Bacchicstage.files.wordpress.com



PLATO'S

SYMPOSIUM

Written circa 389BC

This dialogue takes place in the house of the tragedian and actor Agathon, during celebrations which were held because he had just won the 1st prize of Tragedy.

The participants:

Apollodorus of Phalerum

A Friend (of Apollodorus)

Agathon

Phaedrus

Pausanias

Eryximachus

Aristophanes

Alcibiades

Socrates

PART ONE

Apollodorus tells his friend how he knew about Agathon's feast

[172]

Apollodorus:

I believe I'm quite well prepared to answer all your questions, my friend because only a couple of days ago, just as I walked out of my house, in Phalerum, heading for the city, I heard a voice behind me. It was that of Glaucon, a friend of mine. He had just caught sight of me and, in a playful voice, he called out, "Hey, you, Apollodorus of Phalerum, hang on a minute!"

So I stopped and waited for him and when he caught up with me, he said, "I was only just now looking for you, Apollodorus. I wanted to ask you about the love speeches made at Agathon's house during his banquet. Those made by Socrates, Alcibiades and all the others. Philip's son, Phoenix told someone else about them and he, in turn told me but the way he told it was a bit unclear for me. Still, he also told me that you were there too and since these are all your friends, you'd be the best person to tell me what went on. You were there, weren't you?"

"Your friend's story must have been very unclear indeed, Glaucon, if, after it you concluded that the banquet was a recent event and that I was there."

"I thought so, too, " said Glaucon.

"No, that's totally wrong," I said. "Agathon has not lived in Athens for many years now. Didn't you know that? And as for Socrates, I've known him for less than three years, so that a meeting joining me with Agathon and Socrates, could not possibly have taken place. And all this time that I've known Socrates, I've made it my business to know his every utterance and his every deed because until I have met him, I was a very miserable man, indeed!

[173] I thought that I spent my time well just wondering all around the world, wherever luck took me but, in fact I was miserable, sad like you! I thought the last thing I wanted to be was a philosopher, a man who pursues wisdom!"

"Well, then, Apollodorus," Glaucon said, "skip the teasing and tell me when this feast of Agathon's did actually take place!"

"It happened, " I told him, "when we were still kids. Agathon and his chorus had won the First Prize with his first ever tragedy and the next day they had that feast to celebrate the victory."

"So, it was a long time ago then, ey? Who told you about it, Socrates?" Asked Glaucon.

"Zeus, no," I said. "In fact it was the man who had told it to Phoenix, himself! A short man who never wore any shoes, by the name of Aristodemus, from the Cydathenaeum district. He was there, at that feast and, those days, Socrates' greatest fan. Then I've also asked Socrates if his story was true and he said that it was."

"Ah, let me hear the full story from the beginning then," Glaucon said. "After all, the road to the city is just perfect for a chat."

And so, we walked and we talked about those speeches and that's why I said to you at the beginning that I am well prepared to answer all your questions on the subject and well pleased also to go over them again for you, if you like. I get a great deal of pleasure, as well as profit, when I either talk or listen to matters philosophical.

On the other hand, I hate listening to the sort of stuff you, rich businessmen talk about. I pity you and all these friends of mine who talk like that. You think you're doing something of some value but, in fact you're doing nothing of any value!

And I'm quite sure that you also pity me just as much and think of me as a miserable creature; and perhaps you're right about that but I don't just "think" that you're pitiful, I know it for certain!

And that's the difference between you lot and me!

2

Friend:

Apollodorus, my friend, you'll never change!

You are forever criticising yourself and everyone else! With the exception of Socrates, you think every mortal, including yourself, is a miserable creature. I don't know why they call you "Apollodorus the Madman" but you certainly do justice to that name at least by the way you talk. You get mad with everyone! Everyone, including yourself! Everyone except Socrates!

Apollodorus:

Is that right, my friend?

Is it right that I am called a madman and a maniac because of this one and only one reason, that I feel the way I feel about myself and about you all? Do we need no more evidence than that?

Friend:

Enough of that, Apollodorus, enough of that talk, it's a waste of time. Let me ask you again, then, to tell me about those speeches on love.

