man as monster. eros and hubris in plato's symposium

7/28/2019 Man as Monster. Eros and Hubris in Plato's Symposium

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/man-as-monster-eros-and-hubris-in-platos-symposium 1/23

Man as Monster:

Eros and Hubris in Plato's Symposium *

Peter von Mo llendorff

Abstract:

According to Aristophanes' account in Plato's Symposium (189c2-193d5), humansemerged from a race of double-bodied creatures, who are commonly misconceived bymodern readers as being spherically shaped. Through a close reading of the passage, 1demonstrate that the grotesque myth as narrated by Aristophanes serves as a simile forthe subsequent narrative of Diotima on the cognitive ascent to the idea of beauty. Justas man is permanently searching for his lost other half and desires nothing else but to bereunited with it, so the true philosophical eroticist desires to see the idea of beauty. Byleaving behind the beautiful bodies, beautiful souls and beautiful cognitions, the philosopher desires to be with beauty (auvetvm), to touch it (e<pa7rr£o-9at)and to procreatetrue and ultimate knowledge with it (TIKTSIV).

Aristophanes' double-bodied prehistoric men suffered their division as punishmentfor their upptc-driven attempt to storm Olympus. Due to the character of the myth as asimile, it would appear that Socrates' description of cognitively approaching the divineworld of ideas is also to be understood as a form of upptc,. In order to illustrate this.Plato also uses the discourse of the monstrous. The cleft men, that is men as desiringbeings, as eroticists, are categorized as repaid; their existence, therefore, like the existence of the greatest eroticist of all, Socrates, points to the u|3pic, of philosophizing andits potentially bitter consequences.

In Plato's Symposium, each of the participating symposiasts attempts to ana

lyse the nature of desire {Eros). Some approaches are simpler, others more sophisticated. Interestingly, in contrast to the rest of the Platonic dialogues, this

text lacks a leading moderator in the sense of one participant setting the tone

and course of the conversation, nor does it display an attempt to bring together

the divergent contributions. On the contrary, the reader is left with the impres

sion of utter heterogeneity; a feeling of having encountered a totally un-self-

contained, truly dialogical piece of work, behind which it is difficult to ascer-

This article was first presented as a lecture at the conference Monster - Zur cistheti.schen Ver-

fassung eines Grenzbewohners (held at GieBen Univ ers i t y , 22 - 24 M arch 2007) . A Germ an

v ers i o n ( "Der M ensch . d as Monstrum. Eros und Hybr is in Platons Symposion") wi l l be pub

l i shed in a vo lume wi th the conference t i t le , ed i ted by Chr is t iane Ho lm and Gunter Oester le . I

owe specia l thanks to Sebast ian Matzner and Glenn Patten for the trans lat ion .

Originalveröffentlichung in: Th. Fögen, M. M. Lee (Hg.), Bodies and Boundaries in Graeco-Roman

Antiquity, Berlin / New York, 2009, S. 87-109



8 8 Peter von Mollendorff

t a in a u n i f o r m a u t h o r i a l i n t e n t i o n . T h i s l a c k o f u n i f o r m i t y e s t a b l i s h e s t h e a p

p r o p r i a t e a m b i e n c e f o r t h e s p e e c h o f A r i s t o p h a n e s (Symp. 1 8 9 c 2 - 1 9 3 d 5 ) ,

w h i c h I c o n s i d e r - t o g e t h e r w i t h D i o t i m a ' s e x p o s i t i o n s a s r e p o r t e d b y S o c r a t e s

- t o b e t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t o f t h e d i a l o g u e .

T h e c o m i c p o e t t e l l s a m y t h : i n a n c i e n t t i m e s t h e h u m a n r a c e d i d n o t l o o k

l i k e i t d o e s t o d a y , b u t c o n s i s t e d o f d o u b l e - b o d i e d b e i n g s t h at w e r e m a l e , f e

m a l e o r a n d r o g y n o u s . T h e s e p r i m e v a l h u m a n s w e r e e q u i p p e d w i t h f o u r a r m s ,

f o u r l e g s , t w o s e x u a l o r g a n s a n d t w o f a c e s . T h e y w e r e i m m e n s e l y s t r o n g , a n d

h e n c e c o n c e i v e d t h e r5(3pic; o f w a n t i n g t o c o n q u e r M o u n t O l y m p u s . F o r th i s ,

t h e y w e r e p u n i s h e d w i t h d i v i s i o n in t o t h e i r t w o h a l v e s . M o r e o v e r , Z e u s t u r n e d

t h e f a c e s o f t h e s e s e m i h u m a n s a r o u n d s o t h a t t h e y s h o u l d f o r e v e r s e e w h a t

t h e y h a d l o s t . T h e m i s e r y o f t h e n e w h u m a n r a c e , h o w e v e r , w a s s o g r e a t - t h e y

w a s t e d a w a y i n l o n g i n g f o r t h e i r l o s t o t h e r h a l f , e m b r a c i n g a n d h o l d i n g e a c h

o t h e r t i g h t s o a s t o d i e t o g e t h e r - t h a t Z e u s f e l t p i t y f o r t h e m a n d m o v e d t h e i r

s e x u a l o r g a n s t o t h e o t h e r s i d e a s w e l l , s o t h a t t h e t w o h a l v e s c o u l d n o w h a v e

s e x u a l c o n t a c t w i t h e a c h o t h e r , a n d c o u l d t h u s s a t i s f y t h e i r d e s i r e f o r e a c h

o t h e r , a t l e a s t t e m p o r a r i l y . E v e r s i n c e t h i s p r i m a l s i n , m a n h a s b e e n d r i v e n b y

t h e d e s i r e f o r h i s o t h e r h a l f i n v a r y i n g c o m b i n a t i o n s o f h o m o - a n d h e t e r o s e x u -

a l i t y . I f s o m e o n e i s l u c k y e n o u g h t o m e e t ' h i s ' o r ' h e r ' o t h e r h a l f t h e n h e

e x p e r i e n c e s a f e e l i n g o f i n f i n i t e s e c u r i t y a n d t h e w i s h n e v e r t o l e t t h e o t h e r o n eg o . T h e h o p e f o r s u c h a r e u n i o n re s t s e n t i r e l y o n f u t u r e g o d l i n e s s , w h e r e a s a

f u r t h e r c a s e o f u[3pi? w o u l d r e s u l t i n a n o t h e r d i v i s i o n b y Z e u s , w h i c h w o u l d

r e d u c e m a n t o j u m p i n g a r o u n d o n o n e l e g o n l y .

B e f o r e t h i n k i n g a b o u t t h e m e a n i n g o f t h i s s t r a n g e n a r r a t i v e i n i t s e l f a n d i ts

c o n t e x t i n t h e e n t i r e d i a l o g u e , o n e m u s t a t t e m p t t o r e c o n s t r u c t t h e a p p e a r a n c e ,

t h e s h a p e o f t h e c r e a t u r e s w h i c h A r i s t o p h a n e s d e s c r i b e s i n s o m e d e t a i l (Symp.

1 8 9 e 5 - 1 9 0 a 4 ) :

E7ieiTct 8 X . O V r)v EKaaxov xou dvGpojjiou T O eiboq OTpoyyuXov, vcoxov KCCI

nXevpaq KUK)OO E'XOV,1 xsipa? 8e xsxxapat; etxe, Kai aKEXn i d i'cra miq xsPCT iv<

Kai rcpoacoTta 81V in' O O> XE V I K D K X O X E P E T , ojroia 7idvxr]L • K£(p<Ar|v 5 ' hC

duxpotspoii; zolq jxpoaamoiq svavrfotc, K S I U X V O I C (jtav, m i coxa xsxxapa, Kai

aiSoTa 8uo, Kai i&Xka Jtdvxa d u o xouxcov dv TIC, skdaEiev.

1 A s to the periodic structure o f this sentence see Morrison (1964: 46). For the English transla-

tion of the Symposium I refer to L am b (1967).

2 The above version, usually printed in modern editions according to the unanimous textual

tradition ouoia jtdvxn,, does not make sense. It can be related sensibly only to both faces

which is then translated by both Lamb (1946) and Rowe (1998) without further explanation

as 'two faces perfectly alike' or "two completely similar faces' respectively. The subsequent

division of the primeval men, however, leads to the genesis of individuals and not to that of

purely twins; and how is one supposed to understand such a completely identical section of

the face in the case of the androgynous creatures? A solution w ould be to emend o uoia itavn)

to 6uo!a navrrj. What is referred to is then the neck and it is stressed that, as opposed to the

neck of contemporary humans, it is evenly round on all sides.



M a n a s M o n s t e r 89

"The form of each person was round all over, with back and sides encompass ing it every way; each had four arms, and legs to match these, and two facesperfectly alike on a cylindrical neck. There was one head to the two faces,which looked opposite ways; there were four ears, two privy members, and all

the other parts, as may be imagined, in proportion."

German-speaking scholars usually call Aristophanes' primeval men 'Kugel-

menschen' and Anglo-American research also frequently refers to 'globular

shape' or 'globe-shaped creatures'. This, however, is illogical since 'we' are

the result o f the divis ion - and we are not norm ally hemispherical.3 The div i

sion does not lead to the genesis of comically deformed humans, 4 but to the

3 M or r i s on (1964: 47-49) a lready argued extens ive ly for a 'c ircu lar ' conceptual izat ion; he has

also shown that the descript ion of the earth in I'haeih 110b, which is often referred to as anargumen t for the g lobu lar shape of pr ime val men , makes , i f understood correct ly , a c ircu lar

cross sect ion of these creatures ' shape more l ike ly.

4 Va se paint ings d isp lay ing scenes from com edies and characters in the typ ical costum e of

co m edy - with jut t ing bel l ies and but tocks - may have been respons ib le for g iving r ise to the

assumpt ion that Ar is tophanes may have thought of such spher ical creatures . Another poss ib le

reason for this wrong conclusion may be the fact that Plato names sun, moon and earth as

parents of these beings (Symp. 190a8-b5). T h i s m a k e s us think of spherical stars; the greatest

part of classical antiquity, however, did not think of stars in this shape, certainly not in the

age of Plato. Stars were conceived not on ly in the popular imaginat ion but a lso in ear ly sc ien

t if ic thought as disks, at best as being of hemispherical shape, but not as spherical (see also

the fol lowing footnote) ; for textual evidence see Morr ison (1964: 48-49) . The subsequentcompar ison of the act of d ivis ion with s l ic ing through sorb -apples and eggs (Symp. 190d7-

e2), wh ich a lso m ay ha ve led to the con cep tion o f an origin ally sp herical shape, in fact refers

in its lertium comparationis to the ease of cutt ing through a previously formally perfect unity,

and was proverb ia l ly used for the separat ion of previous ly ' inseparab le ' lovers over a baga

te l le (see Dover 1980: 116). Furthermore, that the intended conception here is not that of a

grotesque spher ical shape a lso becomes c lear in the compar ison of pr imeval men with the g i

ants (Symp. 190b5-cl): the iconography of giants in the f ifth and fourth century B.C. depicts

these enemies of the gods physically as heroes and, thus, as beautiful; they are not portrayed

with se rpentine bod ies before the third century B .C . The re hav e been frequent attempts to de

r ive the mo nstros i ty o f the pr imeval men from a seem ingly s imi lar concept ion in Empedo-

cles' w or k On Nature (31B57-62 DK) as its source, although it is rather ft: 31B63 D K w h i c hin fact contains a termin olog ica l , a l though u l t imate ly not conceptual , prox imity i f the terms

(juuPoXov and ohov at Aristot le, De gen. anim. A 18, 722bl0. are or ig inal ly Empedoclean.

Th is seems qu i t e arguab le to me : ho weve r , orAoipurii; (31 B 6 2 . 7 ; vgl. 10) -pace R o w e (1998:

154) - refers to the l imbles s semen f ro m w hich the future l iving being s are yet to arise. Ye t

Empedocles only descr ibes the phylogenet ic consequences of h is hypothes is of dualistic

cosm ic dynam ics - t he con f l i c t o f ' f r i endsh ip ' ((p&orrtc,) and ' s t r i fe ' (veucoc,): in i t ia l ly , ind i

v idual l imbs come into being which wander around, seek combinat ion , eventual ly f ind i t and

grow together part ly into hybrid creatures (e .g . combinat ions of bu l l and human) , part ly to

humans (and notably not to double-humans): as opposed to what is assumed in Ajoot ian

(1995: 99) , the fragments do not ment ion or imply a later d ivis ion of any b isexual creatures -

wh ich E mp edo cles in m y op in ion w ould ha ve regarded as def ic ient - wh ich thus might ha ve

co m e into being . The survival o f the thus assembled creatures depend s on the capacity o f

the ir synerg ies , i .e . the survivab i l i ty of those random combinat ions which in the case of hu

man beings are ideal (see Simpl ic ius , Phys. 371.33). Ye t , f rom these prem ises a conne ct ion to

the conc ept ion o f the Platonic Ar is toph anes is on ly p oss ib le i f one is wi l l ing to assume that

Empedocles was th ink ing of a subsequent evolut ionary s tep in the form of further combina-



9 0 P e t er v o n Mol lendor f f

o r i g i n o f KdXoKayaBo i , h u m a n s t h a t m e e t t h e c l a s s i c a l i d e a l o f b e a u t y , o r a t

l e a s t o f h u m a n s w i t h ' n o r m a l ' p r o p o r t i o n s . N o r d o e s t h e q u o t e d t e x t g i v e a n y

e v i d e n c e o f s p h e r i c a l h u m a n s . T h e G r e e k w o r d s o -Tpoyyv j^ov a n d KUKA,O<; r a t h e r

r e f e r t o s o m e t h i n g ' c i r c u l a r ' , h e n c e , b e i n g s w h o a r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y a c i r c u l a r

' p e r i p h e r y ' a s i t w e r e , 5 w h o s e t o r s o a s w e l l a s t h e i r n e c k a r e t o b e d e s c r i b e d a s

c y l i n d r i c a l a n d w h o o n l y h a v e s i d e s a n d b a c k s b u t n o t c h e s t s ( s o a l r e a d y R o w e

1 9 9 8 : 154 ) .

