Symposium (Plato)

Plato's Symposium, depiction by Anselm Feuerbach

The Symposium (Ancient Greek: Συμπόσιον) is a philosophical text by Plato dated c. 385–370 BC.[1][2] It depicts a friendly contest of extemporaneous speeches given by a group of notable men attending a banquet. The men include the philosopher Socrates, the general and political figure Alcibiades, and the comic playwright Aristophanes. The speeches are to be given in praise of Eros, who is the god of love and desire, and the son of Aphrodite. In the Symposium Eros is recognized as erotic love, and as a phenomenon that is capable of inspiring courage, valor, great deeds and works, and vanquishing man’s natural fear of death. It is seen as transcending its earthy origins, and attaining spiritual heights. This extraordinary elevation of the concept of love raises a question of whether some of the extremest extents of meaning might be intended as humor or farce. Eros is almost always translated as “love”, and the English word has its own varieties and ambiguities that provide additional challenges to the effort to understand the Eros of ancient Athens.[3][4][5]

The event depicted in the Symposium is a group of men attending a banquet, who have now come to the symposium; which was, in ancient Greece, a traditional part of a banquet that took place after the meal, when drinking for pleasure was accompanied by music, dancing, recitals, or conversation.[6] The setting means that the participants will be drinking wine; this suggests that the men might be induced to say things they wouldn’t say elsewhere or when sober. They might speak frankly, or take risks, or be prone to hubris — they might also even be inspired to make speeches that are particularly heartfelt and noble.[7]

The host has challenged the men to deliver, each in turn, an encomium – a speech in praise of Love (Eros). The party takes place at the house of the tragedian Agathon in Athens. This dialogue is one of Plato's major works; it is appreciated for its philosophical content and literary quality.[5]

Literary form

The Symposium is considered a dialogue – a form used by Plato in more than thirty works – but in fact it is predominantly a series of essay-like speeches from differing points of view. So dialogue plays a smaller role in the Symposium than it does in Plato’s other dialogues. With dialogue, Socrates is renowned for his dialectic, which is his ability to ask questions that encourage others to think deeply about what they care about, and articulate their ideas. In the Symposium the dialectic exists among the speeches: in seeing how the ideas conflict from speech-to-speech, and in the effort to resolve the contradictions and see the philosophy that underlies them all.[8]

It is important to understand that the Symposium is, like all of Plato’s dialogues, fiction. The characters and the settings are to some degree based on history, but they are not reports of events that actually occurred or words that were actually spoken. There is no reason to think they were not composed entirely by Plato. The reader, understanding that Plato was not governed by the historical record, can read the Symposium, and ask why the author, Plato, arranged the story the way he did, and what he meant by including the various aspects of setting, composition, characters, and theme, etc.[9][10]

For a very long time it was widely believed that Socrates was presented in the dialogues by his admiring disciple, Plato, as an ideal philosopher and ideal human being. It was thought that what Socrates said was what Plato agreed with or approved of. Then in the late 20th Century another interpretation began to challenge that idea. This new idea considers that the Symposium is intended to criticize Socrates, and his philosophy, and to reject certain aspects of his behavior. It also considers that Socratic philosophy may have lost touch with the actual individual as it devoted itself to abstract principles.[11]

One critic, James Arieti, considers that the Symposium resembles a drama, with emotional and dramatic events occurring especially when Alcibiades crashes the banquet. Arieti suggests that it should be studied more as a drama, with a focus on character and actions, and less as an exploration of philosophical ideas. This suggests that the characters speak, as in a play, not as the author, but as themselves. This theory, Arieti has found, reveals how much each of the speakers of the Symposium resembles the god, Eros, that they each are describing. It may be Plato’s point to suggest that when humankind talks about god, they are drawn towards creating that god in their own image.[12]