Apollodorus:

[174]

Well, they went something like this – or, rather, let me begin at the beginning and tell it you the way Aristodemus related the event to me. This is what he said to me:

'Well, Aristodemus told me that he saw Socrates all bathed and even wearing his sandals, which surprised him because Socrates, bathed and sandaled, is a rare sight, so he asked Socrates where he was off to, so well groomed and dressed.'

"I am going to Agathon's party, " Socrates said. "I had avoided going to his victory celebration yesterday because I was afraid that the huge crowd would be unbearable for me, so I promised him that I'd turn up today. Well, here I am, all dressed up for him: One gorgeous man, visiting another!" Then he added, "what would you say if I asked you to accompany me there, uninvited?"

To which I said. "Well, yes, Socrates, Command and I shall obey!"

"Well, then, follow me," said Socrates, "so that we may destroy the old saying by turning it on its head and proving that to the feasts of the good, the good go uninvited. In any case, Homer himself has not only turned this saying on its head but almost totally destroyed it! Did he not, after all, set Agamemnon up as the bravest men and Menelaos as the most timid one in battle? Well, the next thing we see is that Menelaos turns up to Agamemnon's feast, totally uninvited! So! not the better to the lesser but the other way round!"

Then Aristodemus replied, "I'm afraid, Socrates, things are not as you observe them but as Homer did, I mean, I, the fool, turning up, uninvited, to the feast of a wise man! So make sure, Socrates, that you've got an excuse worked out when we get there because I won't be admitting that I got there uninvited. I shall say that I got there because you have invited me!"

"When two men follow each other," he said in a way reminiscent of Homer, "one or the other will work out an excuse. Come now, then, Aristodemus, let's go!"

"And so, after this chat, they set off to Agathon's feast," said Aristodemus. On the way, however, Socrates became engrossed in his thoughts and fell behind and so Aristodemus waited for him to catch up but Socrates simply waved at him to go on ahead alone. And so, Aristodemus got to Agathon's place and when he got there, he found the door open and was faced with a rather funny situation. One of Agathon's servants met me at the door and guided me right into the room where all the others were reclining and waiting for the meal to be served.

But the moment Agathon saw Aristodemus, he called out at him, "Welcome Aristodemus! Come and sit at our table and if you came for some other reason, well, let's just postpone it for now! Come," continued Agathon. "I went around looking for you yesterday, to invite you here but didn't manage to find you anywhere... But why isn't Socrates with you?"

At that, Aristodemus turned to look behind him but saw no sign of Socrates.

"I was with him not a moment earlier, " explained Aristodemus "and I came because he invited me here."

[175]

"Come, come," insisted Agathon. "You did well to come, thank you. Who knows where Socrates might be!"

"He was behind me, just as I entered," said Aristodemus, "but he just disappeared!"

Then Agathon called at a servant, "boy, go out and look for the man and when you find him, bring him here!" Then he told Aristodemus to sit next to Erixymachus.

Then the servant assisted Aristodemus to wash up after which he reclined at the table. Not long afterwards the other servant came in and told Agathon that Socrates had gone into the front yard of the neighbour's house and was sitting there, transfixed!

"I called him again and again but he just wouldn't move," said the servant.

"How odd," remarked Agathon. "Go back and call him again. Call him until he does come!"

But Aristodemus said, "No, better let him be. This sort of thing happens to him often. He just turns away, sometimes and stops dead on his tracks, no matter where he is and loses himself in his thoughts for no reason at all. He'll turn up eventually, I think. Don't disturb him now. let him be!"

"Well then," said Agathon, "we shall let him be, if you think that's the right thing to do, Aristodemus."

Then Agathon turned to his servants and said, "Now boys, let's not wait for him. Let's have our dinner and you can bring us whatever you please. Imagine that I and all these guests have come here at your invitation, so you, men, serve us as you please. For once, there is no one here to give you orders. I've never given you that much freedom before, so, if you want to earn our compliments, serve us well!"

