and the idea that outstanding human lives are
marked by great works 5 . This gives him the structure of his praise:
- erōs has no known parentage
- so it must be old
- it instils (better than other things) shame and pride (at the right things)
- which is what is needed to do great and fine works (and lead a fine life)
1 Rowe (op. cit. p.137, ad 178a5ff) rightly notes the superlatives. Socrates comments on the superlatives below, 199a2
2 Translations from the Symposium are partly from the excellent edition and translation of Rowe 1998, and partly my own
doing
3 This creates an interesting parallel with Gorgias’ Encomium of Helen, which begins its praise and defence of Helen by
discussing Helen’s pre-eminence in nature (phusei) and descent (genei)
4 Cf. Williams 1993 pp.78ff on shame. The idea that the role played by shame and love of honour is positive was, by the late
5th and early 4th century, controversial. Some worried that ‘... philotimia could slide into aggression, pride and
boastfulness’. Dover 1974, p.232 cites examples of concern about philotimia from Aristophanes and Demosthenes
5 That is true from Homer onwards: famously Penelope requests Phemius to sing of ‘the works (erga) of gods and heroes’ at
Odyssey 1.338