Andrew Dalby considers the opening pages of the Symposium the best depiction in any ancient Greek source of the way texts are transmitted by oral tradition without writing. It shows how an oral text may have no simple origin, and how it can be passed along by repeated tellings, and by different narrators, and how it can be sometimes verified, and sometimes corrupted.[13] The story of the symposium is being told by Apollodorus to his friend. Apollodorus was not himself at the banquet, but he heard the story from Aristodemus, a man who was there. Also, Apollodorus was able to confirm parts of the story with Socrates himself, who was one of the speakers at the banquet.[14] A story that Socrates narrates, when it is his turn to speak, was told to Socrates by a woman named Diotima, a philosopher and a priestess.[10]

The Symposium as a response to Aristophanes

In The Frogs, Aristophanes attacks the new tragedy of Agathon and Euripides, opposing it to the old tragedy of Aeschylus. In Aristophanes’ comedy, Dionysus, the god of theatre and wine, descends into Hades and observes a heated dispute between Aeschylus and Euripides over who is the best in tragedy. Dionysus is engaged to be the judge, and decides the outcome, not based on the merits of the two tragedians, but based on their political stance regarding the political figure, Alcibiades. Since Aeschylus prefers Alcibiades, Dionysus declares Aeschylus the winner. That contest provides the basic structure on which the Symposium is modeled as a kind of sequel: In the Symposium Agathon has just celebrated a victory the day before, and is now hosting another kind of debate, this time it is between a tragedian, a comic poet, and Socrates. At the beginning of the Symposium Agathon asserts that “Dionysus will be the judge”, and Dionysus is, though Alcibiades performs as surrogate for the god. So the character, Alcibiades, who was the deciding factor in the debate in The Frogs, becomes the judge in the Symposium, and he now rules in favor of Socrates, who had been attacked by Aristophanes in The Frogs. The Symposium is a response to The Frogs, and shows Socrates winning not only over Aristophanes, who was the author of The Frogs, but also over the tragic poet who was portrayed in that comedy as the victor.[15][16][17]

Historical context

It is considered that the work was written no earlier than 385 BCE, and the party to which it makes reference has been fixed in 416 BCE, the year in which the host Agathon had the dramatic triumph mentioned in the text. The disastrous expedition to Syracuse, of which Alcibiades was a commander, took place the following year, after which Alcibiades deserted to Sparta, Athens' archenemy.

Hamilton remarks that Plato takes care to portray Alcibiades and Socrates and their relationship in a way that makes it clear that Socrates had not been a bad influence on Alcibiades. Plato does this to free his teacher from the guilt of corrupting the minds of prominent youths, which had in fact earned Socrates the death sentence in 399 BC.[10]

Opening narrative

The story of the banquet is narrated by Apollodorus, but before the narration proper begins, it is shown that Apollodorus is telling the story to a friend of his that isn’t named, and also that the story of this banquet has been told before by others, as well as previously by Apollodorus himself. This section previews the story of the banquet, letting the reader know what to expect, and it provides information regarding the context and the date. The banquet was hosted by the poet Agathon to celebrate his first victory in a dramatic competition: the Dionysia of 416 BCE. Apollodorus was not present at the event, which occurred when he was a boy, but he heard the story from Aristodemus, who was present. Apollodorus later checked parts of the story with Socrates, who was also there. In this brief introductory passage it is shown that the narrator, Apollodorus, has a reputation for being somewhat mad, that he is a passionate follower of Socrates, and that he spends his days either listening to Socrates or else telling others of what he has learned from Socrates. The story, as told by Apollodorus, then moves to the banquet at Agathon’s home, where Agathon challenges each of the men to speak in praise of the Greek god, Eros.[10]

Synopsis

Apollodorus tells to his friend a story of a symposium, or banquet, that was hosted by the playwright Agathon to celebrate his victory in a dramatic festival the night before. Socrates is late to arrive, after he became lost in thought on the porch of a nearby neighbor. When they are done eating, Eryximachus takes the suggestion made by Phaedrus, that they should all make a speech in praise of Eros, the god of love and desire. It will be a competition of speeches to be judged by Dionysus. It is anticipated that the speeches will ultimately be bested by Socrates, who speaks last.