At that, the food was served though Socrates had still not arrived. Agathon had asked his servants many times to go and get him but Aristodemus stopped him every time. Eventually, when we were halfway through our dinner, Socrates arrived, a little late, as is his habit. Agathon was sitting at the end of the table and alone and when Socrates entered the room he called out to him, "Come, Socrates, over here. Come and sit next to me so that I may be able to touch you and have some of that wisdom that came into your mind just now, next door, flow into mine. And it must have truly and completely flown into your mind, otherwise you wouldn't have just left it to come here."

Then Socrates went and as he sat down, next to Agathon said, "Wouldn't that be a great thing, Agathon, if wisdom was made of such stuff that it could flow from the mind that is replete with it to that which lacks it, just by touching, like water runs through wool from the full cup to the empty one. If that could also happen with wisdom, then I'd consider it a great privilege to be sitting next to you! You would then fill my mind, Agathon with plenty of this brilliant wisdom that you possess. Alas, my own wisdom is of both, low quantity and low value, barely of the credibility of a dream. Yours, on the other hand, Agathon, your wisdom is full of light and full of profit! We were all witnesses to that the other day. There it was, shining in all its youthful splendour, in the presence of more than thirty thousand Greeks!

"Oh, what a cruel tease you are, Socrates!" Said Agathon. "You and I, Socrates, will deal with this matter of whose mind has what, a little later on and Dionysus will be our judge but for now, let's occupy it with our dinner!"

[176]

And so, Socrates sat at his couch and they all had their supper, after which they offered libations, sang the proper hymns to Dionysus and performed all the usual rites. Then, just before they began their drinking, Pausanias got up and said, "I think, it would be a good idea, men, for us to find some way by which we may drink with the fewer possible damaging consequences. Personally, I must admit that, after last night's drinking, I am not feeling very well and certainly in need of a little rest from it. I am sure this is also true of most of you, as well because all of us were here last night. So, think, men, of the best proportions of water to wine we should use tonight."

Aristophanes answered, "Good point, Pausanias! I suggest we temper the measure of our drinking cups. I was one of those who, last night, ended up totally soaked with it!"

Then Eryximachus, son of Acumenus, responded with, "I agree with you, Aristophanes but I would also like to hear from Agathon, our host. How well can you drink, tonight Agathon?"

"Not well at all, Acumenus" replied Agathon, "I'm not at all well enough to do any hard drinking, either, Eryximachus."

"Then this is indeed good luck," continued Acumenus, "for us, the softer heads, like me, like Aristodemus and like Phaedrus and others to see that men like you who are accustomed to drinking well, will not do so tonight. As for Socrates, I need say nothing since he is able to drink in either manner, so it will be of no consequence to him what we decide. Well then, since I can see that none of us is inclined to drink heavily tonight, it would not be too vulgar of me to tell you what I think about the state of drunkenness.

Medicine makes it quite clear that drunkenness is very harmful to humans and this is why, if I can help it, I don't drink excessively and I advise others to do the same, particularly if they're still suffering the consequences of last night's heavy drinking."

Here, Phaedrus from Myrrhinus added to the matter.

"I always take your medical advice, Erixymachus and so should the rest of the company, if they know what's good for them."

And so, hearing these two men speak, it was decided by the company that the evening would proceed by drinking just enough to feel pleasant but not drunk.

Then Erixymachus said, "Now, men, since we all agree that we shall drink at our pleasure and not by competition, I suggest that we dismiss the flute girl who just arrived. Let her play for her own pleasure or for the pleasure of the women inside. We should seek our pleasure in good conversation and if you will allow me, I shall tell you what sort of conversation I have in mind."

[177]

They all agreed and asked Erixymachus to go on.

"I begin, then," began Erixymachus, using the words of Euripides' Melanippe, which are that "my words I'm about to utter are not my own;" they are, in fact, those of that man there, Phaedrus.

Phaedrus then, is forever asking me –with quite some anger, I might add- this question:

'Does it not seem very odd to you, Erixymachus, that the poets have written hymns and glorious psalms for all the other gods but not one single song for Eros, the god of Love, a god so ancient, so great? Not a single song ever, from a single one of that countless number of poets?