T h i s c o n c e p t i o n , h o w e v e r , l e a d s t o s o m e p r o b l e m s w h i c h a r e n o t a d

d r e s s e d b y t h e t e x t . A f t e r t h e d i v i s i o n , Z e u s m o v e s t h e f a c e s a n d g e n i t a l s o f t h e

h a l v e d h u m a n s a r o u n d t o t h e s i d e o f t h e i r n a v e l s : t h e first s o t h a t t h e y m a y a l

w a y s r e m e m b e r w h a t t h e y h a v e l o s t , t h e l a t t e r s o t h a t t h e y find f u l f i l m e n t o f

t h e i r d e s i r e f o r e a c h o t h e r . Y e t , t h e r e is n o m e n t i o n o f t h e a r m s a n d l e g s b e i n g

t u r n e d a r o u n d a s w e l l , i n o t h e r w o r d s , o f a r m s a n d l e g s h a v i n g o r i g i n a l l y b e e n

d i r e c t e d t o t h e f r o n t a n d t o t h e b a c k . 6 I f m a n n e v e r t h e l e s s l o o k s t h e w a y h e

d o e s t o d a y - f a c e , g e n i t a l s a n d o u t e r e x t r e m i t i e s a l l f a c i n g t h e s a m e d i r e c t i o n

a s d o e s t h e n a v e l - t h e n t h e r e m u s t b e a n i m m a n e n t r e a s o n f o r t h i s w h i c h i s n o t

m a d e e x p l i c i t b y t h e t e x t . A s o l u t i o n c a n b e f o u n d i n m y o p i n i o n i f o n e a l s o

t a k e s i n t o a c c o u n t h o w A r i s t o p h a n e s ' s p e e c h c o n t i n u e s . T h e c o m i c p o e t i m a g

i n e s H e p h a e s t u s , g o d o f b l a c k s m i t h s , w i t h h i s t o o l s a p p r o a c h i n g t w o l o v e r s

w h o a r e f u l f i l l i n g t h e i r e r o t i c d e s i r e w i t h e a c h o t h e r a n d a s k i n g t h e m th e f o l

l o w i n g q u e s t i o n {Symp. 1 9 2 d 3 - e 4 ) :

t i o ns o f , in them se l v es , a l read y o p t im a l l y fu nc t i o n ing hum ans to an th ro p o id d y a d s o r that

A r i s t o p h a n e s h a s d e v e l o p e d Empedocles' m o d e l fu r ther i n th i s way . Th i s , ho wev er , co u ld

hard l y b e p u t d o w n as p aro d y , and wo u ld a l so im p l y that A r i s to p han es here , f i r s t l y , c l a im s a

status o f ideal i ty for h is creatures and that he , second ly , deve lops a pre -Socrat ic model fur

ther , that i s , that he proposes a ser ious ph i losophical thes is ; one might , at most , th ink o f a

c o m i c i n v e r s i o n w h i c h , h o w e v e r , u s u a l ly s h o w s a d o u b l e m o v e m e n t ( b o th u p w a r d s an d

d o wnward s ) . Orp h i c i d eas m ay a l so hav e had an i n f l uence o n the m y th o f the o r i g ina l un i t y

o f mankind that i s reported here ; we find f o r ex am p le the co ncep t i o n o f a p r im o rd i a l un i

fo rm i ty o f heav en and ear th (Uranus and Ga ia ) , wh i ch hav e b eco m e sep ara te o n l y d ue to a

l at er r o w ( A p o l l o n i u s R h o d i u s , Arg. 49 4 - 4 98 ) , a sep ara t i on wh i ch a l o ne m ad e the p ro crea t io n

of a l l terrestr ia l be ings poss ib le (Eur ip ides , Melan.fr. 4 8 4 K.), and i s thus argu ab ly a l so the

precond i t ion for mutual des i re . Th is makes i t a concept ion that i s , at least , analogous to that

o f the P l a to n i c Ar i s to p ha nes , a l b e i t a s tep ear l ie r in the co sm ic ch ro no lo g y . - M o s t co m p ara

b l e a r e p e r h a p s t h e S i a m e s e t w i n s A k t o r i o n e - M o l i o n e m e n t i o n e d i n H e s i o d (Eh.fr. 17a, 14-

18 M e rke lb ach & We s t ) wh o a l so hav e fo u r a rm s and l egs b u t d i f f e r in hav ing two head s ;

l i ke Ar i s to p hanes ' p r im ev a l m en they are sa id t o hav e b een i nv inc ib l y s t ro ng . See Do v er

(1966: 46) , and see LlMC(s.v. " A k t o r i o n e " ) 1.1.472-476 wi th i l l u s t ra t i o n (1 . 2 . 364 - 365) .5 Th e tex t co n t i nue s : Th ey were jrepupspfj in their shape as in their progress, s ince they took af

ter their parents (Symp. 1 9 0 b 3 - 5 ) . Ttepupepfj clea r ly re fers to a c i rcu lar fo rm in a hor izonta l

p ersp ec t i v e (c ro s s - sec t i o n o f the b o d y ) as we l l a s i n the v e r t i ca l p e rsp ec t i v e , nam e ly i n l o co

m o t i o n w h i ch l o o ks s im i l a r t o the tu rn ing 'w he e l ' o f the sun char i o t .

6 Wh erea s H un ter (20 04 : 62 ) wr o n g l y d escr i b es them as " rese m b l i ng p erhap s tw o m o d er n hu

m a n s s t a n d in g b a c k - t o - b a c k

http://melan.fr/

http://eh.fr/

http://eh.fr/

http://melan.fr/



M a n as M o n s t e r 9 1

T t £ 0 0 ' 8 fiovXeode, to Ixv&pwnoi, ijMV nap' aXXr)Xwv y ev eoBa i ; ( . . . ) \pa yz

T O 0 8 E CTi&unetxe, EV TGJ airao yevsoOai OTI u.dA.tcrta a.XXx\Xo\q, laaxe Kai V U K T O

Kai Tjuipav u.f| anokdmaQai aXXr\Xaw, s i y a p TOVJTOD ejn6u-u.£TTE, QEXCO u j i ac

cnjvTfj^ai Kai ou ut pua fj aa t sic; T O a u t o , W O T S S U ' ovzaq Eva yeyovEvat Kai eoiq

x' a v i j j i E , f ix; s v a o v t a , KOivfj djitpoTEpcnx; ^fjv, ical ETtEtSdv diroOdvnTS, EKEI

a d E V 'A tSou dvxl Suotv E v a sivai Kotvrj XBQVEWXE' (...)

" W h a t is i t, g o o d m o r t a l s , t h at y o u w o u l d h a v e o f o n e a n o t h e r ? ( . .. ) D o y o u

d e s i r e t o b e j o i n e d i n t h e c l o s e s t p o s s i b l e u n i o n , s o t h a t y o u s h a l l n o t b e d i

v i d e d b y n i g h t o r b y d a y ? I f t h a t i s y o u r c r a v i n g , I a m r e a d y t o f u s e a n d w e l d

y o u t o g e t h e r i n a s i n g l e p i e c e , t ha t f r o m b e i n g t w o y o u m a y b e m a d e o n e ; t h at

s o l o n g a s y o u l i v e , t h e p a i r o f y o u , b e i n g a s o n e , m a y s h a r e a s i n g l e l i f e ; a n d

t h a t w h e n y o u d i e y o u m a y a l s o i n H a d e s y o n d e r b e o n e i n s t e a d o f t w o , h a v

i n g s h a r e d a s i n g l e d e a t h ( . . . ) . "

I t s e e m s t o m e s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t H e p h a e s t u s d o e s n o t p r o m i s e j u s t t o t i e o r s o l d e r

t h e t w o l o v e r s t o g e t h e r 7 b u t t o f u s e t h e m , t o u l t i m a t e l y u n d o t h e i r d u a l i t y a n d

s e p a r a t e n e s s . Y e t , i f t h e dp /cua (puo tc ; c a n b e f u l l y r e s t o r e d t h r o u g h H e p h a e s

t u s ' r e s c u e a c t , t h e n t h e p r e v i o u s u n i t y o f t h e d o u b l e - m e n w a s n o t a c o m b i n a

t i o n o f s o m e t h i n g d o u b l e , a u n i t e d d u a l i t y a s i t w e r e , b u t a u n i t y i n t h e s e n s e o f

a n ' i d e n t i t y ' : a m u t u a l p e r v a s i o n a n d t o t a l i n t e r p e n e t r a t i o n t h a t i s n o t h i n g o t h e r

t h e n t h e s e x u a l a c t g r o t e s q u e l y t h o u g h t t h r o u g h t o t h e e n d . 8 A r i s t o p h a n e s

i m a g i n e s in m y o p i n i o n h i s p r i m e v a l h u m a n s a s h o m o - a n d h e t e r o s e x u a l c o u

p l e s w h o a r e v i r t u a l l y o n e b y p e r m a n e n t l y i n t e r p e n e t r a t i n g e a c h o t h e r i n a n

e t e r n a l k i s s a n d i n a n e t e r n a l c o p u l a t i o n ; t h e y p e r m e a t e e a c h o t h e r t o s u c h a n

e x t e n t t h a t t h e i r f a c e s a n d g e n i t a l s , s o t o s a y , s u r f a c e a g a i n o n th e o t h e r s i d e ,

t h a t is , o n t h e o u t s i d e ( f i g s . 1 a n d 2 ) . I t i s t h e e t e r n i t y a n d a t t h e s a m e t i m e t h e

7 A l t h oug h t h is wo u ld ha ve ma de per fec t sense , s ince in t he we l l - k no wn myt h o f Ar e s a nd

Ap hro dit e narrated for the f i r st t ime in Ho me r , Od. 8 .2 6 6 -3 6 6 . t he god o f b la cksmi t hs ca t ches

t he lover s in flagranti and t ies them together with a forged net (Od. 8 .2 7 4 -2 7 5 ) ; hence , t h i s

so rt o f a n ind i sso lub le connec t ion w ou ld ha v e been poss ib le t oo .

8 Rowe (199 8: ad 192e 6-9) a lready sees a conn ect io n betwe en sexu a l intercourse and the

or ig in a l appearance o f the hum an race.

9 O vi d h ints a t th is (po ss i b ly a l lud ing to P la to ; see An de rso n 1996: 45 3) in mice in h is account

o f t he emer gence o f Hermaphroditus as the result o f the fus ion o f the son o f Hermes and

A p h r o d i t e w i t h t h e n y m p h Salmacis (Met. 4 .3 7 3 -3 7 9 ) : ( . . . ) nam mala duorum /corpora iun-

guntur faciesque inducitur illis / una. Velut, si quis conducat cortice ramos, / crescendo iungi

pariterque adolescere cernit, / sic, ubi complexu coierunt membra tenaci, / nec duo sunt sed

forma duplex, nec femina dici / nec puer ul possit, neutrumque et utrumque videnlur. The act

o f union, v io len t and forced upo n the you th aga inst h is wi l l , i s here com pare d to the process

o f g r a f t ing . The r esu l t , a s Ander son (1996: ad loc.) r ightly em ph asi ze s, is not a powerful,

sex ua l l y se l f - su f f i c ien t hybr id bu t a wea k f rea k wh o does not con jo in bo t h gender s in h ims e l f

but appears as a ha l f -co mp lete and inconse quen t m ixture. T he fact that the result o f their un

ion is on e face (as we l l as just on e sexu a l organ ) po ints to the avers io n o f the you th w ho inthe ve ry mo me nt o f the bod i ly integrat ion has apparen t ly turned away f rom Sa lmacis so that

she faces h is back. See a lso Lateiner (2009. in th is vo lume) . Relevant for our understanding

of the passage in P la to , however , is the ana logous concept ion o f a tota l fus ion o f two bodies;

yet , i t may be more than mere co inc idence that there is par t icu lar ev idence o f three-



Figure 1: Aristophanes' double-bodied humans (male)

© Katrin Pavlidis 2006



Man as Monster 93

Figure 2: Aristophanes' double-bodied humans (androgynous)

© Katrin Pavlidis 2006



94 Peter von Mol lendor f f

e te rn a l fu l f i lme n t o f th i s b od i l y c on ta c t wh ic h p u ts a n e n d to d e s i re ; c on s e

q u e n t l y , n o la te r i n te rc ou rs e c a n e v e r re a c h a g a in th e s a m e d e g re e o f fu l f i lm e n t

i n t e r m s o f m u t u a l p e n e t r a t i o n a n d t h e r e f o r e a l w a y s r e m a i n s a s u r r o g a t e , w h i c h

c a n on l y b e a r e m i n d e r o f th e p r e v i o u s p e r f e c t i o n , t h e a b o l i t i o n o f d e s ir eth rou g h i t s p e rma n e n t s a t i s fa c t i on a n d th u s th e a b s e n c e o f d e s i re .