Phaedrus starts by pointing out that Eros is the oldest of the gods, and that Eros promotes virtue in people. Pausanias is next, and he contrasts common desire with a “heavenly” love in the form of pederasty, which occurs between a man and a young boy; and in which the boy gives sexual pleasure, and in return gains knowledge and virtue. Next Eryximachus speaks, and suggests that Eros encourages “sophrosyne”, or soundness of mind and character, and is not only about human behavior, but also occurs in music, medicine, and many other areas of life.

Next is Aristophanes, the comic playwright. Aristophanes tells a fantastical, mythological story about how humans were at one time twice the people that they are now, but this was seen as threatening to the gods, so Zeus to cut everyone in half. And ever since, humans go about in search of their other half, in order to become whole. Agathon, the host, follows Aristophanes, and his speech sees Eros as youthful, beautiful, and wise; and as the source of all human virtues.

Socrates asks questions of Agathon: has he referred to the object of love, or love itself? Socrates then relates a story he was told by a wise woman called Diotima. According to her, Eros is not a god, but is a spirit that mediates between humans and their objects of desire. Love itself is not wise or beautiful, but is the desire for those things. Love is expressed through propagation and reproduction: either physical love or the exchanging and reproducing of ideas. The greatest knowledge, Diotima says, is knowledge of the “form of beauty”, which humans must try to achieve.

When Socrates is nearly done, Dionysus, who is to judge the speeches, arrives, in the person of Alcibiades. Alcibiades crashes in, terribly drunk, and delivers a encomium to Socrates himself. No matter how hard he has tried, he says, he has never been able to seduce Socrates, because Socrates has no interest in physical pleasure.

Under the influence of Dionysus, who is now in attendance, the party becomes wild and drunken. Aristodemus goes to sleep. When he wakes up the next morning Socrates is still talking and debating. Soon everyone at last falls asleep, as Socrates rises up and goes off to tend to his daily business as usual.[18][10]

In order to understand Plato more clearly, it is useful to bear in mind his theory of Forms, according to which all the phenomena perceived by the senses are imitations of eternal and perfect Forms that alone have reality. Beauty belongs to this category of Forms.[10]

Participants

The dialogue's seven major speeches are delivered by:

The speeches

Phaedrus

Phaedrus opens by citing Hesiod, Acusilaus and Parmenides for the claim that Eros is the oldest of the gods. He confers great benefits, inspiring a lover to earn the admiration of his beloved, for example by showing bravery on the battlefield, since nothing shames a man more than to be seen by his beloved committing an inglorious act (178d-179b). "A handful of such men, fighting side by side, would defeat practically the whole world."[20] Lovers sometimes sacrifice their lives for their beloved. As evidence for this he mentions some mythological heroes and lovers. Even Achilles, who was the beloved of Patroclus, sacrificed himself to avenge his lover, and Alcestis was willing to die for her husband Admetus.

Phaedrus concludes his short speech in proper rhetorical fashion, reiterating his statements that love is one of the most ancient gods, the most honoured, the most powerful in helping men gain honor and blessedness – and sacrificing one's self for love will result in rewards from the gods.

Pausanias

A fresco taken from the north wall of the Tomb of the Diver (from Paestum, Italy, c. 475 BC): a symposium scene

Pausanias, the legal expert of the group, introduces a distinction between a nobler and a baser kind of love, which anticipates Socrates' discourse. The base lover is in search of sexual gratification, and his objects are women and boys. He is inspired by Aphrodite Pandemos (Aphrodite common to the whole city). The noble lover directs his affection towards young men, establishing lifelong relationships, productive of the benefits described by Phaedrus. This love is related to Aphrodite Urania (Heavenly Aphrodite), and is based on honoring one's partner’s intelligence and wisdom.

