Symposium - AIC

Gabriel Danzig
not only shows Agathon himself to be lacking in sense, he also shows that Pausanias’ claims to
transfer wisdom and excellence are not very well founded. 29 In general, Socrates’ speech raises doubts
about the wisdom that Pausanias displayed and which he offers as a return for his paidika’s
investment. Socrates’ use of the birthing model of education offers an even more fundamental critique,
since it implies that wisdom is found within oneself and is not acquired by the transmission of semen,
or by any other external input. 30
In addition to raising doubts about the value of Pausanias’ merchandise, Socrates expends
considerable effort belittling Pausanias’ desire for physical contact with young men. Pausanias’
speech rests heavily not only on the assumption that he has something worthwhile to offer, but also
that his enjoyment of sexual relations with young men is worthwhile. But if it is really a waste of time,
then how do his supposed virtues really serve Pausanias’ interests?
Pausanias does not of course say that engaging in sexual relations with a young man is a valuable way
to spend one’s time. He actually offers very little explanation for what he, the older lover, stands to
gain from a relationship with a paidika. Although he says that he loves the young man for his soul, he
does not explain what benefit he gains from indulging this spiritual affection, saying instead that the
paidika should satisfy (charizesthai) a virtuous lover physically. Throughout his speech he minimizes
the value of this benefit while magnifying the benefit he offers. If one didn’t know any better one
might think that Pausanias offers his services to young boys for purely altruistic purposes or for a
trifle, something of no real worth, certainly not worth much in comparison with what he has to offer.
And yet, the opportunity for relations with a young boy is of such value to him that he is willing to do
the most slavish things (184d).
Socrates’ erotic impulses are both lower and higher than those reported by Pausanias. By
insisting that love of a beautiful body is indeed an important step in the so-called ladder of love,
Socrates tarnishes the credibility of Pausanias’ high minded denigration of love of the body. If we are
right to discount Pausanias’ claim to love the soul of Agathon and to acknowledge the very important
role of the body in his relationship to Pausanias, Socrates’ speech consigns Pausanias to the very
lowest level of the ladder. Socrates puts the principle of promiscuity at a higher rung than the
principle of loyalty, and, as the action of Symposium illustrates, he lives by that rule himself. He
further undermines Pausanias by describing forms of eros more heavenly than any he has conceived,
providing an explanation for how one could actually love the soul of a young boy as Pausanias claims
to do.
Alcibiades’ speech also plays an important role in refuting Pausanias. This speech is
especially effective because as an external witness to Socrates’ behavior it is not subject to the
suspicions of a conflict between word and deed which undermine Pausanias’ own speech. Alcibiades’
testimony concerning Socrates show that Socrates actually does what Pausanias boasts to do. He takes
Pausanias at his word, sincerely believing that there is little or nothing to be gained from the favors of
a paidika. Pausanias never explains why he accepts a trade he describes as so imbalanced. Possibly,
the trade is not so imbalanced after all, since he has no genuine virtue to offer. Indeed, he has said
precious little about the nature of the virtue he teaches, and unless he is much superior to most of
Socrates’ eminent interlocutors he probably has no idea what virtue is in the first place. His lack of
wisdom can be seen not only on the basis of his own speech and behavior, but also from the poor
contents of the speech his well-trained paidika, Agathon, makes and the speed with which he
succumbs to Socrates’ criticism. Alternatively, Pausanias may not know how to distinguish gold from
bronze. In contrast with this, Socrates actually refuses the trade (218e). He either possesses some
virtue that is worth more than anything an adult can get from a young man or he sees that there is
really no value in the sensual pleasures, as he says over and over again in the middle dialogues (ie.
Phaedo, Phaedrus, Republic, and Gorgias).
Conclusion
The speeches in Symposium, and in the dialogues more generally, are self-referential and designed to
enhance the reputation and confidence of the speaker. 31 Although not an acceptable trait today, this
mode of discourse was accepted and expected in ancient Greece. It was also of great value for
philosophical disputation of the Socratic sort. Self-referential speech exposes the speaker to criticism
and refutation not merely of disinterested opinions, but of principles that are central to his or her
29 See Charmides’ remark on the credit due to a teacher in Xenophon’s Symposium (2.15). Perhaps it is not superfluous to
add that there is something erotic in the beautiful Agathon’s humble words to Socrates.
30 See L. Brisson, above note 22.
31 The exception, of course, is Alcibiades who insults himself and praises Socrates, thus inverting sympotic expectations.
362