I f w e th in k th i s th ro u g h , it f o l l ow s th a t we c a n n o t ima g in e th e re s u l t o f our

d i v i s i o n o th e r th a n th a t w e a re l i v i n g p a r t i a l l y w i th th e b o d y o f ou r l o st o th e r

h a l f , a n d the o th e r h a l f w i th ou rs . Ev e r y th in g th a t tod a y s e e m s n orm a l a n d

r ig h t w i th ou r o w n c o rp o re a l i t y a n d ou r e ro t i c d e s i re i s , f ro m a p r im e v a l p e r

s p e c t i v e , u t te r l y wron g a n d p e rv e r te d . Ou r o rg a n s a n d e x t re mi t i e s s i t i n th e

w ro n g p la c e s . H u m a n s a re o n l y f r a g m e n t s a n d , a s s u c h , re fe r to th e l o s s o f th e

w h o l e - A r i s t o p h a n e s c a l l s u s oiSu|3otax (Symp. 19!d4). We c a n o n l y u n d e r

s t a n d a n d f o r m u l a t e t h is o n e n e s s a n d w h o l e n e s s t ha t w e a re y e a r n i n g f o r as

c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h t h e o t h e r . Y e t , i n t h e m y t h o f t h e O n e t h e re w a s n e v e r a n

Ot h e r , n o r w a s th e re th e t ra it o f r e fe re n t i a l i t y w h i c h m a r ks ou r c u r re n t e x i s t

e n c e , s in c e th e p r ime v a l b e in g s we re , a s th e c e n te re d n e s s o f th e ou te r e x t re mi

t i e s s h ow s , c o n t in u ou s l y f a c in g th e m s e l v e s in a p e r fe c t s tate o f t o tal s e l f -

containment. B e c a u s e o f o u r c u r r e n t condicio humana w e c a n n o t t h i n k t h e O n e

( a n y m o r e ) , b u t o n l y d e s i r e i t.1 0 D e s i r e , E r o s , t h u s m e a n s t h a t e v e r y h a l f l o n g s

fo r th e o th e r a s s om e th in g in t r in s i c a l l y i d e n t i c a l w i th i t s e l f b e c a u s e in th e d i v i

s ion i t has , as i t were , los t a part of itself - w h a t e v e r t h at m a y b e . B e c o m i n go n e a n d w h o l e a g a i n w o u l d t h e n m e a n f i n d i n g in t h e o t h e r o n e ' s v e r y o w n s e l f

aga in . " T h e d i v i s i o n h a s t h e r e f o r e n o t g i v e n u s o u r h u m a n i d e n t i t y , b u t h a s

ta ke n i t a w a y f r o m u s in th a t it h a s t ra n s fo r me d u s i n to a g ro te s q u e d y a d , a n d

m a d e d e f i c i e n t ' d i v i d u a l s ' o u t o f r e al ' i n d i v i d u a l s ' . 1 2 W e are - seen f rom the

p o i n t o f v i e w o f t h e s e m y t h i c a l a n c i e n t t i m e s - f r e a k s , m o n s t e r s .

I u s e t h e t e r m ' m o n s t e r ' i n th e o r i g i n a l e t y m o l o g i c a l m e a n i n g o f t he w o r d .

T h e G r e e k c o u n t e r p a r t to t h e L a t i n monstrum, xepac,, refe rs f irst ly to a w o n -

dimensional cult statues of Hermaphroditus (of the anasyromenos type) at the beginning of

the 4th century, namely in Athens, and thus in a remarkable chronotopica l context of the

Symposium. Regard ing these scu lp tures , see A joo t ia n (1995).

10 Cor resp ond ingly Aris toph anes form ulates: "T he se are they w ho cont inue together throughout

l i fe , though they could not even say what they would have of one another ( . . . ) . Obviously the

soul of each is wishing for something else that i t cannot express , only d iv ining and darkly

hint ing what i t wishes" (Symp. 192c2-4, c 7 -d 2 ) .

1 1 Th is idea is part icular ly cha l len ging i f appl ied to the andro gyno us pr ime val hu ma ns s ince it

implies that every heterosexual male comprises a female, every heterosexual woman a male.

Maybe this idea draws on scenes of androgyny in var ious r i tua ls during wedding ceremonies;

for numerous ev idence of such r i tua ls see Jessen, s .v . "Hermaphrodites", in : RE 15 (1912) ,

714-721, esp. 7 1 4 - 7 1 5 .

12 I t is because of this that the occasional ly expressed cr it ic ism of the Aristophanic conception,

mo st recently stated in Hunte r (200 4: 69), that erotic fulf i lm en t results here in giving up

on e's in div id ual i ty , is inadequate. Wha t is a t s take from Aristo pha nes ' perspect ive is pre

c ise ly sa lva tion f rom a form o f pseud o - ind iv idu a l i t y .



M a n as M o n s t e r 9 5

d r o u s a n d t h e r e f o r e t e r r i f y i n g o m e n o f a f u t u r e e v e n t , s e n t b y t h e g o d s ( i n

H o m e r p r e f e r a b l y b y Z e u s ) a n d n e e d i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .1 3 O f t h e s e t h r e e p r i

m a r y c r i t e r ia o f m o n s t r o s i t y - ( a ) b e i n g w o n d r o u s a n d t e r r i f y i n g , ( b ) b e i n g s e n t

b y a d i v i n i t y , ( c ) o m i n o u s s i g n i f i c a n c e i n n e e d o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n - t h e first t w o

a r e c o n n e c t e d i n s o f a r a s t h e p r e s u m e d d i v i n e o r i g i n o f a xspaq r e v e a l s i t s e l f

p r e c i s e l y i n i t s e x t r a o r d i n a r i n e s s , i t s u n e x p e c t e d d e v i a n c e f r o m n o r m a l i t y . T h e

s e m i o t i c a s p e c t i s o f p a r t i c u l a r i m p o r t a n c e 1 4 b e c a u s e i t g i v e s m e a n i n g to th e

e x i s t e n c e o f t h e m o n s t e r , w h i c h d i s r u p t s p e r c e p t i o n , r e f e r s t o d i s a r r a y i n t h e

w o r l d o r d e r , a n d d i r e c t s a t t e n t i o n t o a f u t u r e t h r e a t . T h e n o t i o n o f ( d ) ' c o u n t e r -

n a t u r a l m o n s t r o s i t y ' , h o w e v e r , i s d e r i v e d f r o m c r i t e r i o n ( a ) ; 1 5 t h e s a m e is t r u e

f o r ( e ) t h e a s p e c t o f d e f o r m i t y , o f u g l i n e s s . 1 6 B u t t h e s e t w o n o t i o n s a r e a l r e a d y

p r e v a l e n t i n P l a t o ' s a g e a n d s e e m t o h a v e i n c r e a s i n g l y d o m i n a t e d th e s e m i o t i c

h i s t o r y o f t h i s t e r m .

1 7

T h e h a l v e d c r e a t u r e s w h i c h r e m a i n a f t e r t h e d i v i s i o n o f t h e p r i m e v a l d o u

b l e - h u m a n s in A r i s t o p h a n e s ' s p e e c h m e e t a l l o f t h e f ive l i s t e d c r i t e r i a o f m o n

s t r o s i t y a n d w o u l d t h e r e f o r e a l s o h a v e b e e n p e r c e i v e d a s - repa id b y c o n t e m p o

r a r y r e c i p i e n t s . T h e i r m u t i l a t e d a p p e a r a n c e i s ( a ) f r o m t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f t h e i r

p r e d e c e s s o r s s o m e t h i n g n e w a n d t e r r i f y i n g , a n d t h e d i v i d e d m e n a r e s o a g i

t a t e d t h a t e v e n Z e u s f e e l s p i t y f o r t h e m a n d p r o v i d e s t h e m w i t h s o m e r e l i e f b y

r e a r r a n g i n g t h e i r f a c e s a n d s e x u a l o r g a n s . C r i t e r i o n ( b ) - b e i n g s e n t b y a g o d -

i s m e t b y Z e u s ' f u n c t i o n a s p u n i s h i n g d i v i n i t y . A s orjuPola ( c ) t h e h a l v e d m e n

p o i n t n o t o n l y t o t h e i r o t h e r h a l f , b u t a l s o t o t h e i r p r e v i o u s i>(3pig a g a i n s t t h e

g o d s , a s w e l l a s t o p o t e n t i a l f u t u r e e v e n t s ; s i n c e Z e u s t h r e a t e n s (Svmp. 1 9 0 d 4 -

6 ) :

e&v 5 ' £Ti S O K O X T I V d o s X - y a r v e t v K C U ur| 'BeXtocuv r|ai>xiav ayeiv, jtdXtv a v j ( . . . )

X E U C O 5vva , W O T ' scp' bibq j t o p E u a o v T a t O K S A - O D C ; doKW /Uct^ovtEc; .

13 Re ga rd i ng the h istory o f the terms monstrum an d xipat; as w e l l a s t h e ir se m a n t i c e q u i va

l e n c e s an d d i f f e r e n c e s se e Moussy (1977). O n t h e g e n e r a l p r ob l e m s o f p oss i b i l i t i e s an d c o m

p ar ab i l i t ie s o f c a t e g or i z a t i on s se e A t h e r t on (1998: v i i - x x x i v , e s p . x x i v - x x x i v ) ; note, however,

that here as in the ent i re vo lu m e mon stros i ty i s redu ced to aw fu lne ss , c ounte r -natura lness

an d , c on s e q u e n t l y , i n su f f i c i e n t c l a ss i f i ab i l i t y . A s t o d i f f e r e n t p oss i b i li t i e s o f c l a ss i f i c a t i on se e

L a d a - R i c h a r d s (1998: e sp . 41 - 49 ) .

14 It i s e t y m o l og i c a l l y an d h e n c e c au sa l l y r oo t e d i n t h e r e l e van t t e r m s monstrum a n d rspac, an d

m u s t t h e re fo r e in m y op i n i on n o t b e d is r e g ar d e d i n f a vo u r o f f oc u ss i n g on l y on t e r r i f y i n g

c ou n t e r - n a t u r a l n e ss , a b n or m a l i t y an d u g l i n e ss , a s in th e c on t r i b u t i on s t o t h e e ssay c o l l e c t i on

e d i t e d b y A t h e r t on (19 98) .

15 S e e M o u s sy (197 7 : 361 - 36 2) . H yb r i d c o r p or e a l i t y i n p ar t ic u l a r i s s t r ic t l y sp e ak i n g n o t c h ar

acteristic for the term monstrum b u t c an b e e as i l y su b s u m e d u n d e r ' c ou n t e r - n a t u r a l n e s s ' an d

is then often perce ived as the ac tual monstros i ty : see e .g . van Keuren Stern (1978) . w i th re

g a r d s to H y d r a , C e n ta u r s , M i n o t a u r u s , M e d u s a , C h i m a i r a .

16 SeeLSJs. v. II .2.

17 S o fo r e x a m p l e a l r e ad y i n A r i s t o t l e ' s Poetics and in his biological writ ings; as to the latter

se e L o u i s (197 5) . Ex c e l l e n t on t h e t ax o n om i c a l i m p or t an c e o f m on s t e r s as w e l l a s on s ym

b o l i c a l an d classificatory w ay s o f d e a l i n g w i t h t h e m is S p e r b e r (1975).



9 6 Peter von Mollendorff

"If they continue turbulent and do not choose to keep quiet, I will do it again(...) I will slice every person in two, and then they must go their ways on oneleg, hopping."18

T h e a s p e c t s o f c o u n t e r - n a t u r a l n e s s a n d d y s f u n c t i o n a l d e f o r m i t y ( d ) ar e c l ea r in

t h a t t h e h a l v e d m e n n o t on l y l o s e t h e i r s t r e n g t h a n d d a n g e r ou s n e s s , b u t a r e a l s o

d e p r i v e d o f t h e ir s e x u a l s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y . M o r e o v e r , t h e y h a v e lo s t t h e ir p h y s i

c a l f u n c t i on a l i t y : p r e v i ou s l y t h e y h a d b e e n a b l e t o m ov e w i t h t h e g r e a t e s t

s p e e d i n a n y d i r e c t i on w i t h o u t t h e n e e d t o t u r n a r o u n d , n a m e l y b y d o i n g a

c a r t w h e e l o r a b a c k f l i p (Symp. 190a4-8); n ow t h i s i s p os s i b l e on l y t o a l i m i t e d

e x t e n t . U l t i m a t e l y , w e p r e s e n t - d a y h u m a n s ar e c o n s i d e r e d u g l y ( e ) . F o r a c ru

c i a l a s p e c t o f Gr e e k a e s t h e t i c s , n o t l e a s t f o r P l a t o , w a s cnjujieTpta i n the sense

o f commensurabi l i ty , p r o p o r t i o n , as a p r e c o n d i t i o n o f b e a u t y (K&Xkoq).1 Y e t

t h i s p e r f e c t i o n o f s y m m e t r y o f t h e h u m a n b o d y w a s t a k e n a w a y f r o m t h e p r i

m e v a l m e n b y t h ei r d i v i s i o n . I f w e c o n s i d e r o u r s e l v e s as b e a u t i f u l b e c a u s e w e

a r e s y m m e t r i c a l , w e o v e r l o o k t h e l o s s o f t h a t f o r m e r h i g h e r b e a u t y . F u r t h e r

m or e , i f w e w e r e t o b e c u t i n t o h a l v e s a s e c on d t i m e , a c c o r d i n g t o Z e u s ' t h r ea t ,

e v e n th e s e p a t h e t i c r e m a i n s o f o u r o r i g i n a l s y m m e t r y w o u l d b e l o st .

