Symposium - AIC

Gabriel Danzig
character, mentality and behavior. The refutation of these principles therefore leads not merely to the
need for a more adequate theory, it also leads to the humiliation and breakdown of the speaker. In
some cases, as apparently in the case of Agathon, there is an erotic motive to this process.
The cases of Phaedrus and Pausanias are rather mild, since neither of them is a direct object of
Socrates’ interest. But the speech of Alcibiades shows what kind of experience is in wait for Agathon.
The Socratic refutation creates a profound disturbance in the soul of the speaker, instigating a collapse
of personality which leads to the slavish adulation of Socrates that is reported not only by Alcibiades
but also by Apollodoros and evidenced by the behavior of Aristodemos. Agathon is well on the way
to a similar experience.
Appendix on Aristophanes:
Aristophanes’ speech is at first sight difficult to fit into the pattern of boasting. Plato does not provide
us with enough information concerning Aristophanes’ personal life to enable us to evaluate the role
his speech plays in forwarding his personal interests. Unlike other characters in Symposium, we are
not told of any romantic interests he may have had. He seems to be the one speaker who does not
attempt to sell himself to potential sexual partners, and indeed, his speech, with its insistence on
natural partnership, contradicts any such intention. Possibly, he is the only speaker who does not
attempt to advance himself in any way. But selling oneself is not the only form of self-promotion that
occurs in Symposium, and I am not aware of any good reason to think that Aristophanes is an
exception to the general rule. Given the prominence of self-promotion elsewhere in the composition,
and in Athenian social life in general, we should expect the general pattern to hold here as well. If so,
some of the elements of his speech, at least, should serve his personal interests. By taking this as an
hypothesis, and considering what information we do have about Aristophanes we can derive a
tolerably plausible portrait of the relationship between the man and the speech. Here I apply my
reasoning in reverse and ask, What kind of a person must he have been if this speech is self-serving?
1) Aristophanes must have been strongly partial to homosexuality. The story of our original
unity grants a natural status to those who possess the tendency to homosexuality. Two of the three
human prototypes he mentions are prototypes for homosexuals, while only one out of three is a
prototype for the heterosexual. He refers to the prototype of the heterosexual as androgynous,
reminding the company that this word is used nowadays as a term of reproach (189e). He insults the
descendents of these androgynous creatures, claiming that they are adulterers and adulteresses (191de).
He praises men who are naturally homosexual, claiming that they possess manly virtues and tend
to perform well in political activity (192a-b: this passage may have been added later in response to
Xenophon; 193c). Interestingly, his mythological account of the origins of love allows no possibility
of bisexuality, and in 192a he suggests that homosexuals who marry women (there was no same-sex
marriage in ancient Greece) do so only because of social pressure (192b). This may reflect an
exclusive predilection on Aristophanes’ part for men. Although he praises male homosexuality, he has
almost nothing to say about female homosexuality.
2) Beauty is not mentioned in Aristophanes’ speech, and neither are other traits by which
quality or excellence are judged. The fact that belongingness is the chief attraction in erotic love, and
that traits of quality such as good-looks, wealth, intelligence, virtue, play no role at all, suggests that
Aristophanes was not blessed with such things. Born around 446, Aristophanes would have been
thirty years old in 416, the dramatic date of the party, about the same age as Agathon, but he is not
said to be good-looking.
3) In contrast to Eryximachos, although Aristophanes provides a coarse materialistic
explanation for the power of love, his explanation is not primarily sexual in nature. The inclination to
unite with one’s mate is a desire for an original wholeness or unity, not for the pleasures of sexual
intercourse. The purpose of sexual intercourse is to produce children in the case of androgynous pairs
and to provide satisfaction (plesmone) for homosexual men. (Homosexual women are not mentioned
in this connection.) This satisfaction enables them to cease their embracing and turn to productive
activities (191c). So, although he does attribute sexual obsession to heterosexuals, as we have seen, he
says clearly that sexual pleasure is not the main attraction for homosexual couples (192c-e). This
attitude too may reflect Aristophanes’ own personal habits.32
4) As we have noted, Aristophanes was not known for his good looks. Some parts of
Symposium seem to suggest that Aristophanes was also of a rotund appearance. As I have argued, the
speeches tend to describe eros in the image of the speaker himself, so the fact that Aristophanes
32 Socrates says that Aristophanes spends his whole time with Dionysius and Aphrodite (177e), but this is presumably a
reference to his comic productions.
363