He then analyses the attitudes of different citystates relative to homosexuality. The first distinction he makes is between the cities that clearly establish what is and what is not admitted, and those that are not so explicitly clear, like Athens. In the first group there are cities favorable to homosexuality, like Elis, Boeotia and Sparta, or unfavorable to it like Ionia and Persia. The case of Athens is analyzed with many examples of what would be acceptable and what would not, and at the end he makes the assertion that Athens' code of behaviour favors the nobler type of love and discourages the baser.[20]

Eryximachus

Eryximachus speaks next, though it is Aristophanes' turn, as the latter has not recovered from his hiccups enough to take his place in the sequence. First Eryximachus starts out by claiming that love affects everything in the universe, including plants and animals, believing that once love is attained it should be protected. The god of Love not only directs everything on the human plane, but also on the divine (186b). Two forms of love occur in the human body – one is healthy, the other unhealthy (186bc). Love might be capable of curing the diseased. Love governs medicine, music and astronomy (187a), and regulates hot and cold and wet and dry, which when in balance result in health (188a). Eryximachus here evokes the theory of the humors. He concludes: "Love as a whole has ... total ... power ... and is the source of all happiness. It enables us to associate, and be friends, with each other and with the gods" (188d Transl. Gill). He comes across as someone who cannot resist the temptation to praise his own profession: “a good practitioner knows how to treat the body and how to transform its desires" (186d).

Aristophanes

W. Hamilton considers that Aristophanes' speech, which comes next, is one of Plato's most brilliant literary achievements.[20] The speech has become a focus of subsequent scholarly debate, as it has been seen as mere comic relief, and sometimes as satire: the creation myth Aristophanes puts forward to account for sexuality may be read as poking fun at the myths concerning the origins of humanity, numerous in classical Greek mythology.

Before starting his speech, Aristophanes warns the group that his eulogy to love may be more absurd than funny. His speech is an explanation of why people in love say they feel "whole" when they have found their love partner. He begins by explaining that people must understand human nature before they can interpret the origins of love and how it affects their own times. This is, he says, because in primal times people had double bodies, with faces and limbs turned away from one another. As spherical creatures who wheeled around like clowns doing cartwheels (190a), these original people were very powerful. There were three sexes: the all male, the all female, and the "androgynous," who was half male, half female. The males were said to have descended from the sun, the females from the earth and the androgynous couples from the moon. These creatures tried to scale the heights of Olympus and planned to set upon the gods (190b-c). Zeus thought about blasting them with thunderbolts, but did not want to deprive himself of their devotions and offerings, so he decided to cripple them by chopping them in half, in effect separating the two bodies.

Ever since that time, people run around saying they are looking for their other half because they are really trying to recover their primal nature. The women who were separated from women run after their own kind, thus creating lesbians. The men split from other men also run after their own kind and love being embraced by other men (191e). Those that come from original androgynous beings are the men and women that engage in heterosexual love. He says some people think homosexuals are shameless, but he thinks they are the bravest, most manly of all, as evidenced by the fact that only they grow up to be politicians (192a), and that many heterosexuals are adulterous and unfaithful (191e). Aristophanes then claims that when two people who were separated from each other find each other, they never again want to be separated (192c). This feeling is like a riddle, and cannot be explained. Aristophanes ends on a cautionary note. He says that men should fear the gods, and not neglect to worship them, lest they wield the axe again and we have to go about hopping on one leg, split apart again(193a). If man works with the god of Love, they will escape this fate and instead find wholeness.

Agathon

His speech may be regarded as self-consciously poetic and rhetorical, composed in the way of the sophists,[20] gently mocked by Socrates.[21] Agathon complains that the previous speakers have made the mistake of congratulating mankind on the blessings of love, failing to give due praise to the god himself (194e). He says that love is the youngest of gods and is an enemy of old age (195b). He says that the god of love shuns the very sight of senility and clings to youth. Agathon says love is dainty, and likes to tiptoe through the flowers and never settles where there is no "bud to bloom" (196b). It would seem that none of the characters at the party, with the possible exception of Agathon himself, would be candidates for love's companionship. Socrates, probably the oldest member of the party, seems certain to be ruled out. He also implies that love creates justice, moderation, courage, and wisdom. These are the cardinal virtues in ancient Greece. Although devoid of philosophical content, the speech Plato puts in the mouth of Agathon is a beautifully formal one, and Agathon contributes to the Platonic love theory with the idea that the object of love is beauty.[20]