A c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e o f A r i s t o p h a n i c h u m ou r i s t h e f r e q u e n t u s a g e o f

t h e u n e x p e c t e d , t h e OOTpoaSoKnxov, o n al l l eve l s o f the tex t . 2 0 P l a t o h a s i m i

t a t e d t h i s f e a t u r e i n h i s l i t e r a r y i m p e r s on a t i on o f t h e c om i c p oe t p e r f e c t l y , a s

c a n b e s e e n c l e a r l y i n t h e t h e m e o f m o n s t r o s i t y . M y t h , o f c o u r s e , k n e w n u m e r ou s c ou n t e r - n a t u r a l c r e a t u r e s ( th a t is , ' m on s t e r s ' i n a r e d u c t i on i s t s e n s e o f th e

t e r m ) , a m o n g s t w h i c h t he r e a d e r w o u l d h a v e b e e n i n c l i n e d t o c o u n t t h e h y b r i d

m e n A r i s t o p h a n e s d e s c r i b e s ad hoc.2] H o w e v e r , a s u d d e n a n d u n p r e d i c t a b l e

' c u t ' , t y p i c a l o f c o m e d y , r e v e r s e s t h e l i n e o f v i s i o n a n d t u rn s t h e w o r l d u p s i d e

d o w n : w h a t s e e m e d t o b e n o r m a l i s d e f i c i e n t , w h e r e a s th a t w h a t w a s i n i ti a l ly

p a s s e d o f f a s a m o n s t r os i t y t u r n s ou t t o b e th e m or e p e r f e c t o r d er . N or m a l m a n

18 Ar istophanes p icks up th is threat aga in a t the end of h is speech in the ro le o f the interpreter

a nd exhor t er : " W e m a y w e l l be a fr a id that i f we a r e d i so r der ly t owa r ds H ea ve n w e ma y once

mor e be c loven a sunder a nd ma y go a bout in t he sha pe o f t hose ou t l ine -ca r v ings on t he

t om bs , w i t h our nose s sa wn do w n t he m id d le , a nd ma y t hus be com e l i ke t okens o f sp l it d i ce

( . . .) . Lo ve i s t he god wh o br ings t h i s a bout ; he fu l l y deser ves our hy mn s ( . . .) . He a l so supp l ies

th is excel le nt ho pe for the futur e, that i f w e wi l l sup ply the go ds with reverent du ty he wi l l

restore us to our anc ient l i fe and hea l and help us into the happiness o f the b lest " {Symp.

1 9 3 a 3 - 7 , c 8 - d 5 ) .

19 T hi s agrees wit h the def in i t io n o f beau ty as i t wa s put do wn in i ts c lass ica l fo rm in Poly-

c l e t u s ' Kavcov ( in both h is wr i t ing s and h is sculpture s) ha l f a cen tury befo re the Symposium

but ma y be o n ly t wen t y yea r s be fo r e i ts f i c t i t i ous da te ; see P o l l i t t (1974: 1 4 -2 2 , 2 5 6 -2 5 8 a nd

passim). ouuu.£Tp{a remained in the centre o f aesthet ic theor iz ing unt i l the th ird century B .C.

( X e n o c r a t e s o f A t h e n s ) .

2 0 F und a men t a l f o r t h i s ma t ter i s La nd fes t er (1 9 7 7 ) .

21 H e r m a p h r o d i t e c h i l d re n w e r e s o m e t i m e s p e r c e i v e d a s monstra I Tepata a nd wer e t her e fo r e

f o r c i b l y e x p o s e d ; s e e D i o d o r u s S i c u l u s , Hist. 4 . 6 . 5 - 7 a n d A j o o t i a n ( 1 9 9 5 : 1 0 1 - 1 0 3 ) .




i s i n t ru th a f re a k , a n d h e is s u f f e r in g f r om it . H o w e v e r on l y a g od , n o t me re

d e s i r in g , n or e v e n finding tha t wh ich i s los t , cou ld hea l the loss . Our path in

love and p ie ty towards the gods can on ly lead us near to the dpxata cpuo-ic;; in

o rd e r to f i n a l l y re a c h i t , it t a ke s (a s c o r re s p o n d s to th e p re c e d in g p u n i s h m e n t ) ad i v i ne ac t o f grace . Tha t i s the on ly w ay t o re tr ieve that un i ty w h ic h w as a t the

s a me t ime a d u a l i t y , t o b e c ome a g a in th a t p e r fe c t mon s te r we u s e d to b e .

I t i s p ro b a b ly b e c a u s e o f th e p a r a d o x a l i t y a n d in e f fa b i l i t y o f th i s i d e a2 2 that

P la to h a s p u t th i s s p e e c h in to A r i s top h a n e s ' mou th in th e f i r s t p l a c e . A r i s to

p h a n e s ' s p e e c h c o r r e s p o n d s to t h e f a m o u s D i o t i m a - s p e e c h o f S o c r a t es in a

m i m e t i c - p a r a b o l i c w a y , b u t a l s o u n d e r m i n e s t h e s e e m i n g l y n o b l e i m a g e o f

Soc ra te s a s a s u p e r io r p h i l o s op h e r . I w i l l b e g in w i th s om e re f l e c t i on s on th e

n a tu re o f th e i r p a ra b o l i c re l a t i on s h ip , f o r w h i c h s o m e re ma rk s on th e d i s p os i

t i on o f th e Symposium a re n e c e s s a ry . T h e l on g in t rod u c t i on wh ic h d e v e lo p s th e

se t t ing (Symp. 172al-178a5) i s f o l l o w e d b y th re e c y c l e s o f s p e e c h e s - ' P ra i s e

o f E r o s ' (Symp. I 7 6 a l - 2 1 2 c 3 ) ; ' P r a is e o f S o c r a t e s ' (Symp. 2!5a4-222b7); ' T r a g

e d y a n d c o m e d y ' (Symp. 223 c 6 -d 8 ) ~ ' - o f w h i c h on l y th e f i rs t c y c l e is c o m

p le te d . Th e c y c l e i n i ts e l f w ou ld b e s t ru c tu re d p a ra ta c t i c a l l y a c c o rd in g to th e

sympos ias ts ' order on the couches . But , f i rs t ly , ne i ther the reporter o f the f i rs t

l e v e l , Aristodemus, n or th a t o f th e s e c on d l e v e l , A p o l l od oru s , r e me mb e r a l l th e

s p e e c h e s th a t we re g i v e n (Symp. 1 7 8 a l - 3 . 2 2 3 b 8 - 9 ) , s o t ha t a c o n t r o l l e d s e l e c

t i on h a s to b e a s s u me d . Se c on d ly , A r i s top h a n e s d oe s n o t g i v e h i s s p e e c h a t th ep o in t wh ic h i s d i c ta te d b y th e ' c o in c id e n c e ' o f h i s p os i t i o n i n th e s y m p o s ia s t i c

l y i n g o r d e r , b u t g i v e s p r e c e d e n c e to t h e d o c t o r E r y x i m a c h u s b e c a u s e o f h i c

c u p s (Symp. 1 8 5 c 4 - e 5 , 188e2-189a6).24 B e c a u s e o f t h i s, A r i s t o p h a n e s ' s p e e c h

22 See abov e. Th e inef fab i l i ty (and . hence, unthinkability) shows i tse l f for example in the fact

that language needs the aid of predicate usage ( 'at the same time', 'that was.. . ' ) but is neither

syntact ical ly nor semantically in a posit ion to express the duality of unity or the unity of dual

i ty proper ly. Both inte l lectual ly and l inguis t ical ly on ly an approximat ion of that per fect ion is

poss ib le .23 Th ey are l inked with each other by interme zzi whic h - l ike the introduc tion - e xp ose the

respect ive ly changed set t ing .

24 Fr ied lander (I960: 15) has already pointed out that according to the init ially intended se

quenc e of speakers Ar is topha nes w ou ld hav e g iven h is speech as the th ird of f ive pre-

Socrat ic speakers (Phaedrus . Pausanias , Aristophanes, Eryx imachus , Agathon ) . The h iccups

m o ti f thus mak es clear that Plato takes him out of this centre - he is not meant to be com

pared to them - and that he g ives h im a new , even more s trongly em phas iz ed role . Ye t even

among these f ive speakers he holds a unique position, i f on ly because he has come on h is

own whi le the others have arr ived in pederastic coup les (Phaedrus and Eryx imachus .

Pausanias and Agathon) . Moreover , h is choice of a myth ical narrat ive instead of an argument

d is t inguishes h im from the others . Furthermore Fr ied lander (1960: ad loc.) has demonstrated

that the speeches of Phaedrus and Agathon (Eros as the oldest and the youngest god respec

t ive ly) as wel l as those of Pausanias and Eryximachus (Eros as twofold god) form pairs in

terms of their content. By means of all this a net of relat ionships is woven between the four

other speakers in which Ar is tophanes is in i t ia l ly caught , but f rom which he manages to es

cape through h is h iccups which by means typ ical of comedy turn th ings ups ide down and al-



98 P e te r v o n M o l l e n d o r f f

moves into the centre of the cycle (fig. 3) and thus into a position clearly

marked by Plato, from which it can claim the same attention as the longest and

concluding speech of the cycle, that of the predictable protagonist Socrates.

Such a correspondence is made likely by the fact that Aristophanes is, apartfrom Socrates, the only participant of the dialogue who gives a true definition

o f e p m q - the search for wholeness.25

sub ject 1: praise of Eros 176al-178a5

speech of Phaedrus 178a6-180b8

speech of Pausan ias I80c3-I85c3

disrupt ion: A r i s t op h a n e s ' h i c c u p 185c4-e5

speech o f Eryximachus 185e6-188e4

Intermezzo: Ar is tophanes and Eryx imac hus argue hum orous ly 1 8 9 a l - c l

speech of Aristophan es 189c2-193e2

Intermezzo: Phaedrus , Agathon and Socrates argue humorous ly I93e3-194e3

speech o f A g a t h o n 194e4-197e8

disruption: Socrates rejects the current form of discussion 198al-199c2

speech o f Socrates [: refutation o f Ag ath on 199c3-20lc9

speech of Socrates H: Diot ima on Eros 201dl-212c3

disruption: unexpected entrance of the akletos A l c i b i a d e s 212c4-214b8

F ig ur e 3 : Th e s t ruc ture o f the speec hes in P la to ' s Symposium

Diotima's description of the ascending course of desire forms the centre of

Socrates' speech. The 'Plat onic lo ver ' initially loves the beautiful body o f a

beloved one, but then frees himself from it so as to eventually love all beautiful

bodies. He then raises his desire from beautiful bodies to the beautiful activi -ties of the soul, and from there to beautiful knowledge. Finally, he achieves

the ultimate knowledge of pure, uniform and true beauty (the 'idea' of beauty)

from which all individual beautiful things draw their partial beauty through

participation. The encounter of the desiring mind with this ultimate object of

knowledge is described by Diotima with verbs which are also used for sexual

contact: owervcti ("to have [sexual] intercourse"), 8(pd7iTeo6cti ( "touch") and

low the protagonists to escape all contextual constraints. Apart from this. Aristophanes is the

only speaker who tries to speak up again after Socrates' speech (Symp. 212c4-6). and it is

on ly to h is speech that Diot ima refers exp l ic i t ly (Symp. 205dl0-206al). On the two sets of

speeches produced by the h iccups mot i f see a lso Lowenstam (1986), which includes an over -

vie w of previo us research.

25 See most recent ly Hunter (2004 : 67) .



M a n a s M o n s t e r 9 9

TIKT81V ( " p r o c r e a t e " ) - 2 6 In add i t ion to th is , and in ana logy to earth ly love , he

w h o d e s i re s p h i l o s op h ic a l l y a l s o d e s i re s p roc re a t i o n . In th e s a m e w a y in w h ic h

b e a u t i fu l c h i l d re n c a n b e c re a ted w i th a b e a u t i fu l b od y , th e p h i l o s op h ic a l l ov e r

can c reate beaut i fu l thoughts , v i r tues and a t t i tudes in a beaut i fu l sou l ; and

e v e n tu a l l y p o l i t i c a l c om m u n i t i e s , i n w h i c h re l a t i on s h ip s b a s e d on s u c h l o v e

take p lace , become be t te r . Further in the ascent , he reaches great and new

thou ght s in the area o f beau t i fu l k no w le dg e - for P la to tha t i s f i rs t o f a ll

m a th e m a t i c s a n d p h i l o s o p h y - i n o rd e r to u l t im a te l y re a c h th e on e g re at

kn ow le d g e w h i c h i s th e a im a n d e n d o f a i l d e s i re . In p os s e s s i on o f th i s k n o w l

e d g e , h e g a in s immor ta l i t y .