But not only the poets have they neglected him. So did the practitioners of our trade, the sophists themselves. Sophists like our brilliant Prodicus, for example. They have all written many essays praising the deeds of Herakles and others. And this is not so strange if you think that I happen to come across a book dedicated to the praise of salt and its great usefulness! And not only books praising salt but also books praising all manner of other things! How then is it possible that such things are given so much attention, yet our poets have neglected a god so important as Eros? Not a single mortal has praised his virtues!'

And, I" continued, Erixymachus, "think that Phaedrus' observations are quite valid. So, to this end, I am only too willing to make my own contribution and would ask, in fact, that we all here, do the same tonight. Let us all speak in praise of Eros!

Well then, if you all approve of this suggestion, let the theme of our speeches be Eros and let us, each of us in turn from right to left, speak as well as he can words that praise love.

Now, let Phaedrus make the first speech, since he sits first amongst us and he is the father of the topic."

Socrates then said, "the votes will all fall in your favour, Erixymachus, including mine, since how could I possibly vote against the motion when I go on constantly arguing that I know nothing of any other matters except those matters pertaining to love! The same, I suspect, with Agathon and Pausanias and, no doubt with Aristophanes whose only preoccupation is Dionysus and Aphrodite! In fact, I think, everyone I see around me here is of the same thinking.

The order of speakers might put us at a bit of a disadvantage, since we are last in line but we would be happy if we were to hear some good speeches before we get to make ours. Let Phaedrus then, with our best wishes, begin his praises to Eros!"

[178]

The whole company agreed with Socrates and cheered on Phaedrus.

Now, I can't remember everything that Aristodemus told me about that night, nor could he remember it all clearly but I can tell you the most memorable speeches of the night, those speeches made by the best orators.

PHAEDRUS' SPEECH

Eros is not only a great god, according to the mortals but a marvelous one according to the immortals, most marvelous though is his birth.

Eros is the oldest of the gods, a most venerable honour for him; and we know this because we have nothing written –no poetry, no prose whatever- about his parents. We know nothing of his parents at all!

Hesiod informs us that the first god to appear was Chaos, who was followed by the broad-breasted Earth, the secure and immortal seat of all existence and then came Eros. Earth and Eros, therefore were the first two after Chaos.

As of Genesis, Parmenides says that, before all other gods she created Eros.

Acusilaus agrees with Hesiod as well and so we have a number of people who attest to the fact that Eros is the oldest of the immortals. The oldest and the most beneficent to us. I cannot think of what greater blessing there might be for a young man than to be or to have an honourable lover. Because if we are to live a wholesome life, than nothing else would be as effective as love. Not the family, not the garlands, not the wealth, nothing will inspire it better than love.

And what do I mean by this?

I mean that Eros is the guiding principle which gives us the sense of shame, a sense with which no individual, nor any State can ever perform any act of true virtue. Because when a lover has been found to have done some shameful act, or have cowardly accepted to have a shameful act done to him by someone else, he would be hurt far more if he was found out by his lover than by anyone else, including his father, or his friends. The same goes with the one he loves. He too, will feel the same degree of hurt if he is seen to be taking part is some similar shameful business.

So, if it were possible for a State or an army to consist of lovers and loved ones, we'd find these to be the perfect forms of organisation and government, since they would be free of any evil deeds, since lovers would compete with each other in performing deeds of honour.

In a battle, too, if they were fighting side by side, they would defeat all enemies, even if the odds against them were far greater.

Because a lover would far more prefer to let himself be seen cowardly abandoning his post and throwing away his arms by the whole world rather than his loved one. Death many times would be far preferable to him than that.

As for abandoning his loved one or for not helping him when he is in danger, no one would be such an utter coward that Eros himself can't inspire him with the courage of the bravest in the world.

[179]

So, what Homer says about the "madness" of some heroes being a god-inspired thing, well, so far as the bravery of lovers is concerned, the madness is inspired by the god Eros. And, because of love, both, men and women, will be willing to die for the ones they love.