Socrates

Socrates turns politely to Agathon and with Agathon's cooperation examines his speech. This is done using a series of questions and answers typical of Plato's Socratic dialogues. Agathon answers affirmatively to Socrates' line of questioning, thus refuting many of the statements in his previous speech (199d). After this dialogue with Agathon that establishes the foundation for Plato's theory of love, Socrates repeats a new dialogue in which a woman of Mantinea, called Diotima, plays the same inquiring/instructing role Socrates has played with Agathon.[20]

Diotima first explains that Love is a spirit halfway between gods and men and traces his mythological descent as son of "Contrivance" (father) and "Poverty" (mother). Love has attributes from both parents, he is beggarly, harsh and a master of artifice and deception (203d) and is delicately balanced and resourceful (204c). Having been born at Aphrodite’s birthday party he became her follower and servant, and consequently is a lover of beauty, but since wisdom is one of the most beautiful things, he is a lover of wisdom too.[20]

Then Diotima moves to the definition of the aim of love as “the perpetual possession of what is good”. Lovers are pregnant with what is good and attain immortality through procreation, either intellectual or physical.

In the conclusion of her exposition Diotima explains that men should make an ascent to arrive at the discovery of the Ideal Form of Beauty. Men should start with the love of a particular beautiful person. The next step is to pass from this particular instance to beauty in general, and from physical to moral beauty. The fourth step is to attain the love of wisdom, and then from this to the appreciation of the absolute and divine beauty (the Form of Beauty).[20]

This speech, in the interpretation of Marsilio Ficino in De amore (1484), is the origin of the concept of Platonic love.

Alcibiades

Alcibiades

Entering upon the scene late and inebriated, he pays tribute to Socrates. Like Agathon and Aristophanes, Alcibiades is a historical person from ancient Athens. A year after the events of the Symposium, his political enemies would drive him to flee Athens under fear of being sentenced to death for sacrilege and turn traitor to the Spartans.[22] By his own admission, he is very handsome.

Finding himself seated on a couch with Socrates and Agathon, Alcibiades exclaims that Socrates, again, has managed to sit next to the handsomest man in the room, Agathon, and that he is always doing such things (213c). Socrates asks Agathon to protect him from the jealous rage of Alcibiades, asking Alcibiades to forgive him (213d). Alcibiades says he will never do such a thing (213e). Wondering why everyone seems sober, Alcibiades is informed of the night's agreement (213e, c); after saying his drunken ramblings should not be placed next to the sober orations of the rest, and that he hopes no one believed a word Socrates said, Alcibiades proposes to offer an encomium to Socrates (214c-e).

Alcibiades begins by comparing Socrates to a statue of Silenus; the statue is ugly and hollow, and inside it is full of tiny golden statues of the gods (215a-b). He then compares Socrates to a satyr[23] Marsyas; Socrates, however, needs no flute to "cast his spell" on people as Marsyas did — he needs only his words (215b-d).

Alcibiades states that when he hears Socrates speak, he feels overwhelmed. The words of Socrates are the only ones to have ever upset him so deeply that his soul started to realize that his aristocratic life was no better than a slave's (215e). Socrates is the only man who has ever made Alcibiades feel shame (216b). Yet all this is the least of it (216c)- Socrates is mad about beautiful boys, following them around in a daze (216d). Most people, he continues, don't know what Socrates is like on the inside:

But once I caught him when he was open like Silenus' statues, and I had a glimpse of the figures he keeps hidden within: they were so godlike – so bright and beautiful, so utterly amazing – that I no longer had a choice. I just had to do whatever he told me.
Symposium 216e-217a.

Alcibiades thought at the time that Socrates really only wanted him sexually, and by letting Socrates have his way with him he would entice Socrates to teach him everything he knew (217a). Yet Socrates made no move, and Alcibiades began to pursue Socrates "as if I were the lover and he my young prey!" (217c). When Socrates continually rebuffed him, Alcibiades began to view Socrates as the only true and worthy lover he had ever had. So he told Socrates that it seemed to him now that nothing could be more important than becoming the best man he could be, and Socrates was best fit to help him reach that aim (218c-d). Socrates responded that if he did have this power, why would he exchange his true (inner) beauty for the image of beauty that Alcibiades would provide. Furthermore, Alcibiades might be wrong and Socrates may be of no use to him (218e-219a). Alcibiades spent the night sleeping beside Socrates yet, to the deep humiliation of Alcibiades, Socrates made no sexual attempt (219b-d).