I f o n e c o m p a r e s t h e s e e x p l a n a t i o n s w i t h t h o s e o f A r i s t o p h a n e s ' , t h e p a r a

b o l i c n a t u r e o f t h e c o m i c p o e t ' s s p e e c h b e c o m e s i m m e d i a t e l y o b v i o u s .2 7

T h e

des i r ing ascent to the las t One , v ia the in termed ia te s tages o f love for beaut i fu l

b od ie s , s ou l s a n d kn owle d g e , i s r e p la c e d h e re b y th e d e s i r in g s e a rc h fo r th e

on e b e lon g in g b od y , th e l o s t h a l f , v i a th e i n te rme d ia te s ta g e s o f l ov e fo r v a r i

ou s d i f f e re n t l ov e d on e s , th e l ov e fo r th e b e l ov e d on e w i th w h o m on e is in

h a rmon y in a l l r e g a rd s , a n d u l t ima te l y - as the last aim - th e u n ion w i th h im a s

th e t ru e a n d on l y l o v e r , w h o h a s a lw a y s b e lo n g e d to on e s e l f ( j u s t a s th e i d e a o f

b e a u t y a s im mo r ta l i t y h a s a lwa y s b e e n th e re ) . A s i s t y p i c a l f o r h i s p a ra b le s ,

P la to has s taged the abs trac t l ine o f thought in concre te ac t ion . Accordingly,

p h i l o s op h ic a l l ov e i s p or t ra y e d in th e p a ra b le as p h y s i c a l l ov e , a n d th e n on -i n d i v i d u a l one i d e a o f th e ' i d e a o f b e a u ty ' i s i n d i v id u a l i ze d in th e s ou g h t -a f t e r

one Oth e r ; i n b o th c a s e s a c h ie v in g th e a i m p u ts a n e n d to d e s i re . Th i s n a r ra t i v e

t ra n s fo rm a t ion e n ta i l s th e e s ta b l i s h m e n t o f a t e mp ora l d im e n s io n , o f e v e n ts

h a p p e n in g in t im e ; th e t ime le s s n e s s o f an imm or ta l i d e a , a n d c on s e q u e n t l y th e

d e ta c h e d n e s s o f p h i l o s op h ic a l d e s i re f ro m t ime , i s d e p i c te d in th e p a ra d ox o f

the res t i tu t ion o f a past ideal s tate as the project of a distant future. B o l d e s t o f

a l l i s p ro b a b ly th e fo l l o w in g h y p o t h e s i s : D i o t im a d e s c r ib e s th e a s c e n t to th e

idea o f beau ty as a pro cess wh ic h beg ins wi th p hys ica l Er os , and in the cou rse

o f wh ic h th e e ro t i c i n te re s t mov e s to a lwa y s n e w a n d , a t th e s a me t ime , a lwa y s

l es s s p a t i a l l y a n d te m p or a l l y l im i te d ob j e c t s . He n c e , wh a t c h a n g e s is th e ob j e c t

re la t ion o f Eros , w h i le ne i ther the e rot ic in tens i ty n or the nature o f Ero s as

such chan ge . I t sh ou ld there fore be leg i t im ate to und ers ta nd the in te l lec tua l un

i on w i th th e id e a o f b e a u ty a s a s e x u a l a c t, a lb e i t a d i s e m b o d ie d a n d s u b l im a t

e d s e x u a l act.28Se e in g it th e n h a s to b e u n d e rs too d - c om p le te l y i n a c c o rd a n c e

26 Symp. 2 1 2 a 2 : ouvovroc,, 2 1 2 a 3 : tuctsiv, 2 I 2 a 5 : £<pcmTou<:vcp. See Sier (1997: 109-112) and

Tornau (2005: 277) .

27 O ne does not hav e to go as far as Reale (2001), wh o has seen Ar is top han es ' speech as a

code d vers ion o f Plato 's unwritten teachings , to ack no wle dge that both concept ions re late to

each other in ma ny w ay s and ob vio us l y have a paral le l des ign.

28 In Phaedrus 253e6-256a6 Plato g ives a s tr ik ing descr ipt ion of both the necess i ty and the d i f

f icu lt ies o f reject ing the desire for the phy sical sexua l act and of repla cing it w ith intellectual



100 Peter von Mollendorf f

w i th the c l a s s i ca l co nce p t o f s e e i ng ( se e Rakoczy 1 9 9 6 : 19-37) - as a k in d o f

t ac t i l e co n tac t , o r i nde e d r a the r a s an i mme r s i o n i n Be i ng i t s e l f , s i nce a pe r ce p

t i o n tha t r e l i e s o n d i s t ance can no t be tho u ght capa b l e o f pe r ce i v i n g an i n f i n i t e

B e i n g . "9

F r o m t h i s p o i n t o f v i e w it m a k e s i m m e d i a t e s e n s e fo r Diot ima to uses e x u a l t e r m i n o l o g y a l o n g s i d e epistemological t e r m i n o l o g y . H o w e v e r , t h i s u l

t i ma te e r o t ic ac t is pa r ad o x i c a l be ca use i t can o n l y be unde r s to o d as a l o ve i n

l o v e w i th i t s e l f , s i nce i t i s d i r e c te d a t t he i de a o f be au ty w h i ch do e s no t be l o ng

to the l e ve l o f r e a l i t y o f t he l o ve r ( c f . T o r nau 2 0 0 5 : 277-281). T h i s i n t e l l e c t u

a l l y b e c o m i n g o n e w i t h t h e O n e i s t h e n d e p i c t e d in A r i s t o p h a n e s ' p a r a b l e a s a

u n i o n w i t h t h e b e l o n g i n g o t h e r h a l f , w i t h - a s o u t l i n e d a b o v e - ' o n e ' s o w n

O t h e r ' . 3 0

T h e m e a n i n g o f A r i s t o p h a n e s ' s p e e c h , h o w e v e r , c a n n o t b e r e d u c e d to it s

pa rab o l i c natu re , in par t i cu lar bec aus e th i s para b le is put no t in to So cra tes ' b ut

i n t o a n o t h e r c h a r a c t e r 's m o u t h w h o - i f o n e as s um e d a pu r e l y pa r ab o l i c na tur e

- w o u l d b e r e d u c e d to a m e r e m o u t h p i e c e w h i c h i s n o t s u g g e s te d b y t h e text.3'

A s a m a t t e r o f f a c t , A r i s t o p h a n e s ' m y t h p r o v i d e s t w o m o t i f s w h i c h d o n o t

r e a l l y g o b e y o n d D i o t i m a ' s c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e e r o t ic p a t h , b u t w h i c h c h a r a c t er

i z e and as se s s i t an e w f r o m a d i f f e r e n t pe r sp e c t i ve . T he se a r e , o n the o n e ha nd ,

t h e m o t i f o f t h e p r i m e v a l h u m a n ' s iSpptt; - t h e ir w a n t i n g t o s t o r m M o u n t

O l y m p u s , s u p p l e m e n t e d b y A r i s t o p h a n e s ' f in al w a r n i n g a g a in s t f u t u r e t r a n s

g r e s s i o n s - and , o n the o the r hand , t he mo t i f o f t he monstrosity o f t he ha l ve d

m e n , w h i c h is m a n i f e s t e d n o t o n l y in t h e ir a p p e a r a n c e b u t m o s t o f al l in the

fac t o f t he i r e r o t i c de s i r e . I n w ha t f o l l o w s I w i sh t o de mo ns t r a te tha t , by i n t r o

d u c i n g th e s e m o t i f s , P l a t o e s t a b l i s h e s a v e r y u n u s u a l p e r s p e c t i v e o n h i s p h i l

o so ph i ca l d i s co u r se and sh o w s us the r ad i ca l i t y , i nacc e p ta b i l i t y and the d i s -

cruvoucua. What is depicted in the Symposium, however, is a union, because if the One is Be

ing as such then it cannot be understood as dist inguished from others: see Symp. 21 la7-bl:

( . . . ) OYISE TVC, Xoyoc, oi&i TIC hamr\yir\, or>8s nov ov EV kxzpa TIVI, otov iv L/OOJ i) iv yfj r\ kv

oupavco r) ev T« aXhi) ("[Nor again will our init iate f ind the beautiful] as a part icular descrip

t ion or p iece of knowledge, nor as exis t ing somewhere in another substance, such as an ani

mal or the earth or sky or any other thing").

2 9 T h e Symposium here, in my op in ion, in many ways goes beyond comparable descr ipt ions of

the ascent of the intellect in the Phaedms. There the charioteer of the soul chariot manages

for a shorter or longer t ime to catch sight of the realm of ideas. But Socrates argues there that

the ideas are located at a imepoupdvtoc, TOTIOC; above the sky (Phaedrus 247b6-e6) where they

present themselves to the s ight of the gods and of h im who is capable of fol lowing them.

Tac t i le contact is not m ent ioned.

30 On e may ask to wha t extent the aspect o f belo ngin g wh ich is crucial for Aris top han es depicts

the re lat ion of the One to the wor ld (see Diot ima's cr i t ique in Symp. 205dl0-206al). Tenta

t ive ly I w ou ld refer here to the theorem o f 'part icip atio n' (neOsqic) which a lso propagates a

connect ion of the One and the many which is ind issolub le but not real ized in a knowing or

conscious way in every day l i fe and act ions .

31 A proof to the contrary l ies part icularly in the fact that Diot ima explicit ly contradicts Aristo

phanes ' pos i t ion (see above n . 24) .



M a n a s M o n s t e r 10 1

tur b i ng na tur e o f such th i nk i n g w h i ch n o t o n l y i rr it a te s m e n i n the da i l y app l i

c a t i o n o f t he i r va l ue s ys te ms , bu t a l so que s t i o ns the r e l a t i o nsh i p be tw e e n me n

and go d s . I w i l l f i r s t de m o ns t r a te t o w ha t e x te n t Diot ima's m e t a p h y s i c a l p h i

l o so ph i z i ng and the be hav i o ur o f he r d i s c i p l e S o c r a te s can be se e n as uPpic,.

Af te r tha t I w i l l a sk i f S o c r a te s i n h is st a te o f ph i l o so ph i ca l de s i r e sho w s as

pe c t s o f m o ns t r o s i t y , and i f t he e ve n t s un fo l d i ng a r o u nd h i m fit into the

sch e m e o f ac t i o n w h i ch i s char ac te r i s t ic f o r t he c l a s s i ca l d i s co ur se o f t he m o n

s t r o us .

C a n t h e w a y o f p h i l o s o p h i z i n g p r o p a g a t e d b y D i o t i m a a n d p r a c ti s ed b y

S o c r a t es b e s e e n a s a ' tr a n s g r e s s i o n ' ? T h e a n s w e r m u s t b e " y e s " i f D i o t i m a ' s

th i n k i ng i s a s se s se d f r o m the pe r sp e c t i ve o f t r ad i t io na l r e l i g i o s i t y . M yt h co n

f i rms that even the a t tempt o f humans to see gods in the i r t rue appearance i s

p u n i s h e d m o s t h e a v i l y ( e .g . A c t a e o n , Semele); this is a l l the more true for at

tempts a t sexua l assau l t (e .g . lxion).'~ With th i s in mind , the des i re no t on ly to

se e , bu t a l so to s e e k un i o n w i th ' d i v i n e be a u ty ' a s a r t i cu l a te d by D i o t i m a and

S o cr a te s (Symp. 21 l e 3 ) i s f a r f r o m unproblematic. I f the spac e o f true be ing i s

a d i v i ne space 3 3 t he n the t abo o o f i nv i o l ab i l i t y mus t a priori be val id for i t ,34

and th ink ing , in par t i cu lar i f i t i s unders tood as an ero t i c ac t i v i ty , cou ld no t

c l a i m an e xc e p t i o n f r o m the l aw . T h e w a y i n w h i c h S o c r a te s t a lk s abo u t the se

i s sue s dur i ng the banque t a l so can be c r i t i c i z e d f r o m a r e l i g i o us po i n t o f v i e w :

D i o t i m a has e xp l a i n e d he r r e ve l a t i o ns t o S o c r a te s , e sp e c i a l l y t he la s t part tha tco ve r s the v i s i o n o f t he One , a s an i n i t i a t i o n i n to the mys te r i e s , a s he r t e r mi

n o l o g y c l e a r l y s h o w s ( e s p . Symp. 209e5-2IOa2). Ye t o ne had t o r e ma i n s i l e n t

abo u t w ha t o ne e xpe r i e nce d i n the co ur se o f i n i t i a t i o ns , such as tha t w h i ch

to o k p l ac e e ve r y five ye a r s a t t he Gr e a t Mys te r i e s a t E l e us i s . H o w se r i o u s l y

th is r e l i g i o us l aw w as t ak e n is sh o w n b y the t ri al f o r p r o fan a t i o n o f t he M ys te r

ies in 41 5 , on e yea r a f ter the f i c t i t i o us date o f the Symposium, w h e r e Alc i -

b i a d e s a m o n g s t o t h e r s w a s a c c u s e d o f h a v i n g p r o f a n e d t h e M y s t e r i e s b y r e -

e nac t i ng the m i n h i s p r i va te ho use . D i vu l g i ng se c r e t s o f t he mys te r i e s dur i ng a

banq ue t co u l d w e l l be unde r s to o d as a f o r m of SPptg.Ap ar t f r o m the se t r ansgr e s s i o ns , S o c r a te s is e x p l i c i t l y de sc r i b e d as f u l l o f

uPpi? i n h i s r e l a t i o nsh i ps w i th o the r s mo r e f r e que n t l y t han i n any o the r o f

3 2 T h i s i s e v e n tr u e f o r s e x u a l a p p r o a c h e s t o w a r d s t h e statue o f a g o d : s ee ( P s . - ) L u c i a n , Am . 15

( A p h r o d i t e ' s s t a tu e o f P r a x i t e l e s a t K n i d o s ) .

