Symposium - AIC

Gabriel Danzig
was a special target of ridicule throughout antiquity. 15 Alcibiades mentions this clearly in his own
speech (218d). Phaedrus therefore has a special reason to redeem eros and the eromenos: by
redeeming them he also redeems himself from social disgrace.
Phaedrus’ personal interests and status in Athens explain why he not only speaks in praise of
eros, but also instigates the entire series of speeches in praise of eros. It explains why he emphasizes
the respectable qualities of eros: the greatness (megas), the impressiveness (thaumastos), the dignity
(timion) and honored age (presbutatos: 178a-c; 180b). His central claim is that far from being a
corrupting influence on human beings, as was usually thought, eros actually benefits them. It is the
best guide to a good life for the most paradoxical reason: it inspires moral improvement, not
corruption, and it does this by inspiring feelings of shame, not shamelessness. 16 Eros does not merely
offer practical benefits by encouraging an emotion that Aristotle would characterize merely as a semivirtue
(NE 4.9: 1128b9-36), it also provides an incentive to acts of greater nobility and self-sacrifice
than those performed by parents for children, as the example of Alcestis shows. Erotic relations create
greater bonds than the most sacred bonds of family, inspiring even women, such as Alcestis, to
overcome the fear of death. Here Phaedrus transforms the harmful effect of delirious passion into a
mark of great nobility. Given its connection with suicide and military disaster, when Phaedrus argues
that eros is responsible for virtuous behavior and military prowess, and suggests that it should be
encouraged among soldiers, he is defending a thesis no less paradoxical than that of Gorgias when
defending Helen or those he enjoys in Phaedrus.
The speech is self-referential not only in its general praise of eros, but also in giving the best
role to the eromenos. This explains the peculiar conclusion in which he praises the beloved above the
lover on the ground that they are not possessed by divinity (180a-b). Commentators have wondered
why Phaedrus closes his speech by criticizing Aeschylus for making Achilles the lover and Patroclos
the beloved. As Rutherford (189) points out, criticism of great poets and thinkers is part and parcel of
the openly rivalrous self-promoting atmosphere of Symposium. The speakers regularly criticize
famous poets and previous speaker, Aristophanes even responding afterwards to Socratic criticism of
his own speech. So there is nothing strange about criticizing Aeschylus. But why this particular
criticism?
The criticism of Aeschylus is part of a general claim that the gods reserve more wonder,
admiration and even benefits for the beloved who is devoted to his lover than for the lover himself
(180a). 17 This argument stands in tension with the praise that Phaedrus heaped on the lover earlier
(178d-179d). Phaedrus had argued that eros inspires lovers to deeds of supreme courage (179a6-b2)
but here he argues that the presence of the divine in the lover is a reason to discount his noble actions.
He could just as easily have argued for the opposite conclusion, that the lover is more worthy
precisely because he is possessed by the divinity. Why does he choose to make the argument in favor
of the beloved? Why does he even feel compelled to enter into this comparison between the two?
This can be explained by the self-referential character of the speech. While Phaedrus has
some interest in redeeming the honor of inflamed lovers and encouraging their attentions, he primarily
wishes to defend his own honor as a sexual object and this means praising the eromenos. 18 Why then
has he praised lovers in the earlier part of his speech? This may of course be attributed to a genuine
admiration for the men who love him, a desire to please them and perhaps even to the hope of
attracting more. But it also serves a rhetorical purpose: by praising lovers for being possessed by the
divine, he flatters them into accepting this description of their state. This in turn leaves them open to
the later claim that for this very reason their acts of courage rank lower than those of eromenoi.
In sum, Phaedrus’ speech aims to remove the stain that is associated with his erotic interests
and passive sexual role. He builds a paradoxical speech which praises eros and especially eromenoi
for reasons diametrically opposed to their common reputation.
reflect on these ages and whether or not Plato is being careful about them. Despite the evident value of D. Nail’s
prosopographical volume, we do not know to what extent Plato aimed at historical verisimilitude in portraying the persons
and settings of his dialogues or that he was accurate in portraying events that occurred when he was a young boy.
15 See K. Dover, Greek Homosexuality (Cambridge MA, 1978) 100-109.
16 Xenophon roundly ridicules this idea in his Symposium (8.32-34) and Aristophanes provides evidence for the prevalence
of Xenophon’s attitude (192a: possibly a reference to Xenophon).
17 While supportable on the basis of some passages in the Iliad, the idea that Achilles acted primarily out of love for
Patroclos is questionable. As Socrates will argue, such acts stem more from a love of glory than from the love of a particular
person (208c-d). This point is made by Xenophon’s Socrates in an apparent allusion to Plato’s Symposium: he denies that
Patroclos was Achilles beloved, and also denies that Achilles was motivated by erotic love in avenging him (8.31).
18 This may also explain also why, unlike Pausanias, Eryximachos and Aristophanes, he praises a woman, Alcestis: like the
eromenos, women always play the passive sexual role, so their honor and the honor of the eromenos are naturally tied
together.
358