A great proof of this, for all Greeks to see, is the love that Pelias' daughter, Alcestis had for her husband, king Admetus. Both his parents were alive but it was she who agreed to sacrifice herself on his behalf. Her love for her husband was so great that, compared to her, his parents were made to look like nothing more than distant relations or even strangers. Furthermore, both gods and mortals thought this deed of hers to be so noble that, of all the many mortals who have performed noble deeds, she was the only one who, after she died, was allowed to return to earth alive. This is how highly the gods regarded devotion and deeds of love.

On the other hand, Oeagrus' son, Orpheus was not allowed to bring back his beloved, Eurydice, and he returned from Hades empty handed, showing him only an apparition of her. This is because Orpheus was a coward, a mere lyre player who lacked the spirit to die for his beloved but contrived means by which he entered the underworld alive. In fact, after this cowardly effort of his, the gods punished him by giving him his death at the hands of women.

And then there is Thetis' son, Achilles, whom the gods honoured by sending him to the Islands of the Blessed. This was because, though he was warned by his mother that if he went to the aid of his lover, Patroclus and killed Hektor, he would die there, in Troy, whereas if he didn't, he would reach home and die there at a ripe old age, Achilles still chose to go and rescue Patroclus.

[180]

He killed Hektor and even avenged Patroclus, which means that not only did he want to die for his own sake but he also rushed to die for the sake of his friend, who was already dead.

This gained him the admiration of the gods and that's why they honoured him so well.

What Aeschylus says about how it was Achilles who was the lover of Patroclus, is nonsense. Achilles was far more handsome than Patroclus, in fact, not only Patroclus but also of all the other heroes. Achilles was still a beardless young man and, in fact, according to Homer, he was the younger of the two, by many years, so Achilles was the loved one, rather than the one who loved.

And the gods, while they greatly admire the and honour the bravery of a lover, they admire even more and endow with even more rewards, the beloved who loves his lover than the other way round, because the lover, being inspired by Eros, is, in any case, divine.

This, then, is why Achilles was rewarded more richly than Alcestis and was sent to the Islands of the Blessed.

And so, this is why I conclude that Eros is the oldest and most revered of all the gods and the most important for those who seek virtue and happiness, during life as well as after it.

This then is approximately what Phaedrus' speech was about, as it was related to me. Then there followed a number of other speeches which my friend could not remember very well so he skipped them to go straight to that of Pausanias, who said something like this:

PAUSANIAS' SPEECH

I don't think, Phaedrus, that the way this theme was set up for us, to simply glorify Eros, is correct. It would be, had Eros been but a single god but he isn't so we should make it clear from the outset, which of the two gods we want to praise.

So, let me correct this little flaw by defining which of the two we should be praising and then, we could go on singing the praises worthy of this god.

We all know very well that an Aphrodite without love does not exist and if there were but a single Aphrodite than love, too, would be of a single sort, represented by the one god, Eros. But, since there are two goddesses named, Aphrodite, there must surely also be two gods named, Eros.

How can we not admit that there are two goddesses named Aphrodite when we know that, first there is the elder of the two, who has no mother and is the daughter of Ouranos and whom we call the "Heavenly One," and then there is the second, the younger one, who is the daughter of Zeus and Dione and whom we call, "Pandemon," that is, the one belonging to all the people.

Therefore, the Eros who is the companion of the latter, should also be called "Pandemos" and the other Eros, the companion of the first, we should also call "Heavenly." And though we should, of course, praise all the gods, I shall, nevertheless, try and distinguish the one from the other.

[181]

Actions, of themselves, are neither good nor evil. For example, what we are doing now, drinking, singing, or having a discussion. None of these things is either good or bad on their own but the way they are performed will distinguish them as good or evil. When, for example, they are performed well, they are good and when they are performed badly, they are evil.

It is the same with Eros. Not all love is praiseworthy; only that love that we perform nobly is.

Aphrodite's Eros, is the common, the popular love. It's a casual love and so its deeds are aimless. This is the love of the most vulgar of men. This is the love that does not discriminate between males and females; of the body, rather than the soul, and one that seeks out the fools who care only that they achieve the ends and not that the means are noble. To them, therefore, it is of no consequence if what they are doing is good or foul.