3 3 T h i s i s n o t p r e c l u d e d b y t h e f a c t t h a t D i o t i m a r e f u s e s t o s e e "Eptoc, a s a g o d a n d r a t h e r i d e n t i f ie s h i m as Oai po jv (Symp. 2 0 2 b 10 - e i ) . S i mi l a r l y , t h e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e h e a v e n o f

t h e g o d s a n d t h e vmEpoupdvioc, toiroc, ( s e e a b o v e n . 2 9 ) o f id e a s e v e n f u r t h e r a b o v e i t. u n d e r

t a k e n i n t h e Phaedrus, o n l y c o n s t i t u t e s a r e l o c a t i o n o f t h e p r o b l e m .

3 4 T h e g i a n t s w h i c h A r i s t o p h a n e s i n t r o d u c e s i n t h e b e g i n n i n g f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f c o m p a r i s o n a r e

l i k e w i s e p u n i s h e d f o r t h ei r a t t e m p t t o c o n q u e r M o u n t O l y m p u s (Symp. 190b5-c I ) .



102 P e t e r von Mfj l lendorf f

P l a to ' s t e x t s . E r o s i s a l r e ady a l w ay s i n dang e r o f v i o l a t i ng o the r s (H un te r

2 0 0 4 : 17), and in the case o f Socrates , as the remarks o f the o ther par t i c ipants

o f t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n c l e a r l y s h o w , it i s m o s t l y e m o t i o n a l v i o l a t i o n s , n a m e l y t h e

sne e r i ng r e j e c t i o n o f a l l t ho s e w h o f e e l e r o t i ca l l y a t tr ac te d t o h i m and se e k h i sa t t e n t io n a n d i n s t r u c t i on . E x p o n e n t o f t h e s e ' v i c t i m s ' o f S o c r a t e s i n t h e Sym -

posium is A l c i b i a d e s . H e r e p o r t s in h i s s p e e c h h o w a s a y o u n g m a n , c o n f i d e n t

i n h i s o w n go o d l o o k s , he t r i e d t o se duce S o c r a te s and w as r e j e c te d , de sp i t e h i s

i n te n t i o n t o be co m e as go o d as po s s i b l e w i th S o c r a te s ' he l p a s a t e ache r (Symp.

218d2). O f f e n d e d b y s u c h c o o l n e s s , h e a p p a r e n t l y g a v e u p o n h is p h i l o s o p h i c a l

e f f o r t s . A n d y e t S o c r a te s h i m s e l f e m p h a s i z e s i n t h e Phaedrus t ha t no t e ve r y

bo dy i s g i v e n the o ppo r tun i t y t o ac co m p l i sh i n th i s l i f e t he asce n t i n to the

rea lm o f ideas , but that apar t f rom th i s there are a l so second and th i rd bes t

w a y s o f l i f e a n d p h i l o s o p h i z i n g (Phaedrus 2 5 3 b 7 - e 2 ) . W h i c h p a t h o n e t a k e s

de pe nd s o n w h i c h o f t he tw e l ve g o d s the so u l had a f f i l i a t e d i t s e l f t o in it s p r e

v i o u s d i s e m b o d i e d w a n d e r i n g s . A l c i b i a d e s ' self-perception p r e t e n t i o u s l y a i m s

a t a n a f f i l i a t i o n w i t h Z e u s ( s e e b e l o w , p . 1 0 7 ) d u e t o w h i c h h e w o u l d h a v e

b e e n p o t e n t i a l l y p r e d e s t i n e d f o r t h e h i g h e s t l e v e l o f p h i l o s o p h i z i n g (Phdr.

2 5 2 e 2 - 2 5 3 c 2 , 2 4 8 c 5 - e 3 ) . B u t t h is w a s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y ' t h e t r u t h ', a n d S o c r a te s

s h o w s a f t e r A l c i b i a d e s ' n a r r a t i on v e r y l i tt le e m p a t h y , a s o p p o s e d t o h i s b e h a v

i o u r t o w a r d s y o u n g P h a e d r u s i n t h e d i a l o g u e n a m e d a f t e r h i m . T h i s i s a ll th e

mo r e r e mar k ab l e i n so fa r a s S o c r a te s , a t l e as t acco r d i ng t o h i s r e pr e se n ta t i o n i nt h e t e x ts o f P l a t o a n d X e n o p h o n , s e e m s to h a v e u n d e r s t o o d t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f

k n o w l e d g e a s a n i n d i v i d u a l c o g n i t i v e a c h i e v e m e n t g u i d e d b y a t e a c h e r , r at he r

than as i n s t r uc t i o n i n a so ph i s t i c m ann e r . It m ay the r e fo r e be appr o p r i a te t o

spe ak he r e o f a d i dac t i c f a i l u r e o f S o c r a te s w he n he po ss i b l y o ve r e s t i m ate d h i s

s t u d e n t ' s c a p a b i l i t i e s to m a k e f u r t h er p h i l o s o p h i c a l p r o g r e s s.3 6 S i m i l a r l y , S o c

r a te s ' pa r tne r s i n d i a l o gue have aga i n and aga i n pe r ce i ve d h i s p r e te nde d i gno

r ance as sipcoveia, a w o r d w h i c h d o e s n o t c a r r y p o s i t i v e c o n n o t a t i o n s i n G r e e k

but de no te s a d i s s i m u l a t i o n f o r bad pur p o se s . It i s t hus no t sur pr i s i n g that S o c -

35 Righ t at the beg inn ing of the banqu et the host Agat ho n crit icizes Socrates for ha vin g ridi

culed him already in the f irst words after his arrival with his infamous irony (Symp. !75e7) .

The speeches of Pausanias and Eryxiniachus later on make it clear that Eros in conjunction

wi th uPpic, can cause a lot of harm; see Symp. 181c (Pausa nias) and 188a (E ryxim ach us) .

Then Alc ib iades uses such a reproach even four t imes exp l ic i t ly in the course of h is speech

(Symp. 215b7, 219c5, 221e3, 222a8) ; and in addit ion to that he twice (Symp. 222b3 and 5 )

raises the reproach that Socrates tricks (eficaiaTfiv) those who place their trust in him for

which Alc ib iades l is ts further names .

36 See in general with regard to crit icism o f Soc rates' didactic aptitude Nussbaum (1980) as

wel l as M ol l en do rf f (2002 : 1 35-137 ) . In the dep ict ion of Socrates ' ins truct ion in Ar is to

phanes ' Clouds he also does not take into consideration the (rather underdeveloped) intellec

tual capacit ies of his student Strepsiades.




r a t e s i n t h e Symposium i s , w i t h A r i s t o p h a n e s a s t h e s o l e e x c e p t i o n , 3 7 s u r

r o u n d e d o n l y b y m e n w h o t h e m s e l v e s q u a l i f y i n o n e w a y o r o t h e r a s g u i l t y o f

uPpiq, a f a c t w h i c h b e c a m e p a r t i c u l a r l y o b v i o u s i n t h e h i s t o r i c a l c o n t e x t o f t h e

y e a r 4 1 6 . 3 8 I f , h o w e v e r , S o c r a t e s g a t h e r s t h e s e k i n d s o f p e o p l e a r o u n d h i m s e l f ,

t h e n t h e a c c u s a t i o n o f c o r r u p t i n g t h e y o u t h a s d o c u m e n t e d i n t h e Apology m a y

h a v e f o u n d s o m e a p p r o v a l in t h e g e n e r a ! p u b l i c . I n a n y c a s e , P l a t o h a s o b v i

o u s l y v e r y a d v i s e d l y c h o s e n t h e y e a r 4 1 6 a s t h e d i a l o g u e ' s fictitious d a t e .

T h e s e c o n d q u e s t i o n i s w h e t h e r S o c r a t e s i s a l s o m o n s t r o u s b e y o n d h i s

SfSpic;. I s A r i s t o p h a n e s ' c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f t h e e r o t i c h u m a n b e i n g a s monstrum,

a n d S o c r a t e s is a c c o r d i n g t o a l l s y m p o s i a s t s t h e m o s t e m i n e n t e r o t i c i s t , r e a l

i z e d i n t h e p o r t r a y a l o f t h e p h i l o s o p h e r a n d h i s a c t i o n s ? L e t u s i n i t i a l l y e n q u i r e

i n t o h o w f a r t h e f ive c r i t e r i a o f m o n s t r o s i t y - a w f u l n e s s t h r o u g h e x c e p t i o n a l i t y ,

b e i n g s e n t b y a g o d , o m i n o u s s i g n i f i c a n c e , c o u n t e r - n a t u r a l n e s s a n d u g l i n e s s -

c a n b e a p p l i e d t o h i m a n d h i s p h i l o s o p h i z i n g . L o o k i n g a t S o c r a t e s ' o w n s p e e c h

d o e s n o t b r i n g u s a n y f u r t h e r h e r e , b u t t h e w a y A l c i b i a d e s , w h o a p p e a r s u n e x -

3 7 B u t t h e o l d A t t i c c o m e d y , w h i c h A r i s t o p h a n e s represents, i s by de f in i t i on kno wn t o use a hy

per b o l i c d i scou r se o f po l em ic a t ta cks aga ins t ever y t h ing a nd ever y one ( i f sa nc t ioned by t he

p e r f o r m a t i v e c o n t e x t o f th e D i o n y s i a n f e s t iv a l s ) .

38 O ne year a f ter the f ic t i t iou s date o f the Symposium P ha edr us i s , like Eryximachus, i n v o l v e d

i n t h e H e r m o c o p i d s c a n d a l . E r y x i m a c h u s . a b o u t w h o m w e k n o w v e r y l it tl e in general, be

l o n g e d l i k e P h a e d r u s ( A n d o c i d e s , Myst. 1 5 ) t o t hose wh o wer e de nou nce d in t h i s con t ex t

( A n d o c i d e s , Myst. 3 5 ) : t hey wer e t r ied and cond em ne d t o ex i l e . Aga t ho n , h i s perenn ia l f r i end

P a u s a n i a s a n d A l c i b i a d e s - a s w h o s e epaoiric, Socr a t es i s seen - wer e soc ia l l y con sp icu ous .

Aga t hon wa s a l r ea dy a t t he f i c t i t i ous da t e o f P la t o ' s Protagoras, a r o u n d 432/431, a c h a r m i n g

Epo)U£voi;, and he st il l i s no w - but 16 years la ter he is def in i te ly beyond the age in which the

r o le o f a be love d on e in a peder a s t ic r e la t ionsh ip co u ld be deem ed a cce p t a b le by so c ie t y : it is

not without reason that h is fe l low symposiast A r i s t o p h a n e s i n h i s Thesmophoriazusae a i m s

h is r ema r ks a t h im dur ing t he Lena ia o f t he yea r 411, por t r a y ing h im a s a n e f f em ina t e , ev en

dow nr ig h t t r a nssexua l , t r ag ic poet . Th i s mo cke r y a l so touches, o f course, the no less grown

up P a usa n ia s a bout w ho m we on ly k no w t ha t he la ter on a ccom pa n ied Ag a t ho n t o Achelous

in Pella. Alc ib ia de s is l i kew ise s ign i f i ca n t l y inv o lve d in t he He r m oco p id a nd my s t er y sca n

da ls , deser ts to Spar ta and leads Athens in the fo l lowing years into most ser ious mi l i tary ca

l a m i t ies . In 414, he is put on stage again by Aristophanes, th is t ime in the Birds, i f one a gr ees

with the a l legor ica l interpreta t ion, which a substant ia l par t o f scholarship suggests for th is

c o m e d y ' s p r o t a g o n i s t , P e i s e t a r i u s , a upptq-driven a nd v io len t cha r a c t er who even de t hr ones

t he god s . A s i s gene r a l l y kn ow n , Soc r a t es a l so beca me a v i c t im o f Ar i s t op ha n es ' a rt o f

mocker y , na mely seven yea r s p r io r t o t he Symposium in the Clouds, wh ich wa s per fo r m ed f o r

t he f ir st t ime in 4 2 3 ; in it s second ver s ion , ho we ver , wh ic h ha s com e do wn t o us a nd on

w h i c h A r i s t o p h a n e s w o r k e d d u r i n g 4 2 0 a n d 415 ( a nd , hence, a ga in in t he chr on o log ic a l con

text o f the f ic t i t ious date o f the Symposium), he is not g iven the ro le o f the protagonist but

that o f an antagonist who, in the end, is bruta l ly destroyed, a l though h is teaching bears ba le

fu l f ru i t s wh ich ou t l i v e t he end o f h i s ow n ex i s t e nce : Th e p r o t a gon is t S t r eps ia des se t s the

house o f Socrates , h is son 's teacher , on f i re because h is son has turned the teachings o f the

'ph i lo s oph is t ' a ga ins t h i s ow n f a t her , bu t t he soph is t i ca l l y co r r up t ed son sur v ives o f cour se .

