Symposium - AIC

Harold Tarrant
Neoplatonists would have regarded them all as examples of a style that is to some degree ‘rich’ or
‘weighty’ (ἁδρὸς), as opposed to ‘lean’ (ἰσχνὸς). The speech of Lysias is a paradigm case of a speech
in the lean style (Hermias in Phdr. 10.16, 206.22; cf. in Prm. 633.10), but Socrates’ familiar
conversational style is likewise lean (in Tim. I.64.5-11, cf. anon. Proleg. 17.12-13). However,
Socrates uses a weightier style in both his speeches in Phdr. (Hermias, in Phdr. 206.17-26; cf. 10.14-
18; anon. at Proc. in Prm. 633.10). This style was considered suited to those experiencing divine
possession (in Prm. 645.30-31), to divine addresses (in Tim. III.199.29-200.19), to myths like that of
the Gorgias (anon. Proleg. 17.13-15) and other theological material (ibid. 3-4), to divinely inspired
poetry (Proc. in Prm. 646.23-25), and other inspired speech such as the Nuptial Number passage and
the Myth of Er in the Republic (Proc. in Tim. III.200.3-10), and to oracles (in Tim. I.64.16-17). These
passages repeatedly speak of the weightier language being tailored to reflect the weightier nature of
the subject matter. Hence there is a presumption that wherever Plato breaks into this richer language
his characters will be trying to suggest the great weight of their subject matter. Given that all formal
speeches in the Symposium are ‘encomia’, it is no surprise that Proclus tells us that a worthy
encomium requires a delivery that is rich, solemn and grand (in Tim. I.62.8-9). These encomia tailor
their language to subject matter concerned with a divine, or at least daemonic, being. If the speech is
to praise their subject in a worthy fashion, then it must be rich, solemn and grand.
But does Phaedrus’ speech not count as an encomium? Perhaps, but Lysian simplicity has got
the better of him. And is Agathon’s speech really to be taken seriously? In this case Proclus (in Tim.
I.6413-23) seems to have an answer. Dividing composition into ‘inspired’ and ‘technical’, he argues
that the attempt to substitute artificial technique for higher inspiration produces a contrived and
bombastic result. Agathon’s speech begins by offering guidelines for correct encomia (194e4-195a5),
and Socrates’ response subtly mocks Agathon’s techniques (198c5-199a3). The solemnity of his
speech is artificial, hence Socrates will ultimately compare its ending with the bombastic prose of
Gorgias.
As for Phaedrus’ speech, one needs to separate out the elements that contribute to its being
attributed to the rhetorical cluster. Principal component analysis has the advantage of detecting groups
of words that combine to influence the linguistic mix of several blocks. The first principal component
detects the most obvious of these combinations, the second the second most obvious, and so on.
Phaedrus’ speech (+6.32), the Gorgias-file (+7.07), and the speech of Lysias (+10.86) are placed
together at the top of the second principal component, indicating that they share a combination of
characteristics. However, the difference between speech that is weighty and that which is lean seems
to be precisely what is captured by the first principal component. Here are all the scores at the lowest
(negative) end of the scale:
72
Block name Score, PC1 Category Remark
palinodeC (1) -9.35037 Myth Also poetic
MythER (1) -7.13451 Myth
palinodeB (1) -7.09177 Myth Also poetic
palinodeA (1) -4.07255 Inspired Also poetic
Phdr.S2 (1) -4.06727 Inspired Also poetic
GrgMyth (1) -3.63663 Myth
SympAr (1) -3.45248 Myth Also poetic
SympAg (1) -3.44254 Encomium Also poetic
SympEry (1) -2.94973 Encomium
Phaedo (11) -2.2353 Part-myth Swansong 111e-118a
Phaedo (10) -1.84489 Part-myth Swansong 106b-111e
SympPhdr (1) -1.69257 Encomium Rhetorical
SympPau (1) -1.24534 Encomium
SympDi (1) -1.21953 ‘Encomium’ Part-conversational
Rep7 (4) -0.83935 Cave explained 533a-541b
Rep7 (1) -0.62754 Cave described 514a-520d
Phaedo (5) -0.61465 Myth-like 79b-84d
Table 1: Results of less than –0.5 on first principal component