This is due to the fact that the mother of this Eros is the younger of the two goddesses, who is the daughter of two parents, a male and a female, whereas the mother of the other Eros, the Heavenly Aphrodite, is the daughter only of a male and seeks out only the male and, as well, being the older of the two, she is free of wild licentiousness.

Thus, those who are inspired by this love, seek out the young males, loving the physically and mentally more vigorous.

And even in this case, in the case of loving boys, one can discern those who are truly inspired by Eros because these men would not fall in love with boys until these boys have adequately developed reasoning skills, which comes about around the time they acquire their first hints of a beard.

And, I believe, that once they choose a young man to be their lover, they will think of being faithful to him and to share everything in their lives for as long as they both live. They will not take advantage of the young boy's innocence, or betray him or make a fool of him by running off with another boy.

In fact, there should be a law against loving young boys, to prevent people from wasting too much passion on something so unpredictable because the future character of young boys is unknown. They could turn out to be either good or bad, in body, as well as in soul.

Good men, of course, make this a law for themselves, a law which all the other men, inspired by the younger, more popular Eros, should be forced to also obey, in the same way we force them, as much as we can, to stay away from our freeborn women. Because it is these men who are responsible for the shame brought upon love making some people form the view that to satisfy lovers is a thing of disgrace. They say such things because it is exactly this sort of unbecoming and wrong behaviour that they see. Surely though, nothing which is done with decorum and according to law will be judged to be shameful.

Other cities are clearer on this matter about love than is ours and Lacedaemon. There the law is put simply and in clear terms, whilst here it is complicated.

[182]

For example, in Elis and in Boetia and in other places where the people are not proficient in the art of oratory, people simply accept the view that it is a good thing to satisfy lovers and no one, young or old thinks that this is at all shameful. Probably because men in these places do not wish to struggle with words when it comes to wooing their lovers.

However in Ionia, and in other places ruled by the barbarians, due to their dictatorial regimes this thing, as well as the study of philosophy and the love for gymnastics, is considered shameful because the lords there do not think that such lofty ideals in the minds of their subjects would be in their interests. The same with strong friendships and social bonds which love is most capable of bringing about.

And they've learnt this by experience. They saw how the love of Aristogeiton and the friendship of Harmodius was so strong that it had completely destroyed the authority of such dictators.

And so, in such places where the gratifying of a lover is held to be shameful, it is due to those evil men who make laws that condemn this act as a shameful one, and these are the rulers who wish to increase their own power and the cowards who are ruled by them.

On the other hand, there are places where this act is accepted without any rules and conditions but this is due to the intellectual laziness of their lawgivers. Things are regulated far better here, in our own country, but, as I said earlier, these regulations are too difficult to understand.

In fact, do we not say that love openly is more honourable than to love secretly, more so, in fact, when the loved one is, if not more beautiful than others, he is more noble and more virtuous?

Think also how much the lover is encouraged by the world because we don't think of him as doing anything shameful and, his success is thought to be honourable whereas his failure will be considered dishonourable. And to this end, our institutions would encourage even the oddest behaviour by the lover in his pursuit of his beloved, whereas if his efforts were directed towards some other purpose, he would be reprimanded most severely.

[183]

If, for example, a man, for purposes other than sincere ones, say, so as to obtain some money, or some position, or some sort of influence, behaves like lovers often do and begs and implores their beloved, or swears to them undying love, or sleeps on their beloved's door mat, or submits himself to a most unbearable form of slavery, one that no slave could cope with, he would be prevented from behaving like this by his friends as well as his enemies. His enemies, in fact, would deride him for being such a boar and a coward and his friends would feel ashamed of his behaviour.

To a genuine lover, however, all such behaviour is accepted and thought of as charming and not reproachful by our custom because it is understood that it is conducted for the noblest of purposes.

And it is the strangest thing that the gods, so people say, will forgive a genuine lover even when he swears falsely because, they say, there's no such thing as a lover's oath!

And so it is that we, Athenians, come to believe that both, gods and men give full license to a genuine lover to do as he pleases.

Such is the entire liberty which gods and men have allowed the lover, according to the custom which prevails in our part of the world. From this point of view a man fairly argues in Athens to love and to be loved is held to be a very honourable thing.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download