Ag a i n , t her e i s dou b t less ly a n a ccusa t ion o f uPptc, aga inst Socrates in the background A s t o

th e uppig-ridden character o f the d ia logue par tners in the Symposium s e e V l a s t o s (1971) and

G a g a r i n (1977); s e e a l s o B l a n c k e n h a g e n (1992).



104 Peter von Mollendorff

p e c t e d l y , p o r t r a y s h i m i n h i s s p e e c h is i n s t r u c t i v e . I f w e u n d e r s t a n d A r i s t o

p h a n e s ' s p e e c h a s a p a r a b l e , t h e n it i s s t r i k i n g t h at A l c i b i a d e s o p e n s h i s s t a t e

m e n t a b o u t S o c r a t e s wi th a p a r a b l e t o o , n a m e l y o n e in w h i c h S o c r a t e s a p p e a r s

a s a h y b r i d c r e a t u r e (Symp. 215b3 - 6 ) :

KCU <pr|pi o.v EoiKgvai aoxdv xto actrupco TM Maporjq. oxi u i v OUV TO ys EISOC,

opoioc, s i xouxoic,, d> EtoKpaxsc,, oi>S' auxoc, av TOU du.(pia|3r|Triaaic/ <hc, SE ra l

xoXka soirac,, pexd xouxo aKoue.

" I further suggest that he resembles the satyr Marsyas. Now, as to your l ike

ness , Socrates, to these in f igure, I do not suppose even you yoursel f wi l l d is

pute it ; but 1 have next to tel l you that you are l ike them in every other re

spect . "

L i k e a s i l e n u s - a h y b r i d c r e a t u r e , p a r t m a n , p a r t h o r s e — S o c r a t e s i s h e e d l e s s

a n d v i o l e n t i n l o v e a f f a i r s , a uPpiaTqc;; l ik e M a r s y a s , h e is s o m e o n e w h o

k n o w s h o w t o e n c h a n t p e o p l e . B u t t h e s e a r e a l l s u p e r f i c i a l i t i e s , a s i s t h e c a s e

w i t h t h e f o l d i n g S i l e n u s s c u l p t u r e s (Symp. 2 1 6 d 6 - 2 1 7 a 2 ) :

EVSOHEV Se dvoixQEic, Jtoanc (made ysiiEi, d> dvSpsc, au)i7t6xai, aco<ppocruvr|c,;

I'oxE oxt ouxs si' xic, Kakoq eazi ueêi auxco OTJSEV, aXKa icaxatppovei T o a o m o v

oaov or>8' a v BU; oiq0ein, OUT' SI TIC, jrXouatoc,, OUT' si aXXnv xivd xtu.r|v EX<BV

xcov wto 7iXr\Qovq parapiôuivcov- r tye ixai SE 7 t d v x a x a u x a x d Kxf|j.iaxa

OUSEVOC, a£xa icai rju.dc, OUSEV sivat - Xsyai upiv - sipcovst)6u.Evoc, SE Kal

7ta(^(8v jtdvxa TO V plov Ttpoc, xovq dvOpamouc, SiaTE^st. cmouSdaavToc, SE

auToC K a l dvoi^0e\'TOi; OUK 018a elite, scopaKEV xd EVXOC, dydXpaxa- &X\' syw

rjSn, nox' eiSov, KM! fioi ESOÊV orSxw OsTa K al xpu°d sivai ra t TtdyraXa Kal

9auuaaxd, COOTE TOinxEov Etvai spPpaxv ° T L KEXETJOI Io)Kpdxr|c,.

"(•••) I f yo u op ened his ins ide , yo u cann ot ima gine h ow ful l he is , go od cu p-

com pa nio ns , o f sobr iety. I te l l yo u, a l l the beauty a man m ay h ave is nothin g

to him; he despises i t more than any of you can bel ieve; nor does wealth at

tract him, nor any sort o f honour that is the envied pr ize of the crowd. Al l

these possessions he counts as nothing worth, and al l o f us as nothing, I assure

you; he spends h i s who le l i fe in chaf f ing and mak ing game o f h i s fe l low-men.Whether anyone e l se has caught h im in a ser ious moment and opened h im,

and seen the images ins ide, I know not ; but I saw them one day, and thought

them so divine and golden, so perfect ly fa ir and wondrous, that I s imply had

to do as Socrates bade me."

T h a t S o c r a t e s ' i m p a c t o n h i s a u d i e n c e is o f a w o n d r o u s a n d t e r r i f y i n g n a t u r e is

s ta te d b y A l c i b i a d e s w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o h i s p o w e r t o e n c h a n t p e o p l e (Symp.

215d3 - 6 ) :

E7E£iSdv SE OOU xic, dicoui j T \ x<5v owv Xoytov dXXou Xgyovxoc,, K S V j tdvu (pauXoc,f| 6 Xsycov, sdvxE yuv f | dicoori EOVXE dvr|p EOVXE psipdiaov, sK7i£7tA,r|yu.EVot

sau iv K a l Kax£x6u£0a.

"B ut so soon as w e hear yo u, or you r discourses in the mo uth o f another , -

though such person be ever so poor a speaker , and whether the hearer be a

wo m an or a man or a youngster - we ar e all astounded and entranced."

http://rju.dc/

http://rju.dc/



Man as Monster 105

T h e a s p e c t o f o m in o u s s i g n i f i c anc e is c l o s e l y l i nk e d w i t h t h i s s i nc e t he o u t e r

fo r m fu nc t io ns , du e t o it s an a l og y t o the op en ab le s i len us s t a tuet t e, as a s igna l

t hat t he r e a r e im a g e s o f g o ld e n d i v in i t y h id d e n w i t h in h i m . A t t he s am e t im e

t h i s c an c o un t a s e v id e nc e f o r t he c r i t e r i o n o f b e ing g o d s e n t . T he c o m p ar i s o nt o M ar s y a s a l s o f u l f i l s t he c r i te r i a o f c o un t e r - na t u r a lne s s and ug l i ne s s b y e v o k

i ng t he S i l e nu s ' hy b r id i t y .

Figure 4: Monstrosity as sign of disruption between man and god

I f Socrates can there fore , ca tegor ica l ly speak ing , be seen as a monstrum then

f ina l l y w e hav e t o a s k ho w f a r t he p l o t f o l l o w s t he r u l e s o f t he m o ns t e r d i s

course . Le t us br ing t o mind f o r th is purpose the agent s and vec tors o f t he d is

c o ur s e v e r s i o n t y p i c a l f o r c l a s s i c a l t ho ug h t , t he o ne i n w h i c h t he m o ns t r o us i s

und e r s t o o d a s a s i g n o f t he e x i s t e n c e o f a d i s r up t i o n w ho s e d i v ine p un i s hm e nt

it he r a ld s ( f i g . 4 ) . T h i s r a the r s y m m e t r i c a l m o d e l r e v e a l s a b l an k p o s i t i o n b e

c aus e t he monstrum i t se l f i s usu a l ly p ure ly an ob jec t ; it i s pr ov ok ed by a d is

rupt ion , c reated by a go d , and in terpre ted by m an , but it doe s no t ha ve an ac -

tivity of its own, in part icular none that is d irected towards the future, that is

t o w ar d s t he t im e w he n , ac c o r d ing t o t he s y s t e m , t he c a t a s t r o p he , p un i s hm e nt ,

i s t o b e e xp e c t e d ; it i s , ho w e v e r , u s ua l l y m an ' s t a s k to r e l a te t he o m in o u s s i g -




nif icance o f t h e momtrum to pas t and future and to t ry to prevent the pred ic ted

c o n s e q u e n c e s . Y e t it i s e x a c t l y h e r e t h a t A r i s t o p h a n e s i n t e r fe r e s w i t h th e t r a d i

t i o n a l m o d e l a n d t u r n s it o n i t s h e a d : b y p o r t r a y i n g m a n h i m s e l f a s m o n s t r o u s

he pr o j ec t s h i s s t r uc t ur a l po s i t i o n o n t o t ha t o f t he mo ns t e r , and by means o f

t h i s p r o j e c t i o n h e c a n a l s o e q u i p t h e m o n s t e r w i t h h u m a n a c t i v i t y . F o r t h e

h a l v e d h u m a n s in t h e ir mostrosity a re p a r t i c u l a r l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y a v e h e m e n t

ac t i v i t y , the i r e r o t i c pur su i t , and t h i s pu r su i t a im s in pe r f ec t co n f o r m i t y w i t h

t he s ys t em o n t he o ne hand a t p r event ing t he t hr ea t en ing ca t as t r o phe o f ano t her

d i v i s io n in t he f u t ur e by ex er c i s in g the g r ea t es t p ie t y po ss ib le , and o n t he o t her

ha nd a t r e s t i t u t ing t he o r ig ina l hu m an na t ur e f r o m be f o r e t he f irs t d i v i s io n .

T h e s e a r c h a i c c re a t u r es , h o w e v e r , w e r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y t h ei r o u t r a g e o u s uPpic;

and n o t b y p ie t y . Th e des i r e f o r t he r e s t i t u t io n o f t he dpxata y&oic, i n c l u d e s

t her e f o r e a t t he sam e t im e t he o ld de s i r e f o r t he des t r u c t io n o f t he cur r en t a nd

g o d - g i v e n o r d e r 3 9 b y m e a n s o f e s t a b l i s h i n g a n e w o n e b a s e d o n th e h y p e r b o l i

c a l oouuexpia o f m a n , w h i c h i s y e t t o b e r e g a i n e d . T h e m o n s t e r , m a n , h e n c e

su f f e r s f r o m h i s cur r en t de f o r med na t ur e and t hus a l so f r o m t he cur r en t o r der ,

a n d w o u l d , c i r c u m s t a n c e s p e r m i t t i n g , w o r k t o w a r d s its o v e r t h r o w . H o w e v e r , i s

n o t t h e t r a n s c e n d e n t a l p h i l o s o p h i z i n g t h a t S o c r a t e s a n d Diot ima p r o p a g a t e a l s o

s u s p e c t e d o f a t t e m p t i n g to o v e r t h r o w t h e c u r r e n t w o r l d v i e w , n a m e l y t h e tr a d i

t i o na l co nser va t i ve r e l ig io us o r der t ha t i s s t ipu la t ed by t he cu l t o f t he polis a n d

i ts s u p p o r t i n g m y t h s , o f a t t e m p t i n g , as it w e r e , t o ' i n t e l l e c t u a l l y s t o r m ' M o u n t

O l y m p u s ? A f t e r a l l , S o c r a t e s ' p r o s e c u t o r s , a s w e le a rn f r o m t he Apology,

c l a i m i n 3 9 9 th a t S o c r a t e s is g u i l t y o f n o t w o r s h i p p i n g t h e g o d s w o r s h i p p e d b y

t he po l i s . Thus no t o n ly as l o ve r bu t also as ph i lo so ph ica l e r o t i c i s t , a s a t h inker

w h o s t r i ved w i t h a i l h i s po w er t o o b t a in t he o b j ec t o f h i s t ho u ght and w h o i s

t her eby p r epar ed even t o t r ansgr ess t he bo r der s se t t o humans , So cr a t es i s

guilty of uPpis par excellence.

I t s e em s t o m e t ha t P l a t o ind eed in t e nde d t o m ak e h i s r ec ip ie n t s t h ink

a l o n g th e s e l i n e s , a n d t h at h e c o n s e q u e n t l y d r a s t i c a l l y s t a g e d th e p o t e n t i a l c o n

s e q u e n c e s o f s u c h i n t e l l e c tu a l b e h a v i o u r w i t h t h e p u n i s h m e n t o f a f u r t h e r d i v i

s i o n , a s e x p r e s s e d i n A r i s t o p h a n e s ' s p e e c h . I c o m e to t h i s c o n c l u s i o n i n p a r

t i c u l a r b e c a u s e i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r S o c r a t e s ' {)Ppic;-laden r e v e l a t i o n s A l c i b i a d e s

suddenly a p p e a r s , a l m o s t l i k e a d i v i n e e p i p h a n y . A l c i b i a d e s ' q u a s i - d i v i n e a m

b i t i o n s w e r e n o t o n l y m o c k e d b y A r i s t o p h a n e s in h i s Birds in 414,40 t w o y e a r s

af ter the f ic t i t ious date o f the Symposium, i n wh ich he l e t s h im t ake t he p lace

39 This, in my opinion , can be well related to a corresponding European controversy in the second half of the 17th century (Daston & Park 2002: 248): "Viele Theologen, gewarnt durch

das Wissen, daB Menschen Briiche der natiirlichen Ordnung als Einladung zum Brechen derstaatlichen Ordnung nutzten, gingen mit Vorzeichen und Wundern genauso sparsam um wiedie Naturphilosophen".