In his speech, Alcibiades goes on to describe Socrates' virtues, his incomparable valor in battle, his immunity to cold or fear. On one occasion he even saved Alcibiades' life and then refused to accept honors for it (219e-221c). Socrates, he concludes, is unique in his ideas and accomplishments, unrivaled by any man from the past or present (221c). But be warned: Socrates may present himself as your lover, but before you know it you will have fallen in love with him.

The conclusion

Despite this speech, Agathon then lies down next to Socrates, much to the chagrin of Alcibiades. The symposium comes to an end when a large drunken group shows up. Many of the main characters take the opportunity to depart and return home; Socrates, however, stays awake until dawn. As Aristodemus wakes up and leaves the house, Socrates is proclaiming to Agathon and Aristophanes that a skilful playwright should be able to write comedy as well as tragedy (223d). When Agathon and Aristophanes at last fall asleep, Socrates leaves, walks to the Lyceum to wash, and spends the rest of the day as he usually did, not going home to sleep until that evening (223d).

Authors and works cited in the Symposium

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Cobb, p. 11.
  2. ↑ Leitao, p. 183.
  3. ↑ Cobb, page 4.
  4. ↑ Strauss, Leo. On Plato’s Symposium. University of Chicago Press (2001). ISBN 0226776859
  5. 1 2 Plato. Cobb, William S. trans. & editor. The Symposium and the Phaedrus: Plato's Erotic Dialogues. SUNY Press, 1993. ISBN 9780791416174.
  6. ↑ Garnsey, Peter. Food and Society in Classical Antiquity. (Cambridge University Press, 1999) ISBN 9780521645881
  7. ↑ Strauss, Leo. On Plato’s Symposium. University of Chicago Press (2001). ISBN 0226776859. page 12.
  8. ↑ Plato. Plato’s Symposium. Bloom, Allan. “The Ladder of Love”. University of Chicago Press (2001). ISBN 9780226042756. page 57 - 58.
  9. ↑ Cobb, p. 3.
  10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Plato, The Symposium. Translation and introduction by Walter Hamilton. Penguin Classics. 1951. ISBN 9780140440249
  11. ↑ Nussbaum, Martha C. page 165
  12. ↑ Arieti, p. 18
  13. ↑ (Dalby 2006, p. 19–24).
  14. ↑ Plato. Edman, Irwin, editor. The Works of Plato. Modern Library. The Jowet translation. Simon and Schuster 1928.
  15. ↑ Strauss, Leo. On Plato’s Symposium. University of Chicago Press (2001). ISBN 0226776859. page 26.
  16. ↑ Cooper, Laurence D. Eros in Plato, Rousseau, and Nietzsche: The Politics of Infinity. Penn State Press, 2010. ISBN 9780271046143. page 59.
  17. ↑ Aristophanes. Aristophanes: Frogs and Other Plays. Oxford University Press, 2015. ISBN 9780191066245.
  18. ↑ Strauss, Leo. On Plato’s Symposium. University of Chicago Press (2001). ISBN 0226776859. page 12.
  19. ↑ References to the text of the Symposium are given in Stephanus pagination, the standard reference system for Plato. This numbering system will be found in the margin of nearly all editions and translations.
  20. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Translation by W. Hamilton.
  21. ↑ Rebecca Stanton notes a deliberate blurring of genre boundaries here ("Aristophanes gives a tragic speech, Agathon a comic/parodic one") and that Socrates later urges a similar coalescence:.
  22. ↑ Thucydides, 6.74
  23. ↑ Satyrs were often portrayed with the sexual appetite, manners, and features of wild beasts, and often with a large erection.
  24. ↑ Cited by Pausanias for the assertion that Achilles was Patroclus's older lover.
  25. ↑ Symposium 221b
  26. ↑ Perhaps (see note above).

References

Bibliography

Current texts, translations, commentaries

Online translations

General bibliography

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.