Symposium - AIC

Annie Larrivée
sense that he will choose an intelligent eromenos (as opposed to an unintelligent one, 181b, d) and
will contribute to the improvement of his beloved’s soul. However, what the erastes, himself, seems to
get out of this relationship is bodily pleasures. The eromenos, then, seem to be the one who genuinely
cares for the soul (his own soul) in so far as it is his soul that really benefits from the relationship. All
this raises the question: aside from sexual pleasures, what else could the erastes get out of the
relationship? In what way can it make a contribution to the lover’s self-care? 14 Or is he entirely
altruistic? Pausanias does not say and we will have, again, to wait for Socratima’s speech to get an
answer.
In all honesty, Pausanias gives the impression that he is using the Socratic topos of the ‘care
for the soul’ as a rhetorical tool enabling older men to persuade beautiful youth to choose someone,
who, like himself, cares for the soul in the sense that he is devoted to ‘philosophy’ instead of choosing
an erastes who can provide him with financial resources and political influence (183a)... His
declaration to the effect that only one type of servitude is acceptable, namely to become the servant of
the person we know will make us better in terms of knowledge or virtue also seems to point in that
direction (184c, 184d-e). Seen in that light, when addressed to the potential beloved, the Socratic
invitation to care for one’s intelligence and soul (instead of wealth and honor) could be ‘translated’ as
follows: “I urge you to choose an erastes like me, a soul-oriented philosopher, instead of letting
yourself be seduced by wealthy and politically powerful lovers!” And in truth, we cannot exclude that
Socrates’ exhortation to care for the soul can be interpreted in that way, for it is an invitation
addressed to youth to look for a mentor, a virtuous educator who ‘specializes’ in the soul instead of
putting themselves in the care of men of power or wealth. The difference is that Socrates does not use
this exhortation in order to seduce youths sexually.
There are other aspects of Pausanias’ explanations that indicate that his exhortation is more
self-interested (ambiguously motivated) than Socrates’. For instance, he declares, apparently
unconcerned, that an eromenos should not be ashamed if it turns out that the erastes to whom he gave
his favours ends up not being capable or willing to fulfil his promises. Such a mistake in evaluation,
he explains, is nothing that the eromenos should feel ashamed of, for it reveals his willingness to
entrust himself to someone he thought could make him better (185b). Socrates, for his part, does not
take such a risk lightly. In many dialogues, Plato portrays him assisting young people in assessing the
‘credentials’ of individuals who present themselves as potential mentors or educators. 15 We find an
allusion to that vulnerable situation of youths in the Symposium when Socrates ironically mocks
Alcibiades’ conviction that he is able to correctly assess Socrates’ value despite his own lack of
experience. 16 Instead of encouraging potential eromenoi to just take a chance with an erastes who
seems capable of teaching them virtue, he encourages them to be vigilant and critical, and to realize
that in such relationships they are exposing the most precious part of themselves to harm and
corruption, namely their soul (Prot., 312c, 313a-b). Pausanias is not nearly as scrupulous. In truth, he
seems not to care much about their fate.
Eryximachus: Eros as the principle at the core of therapeutic arts
Although the relevance of Eryximachus’ speech for the question that interests me is not
immediately evident, it does offer a good occasion to contrast the attempt to reorient care found in the
Symposium with conversion modes found in other dialogues. At first glance, with his eulogy,
Eryximachus seems to invite us to get away from the anthropocentric (not to say ‘pederastocentric’)
perspective of the previous speeches by drawing our attention, instead, to diverse physical phenomena
in which measure and harmony are manifestations of the ‘Heavenly Eros’ described by Pausanias.
This invitation to modify our view point involves a radical conversion of our attention as it
encourages us to abandon the familiar perspective of personal love (which is something that most
people have experienced and care a lot about) to pay attention to an ‘erotic’ feature shared by diverse
physical phenomena (a highly general, not to say universal, viewpoint, the existence of which most
people are not aware of). Are we here given an avant-goût of the type of ‘ascent’ referred to in
Socratima’s speech? I believe it is not the case for several reasons.
First, whereas the type of conversion promoted by Socratima is progressive (the change of
perspective is achieved gradually, by passing through different stages), Eryximachus seems to invite
14 This question must be asked about Socrates. What does he get (or hope to get) out of his relationship with Alcibiades for
example? Since he refrained from having any sexual contact with him, are we to believe that his attempt to help the youth
improve was completely selfless and altruistic?
15 The prologue of the Protagoras is probably the best example.
16 219a.
44