40 See esp. Vickers (1995). The discussion of the question whether or not the protagonist of the

Birds, Peisetarius. alludes to A lcibiades is presented in M ollend orff (2002: 108-113).




o f a b d i c a t i n g Z e u s , bu t w e r e a l s o m a d e o b v i o u s b y th e h i s t o r ic a l A l c i b i a d e s

h i m s e l f i n h i s c h o i c e o f c r es t w h i c h d e p i c t e d t he g o d E r o s w i t h Z e u s ' t h u n d e r

bo l t i n h i s hand.41 T h i s w o u l d - b e Z e u s A l c i b i a d e s n o w l ie s d o w n o n t he c o u c h

o n w h i c h A g a t h o n a n d S o c r a te s , w h o m A l c i b i a d e s d o e s n o t r e c o g n i z e i m m e d i

a t e l y , a r e l y i n g t o g e t h e r , a n d h e l ie s d o w n b e t w e e n t h e m .

T h i s s e p a r a t i o n o f t h e t w o e r o t i c i s t s i s i n t e r p r e t e d b y A g a t h o n , a f t e r A l c i

b i a d e s ' s p e e c h a c c u s e d S o c r a t e s o f e r o t ic uppiq, a s j e a l o u s y a i m i n g a t s e p a r a t

i n g t h e m (Symp. 2 2 2 e l - 2 ) :

T£K|icupouai 5E Kai t x > < ; KaTEKXivn ev pEocp eiiou TE KCU aoti, t'va x^P 1?

" I t a k e h i s s i t t i n g d o w n b e t w e e n u s t w o a s a n o b v i o u s a t t e m p t t o d r a w u s

a p a r t . "

T h i s c u m b e r s o m e f o r m u l a t i o n f o r t h e p r o c e s s o f ' s e p a r a t i o n ' a l r e a d y m a k e s

o n e p r i c k u p o n e ' s e a r s : u n t i l n o w t h e w h o l e d r a m a t i c a c t i o n s e e m s li k e a s t a g

i n g o f A r i s t o p h a n e s ' d i v i s i o n m y t h r e d u c e d t o e a r t h l y - r e a l i s t i c c o n d i t i o n s : t h e

s e p a r a t i o n o f t h e u n i t e d l o v e r s ( o n t h e c o u c h ) b y Z e u s a n d , t h u s , t h e d r a m a t i z a

t i o n o f t h e n a r r a t i v e a b o u t t h e o r i g i n o f t h e m o n s t e r s .

I m m e d i a t e l y a f te r t hi s, h o w e v e r , A l c i b i a d e s ' d i v i n e p o s e s u d d e n l y c o l

l a p s e s a s h e tu r n s h i s h e a d a n d r e c o g n i z e s S o c r a t e s w h o l i e s b e h i n d h i m (Symp.

213b7-9 ) :

Km S u a (iETaoTp£(p6|.iEvov CUJTOV o p a v TOV ZcuKpaTn, iSovra fts dvcmriSf jaai

Kai EiJtEtv '£2 'HpaK^Eti;, TOUT! T( r|v;

" W i t h t h at h e t u r n e d a b o u t a n d s a w S o c r a t e s , a n d t h e s a m e m o m e n t l e a p t u p

a n d c r i e d , ' S av e u s , w h a t a sur p r i se ! ' "

I s t h i s f r i g h t - a g a i n c r i t e r i o n ( a ) - n o t c a u s e d b y A l c i b i a d e s ' r e c o g n i z i n g in

S o c r a t e s h i s t r ue a n d p r o f o u n d l o v e - o r s h o u l d w e n o t s a y w i t h A r i s t o p h a n e s :

h i s ( f r o m A l c i b i a d e s ' p o i n t o f v i e w ) o w n o t h e r h a l f - a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y , is n o t

w h a t h e r e p o r t s i n h i s s p e e c h t h e s t o r y o f a ( f o r h i m ) tr a g i c l o s s ? I f t h a t w e r e t o

b e t h e c a s e th e n th e d e t a i l s o f t h e s t a g i n g o f t h i s m o m e n t w o u l d b e r a t h e r s i g

n i f i c a n t b e c a u s e P l a t o m a k e s A l c i b i a d e s a d o p t in t h e m o m e n t o f f r i g h t f u l r e c

o g n i t i o n t h e v e r y p o s i t i o n t h a t Z e u s h a d i n i t i a l l y f o r c e d u p o n m a n a f t e r t h e d i

v i s i o n : t h e f a c e d i r e c t e d t o w a r d s t h e lost h a l f ( S o c r a t e s ) , t h e s e x u a l o r g a n

t u r n e d t o w a r d s th e o t h e r s i d e ( A g a t h o n ) .

I s t h a t y e t a n o t h e r m o n s t r o u s s i g n t h a t t h r o u g h S o c r a t e s t h e o r d e r o f t h e

w o r l d i s b e i n g d i s r u p t e d ? I n a n y c a s e , b y it s r e f e r e n c e to t h e d i s c o u r s e o f th e

m o n s t r o u s , A r i s t o p h a n e s ' p a r a b l e m a k e s n ot o n l y th e b l i s s o f t r a n s c e n d e n t a l

c o g n i t i o n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e , b u t it m o r e o v e r n a m e s ( n o t a b l y f r o m a r a d i c a l l y

c o n s e r v a t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e ) t h e p r i c e th a t h a s t o b e p a i d f o r m e t a p h y s i c a l ambi -

41 See Plutarch, Ale. 16.1-2, and Athenaeus, Deipn. 12 534e .




tions, n a me ly i n th e c a s e o f th e i r fulfilment: t h e d a n g e r o f a n o v e r t h r o w o f

w or ld o r d e r ; i n th e c a s e o f th e i r failure: e x i s te n t i a l i s o l a t i on . I f So c ra t e s ' s u b

s e q u e n t d e a th c a n n o t on l y b e h i s to r i c a l l y l i n ke d w i th th e s oc ia l a n d p o l i t i c a l

f a i l u re o f h i s f r i e n d s a n d s tu d e n ts , b u t a l s o re p re s e n ts th e d e a th wh ic h Soc ra te s

p re d i c t s i n th e s e v e n th b o ok o f th e Republic f o r th e p h i l o s o p h e r th a t re tu rn s

in to th e c a v e (Rep. 7 , 516e8-517a7), then the Symposium i l l u s t ra te s wh a t c ou ld

b e th e d e e p e r re a s on fo r s u c h a tra g i c e n d in g , f o r s u c h a f a r - r e a c h in g l o s s o f

s o c i a l a n d i n t e r p er s o n a l i n t e g r a t io n : n a m e l y t h at p h i l o s o p h i c a l t h i n k i n g t r a n s

g re s s e s re s p e c ta b le b ou n d a r i e s , th a t i t i s c a p a b le o f h u r t in g e v e n th os e w i th

w h o m o n e is c l o s e a n d i n t im a t e , t h a t p h i l o s o p h i z i n g r i g o r o u s l y a l s o m e a n s

b e c o m i n g o b l i v i o u s t o t h e f a c t t ha t f o r m a n y t h e d e s i r e t o k n o w a r i s e s o n l y o n

th e fou n d a t i on s o f fu l f i l l e d b od i l y d e s i re s , a n d th a t th i s ob l i v i o n c a n e n ta il

s e v e re i n te r -p e rs o n a l d a m a g e . A l o ok at ou r mon s t ro u s c ou n te rp a r t i n th e m i r

ro r s h o u ld b e a w a r n in g to u s .

Bibliography

Ajootian, Aileene (1995): Monstrum or daimon. Hermaphrodites in ancient art and cul

ture. In: Brit Berggreen & Nanno Marinatos (eds.), Greece and Gender, Bergen,

93-108.

Anderson, William S. (1996): Ovid's Metamorphoses I-V, London.

Atherton, Catherine (ed.) (1998): Mon sters and Monstrosity in Greek and Rom an Cul-

ture, Bari.

Blanckenhagen, Peter H. von (1992): Stage and actors in Plato's Symposion. In: Greek,

Roman, and Byzantine Studies 33 , 51-68.

Daston, Lorraine & Katharine Park (2002): Wunder und die Ordnung der Natur 1150-

1 7 5 0 , Berlin.

Dover, Kenneth(1966):

Aristophanes' speech in Plato's Symposion. In: Journal of Hel-lenic Studies 86 , 41-50.

Dover, Kenneth (1980): Plato. Symposium, Cambridge.

Friedlander, Paul (21960): Platon. Vol. 3: Die Platonischen Schriften. Zweite unddritte

Periode, Berlin.

Gagarin, Michael (1977): Socrates' hybris and Alcibiades' failure. In: Phoenix 31, 22-

37.

Hunter, Richard (2004): Plato's Symposium, Oxford.

Keuren Stern, Frances van (1978): Heroes and monsters in Greek art. In: Archaeologi-

cal News 7, 1-23.

Lada-Richards, lsmene (1998): 'Foul monster or good savio r'? Reflections on ritual

monsters. In: Catherine Atherton (ed.), Monsters and Monstrosity in Greek and

Roman Culture, Bari, 41-82.




L a m b , W a l t e r R . M . ( 1 9 6 7 ) : Plato. W i t h an E n g l i s h T r a n s l a t i o n ( v o l . 5 ), C a m b r i d g e ,

M a s s .

Landfester , M a n f r e d ( 1 9 7 7 ) : Hdndlungsverlauf un d Kamik in denfiiihen Komodien de s

Aristophanes, B e r l i n & N e w Y o r k .

L a t e i n e r , D o n a l d ( 2 0 0 9 ) : T r a n s s e x u a l s a n d t r a n s v e s ti t e s in O v i d ' s Metamorphoses. In :

T h o r s t e n F o g e n & M i r e i l l e M . L e e ( e d s . ) , Bodies and Boundaries in Graeco-

Roman Antiquity, B e r l i n & N e w Y o r k , 125-154.

L o u i s , P i e r r e ( 1 9 7 5 ) : M o n s t r e s e t monstruosite d a n s la b i o l o g i e d ' A r i s t o t e . In : J e a n

B i n g e n & al. ( e d s . ) , Le monde grec: Pensee, litterature, histoire. docume nts.

Hommages d Claire Preaux, B r u x e l l e s , 2 7 7 - 2 8 4 .

L o w e n s t a m , S t e v e n (1986) : A r i s t o p h a n e s ' h i c c u p s . I n : Greek, Roman, and Byzantine

Studies 2 7 , 4 3 - 5 6 .

M o l l e n d o r f f , P e t e r v o n ( 2 0 0 2 ) : Aristophanes, Hi ldesheim.

M o r r i s o n , J o h n S i n c l a i r ( 1 9 6 4 ) : F o u r n o t e s o n P l a t o ' s Symposium. In : Classical Quar

terly 1 4 , 4 2 - 5 5 .

M o u s s y , C l a u d e ( 1 9 7 7 ) : E s q u i s s e de l ' h i s t o i r e d e monstrum. I n : Revue des Etudes La-

tines 5 5 , 3 4 5 - 3 6 9 .

N u s s b a u m , M a r t h a (1980) : A r i s t o p h a n e s a n d S o c r a t e s o n l e a r n i n g p r a c ti c a l w i s d o m . I n :

Yale Classical Studies 2 6 , 4 3 - 9 7 .

P o l l i t t, J e r o m e J o r d a n ( 1 9 7 4 ) : The Ancient View of Greek Art. Criticism, History, and

Terminology, N e w H a v e n & L o n d o n .

R a k o c z y , T h o m a s (1996) : Boser Blick, Macht des Auges und Neid der Gotter. Eine Un-

tersuchung zur Kraft des Blickes in der griechischen Literatur, T u b i n g e n .

Reale, G i o v a n n i ( 2 0 0 1 ) : Al les , w a s t i e f i s t , liebt d i e M a s k e . A r i s t o p h a n e s ' R e d e im

Symposion als s i n n b i l d l i c h e Verhu l lung d e r u n g e s c h r i e b e n e n L e h r e n Platons:e i n i g e V o r b e m e r k u n g e n . I n : T h o m a s A . S z l e z a k ( e d . ) , Platonisches Philoso-

phieren, H i l d e s h e i m , 87-108.

R o w e , C h r i s t o p h e r J . (1998) : Plato: Symposion, W a r m i n s t e r .

S i e r , K u r t (1997) : Die Rede der Diotima. Untersuchungen zum Platonischen Sympo

sion, S t u t tg a r t & L e i p z i g .

S p e r b e r , D a n (1975): Pourquoi les animaux p a r f a i t s , le s h y b r i d e s e t les m o n s t r e s s o n t -

ils b o n s a p e n s e r s y m b o l i q u e m e n t ? I n : L 'homme 15, 5 - 3 4 .

T o r n a u , C h r i s t i a n ( 2 0 0 5 ) : E r o s v e r s u s A g a p e ? V o n P l o t i n s E r o s z u m L i e b e s b e g r i t T A u -

g u s t i n s . I n : Philosophisches Jahrbuch 112, 2 7 1 - 2 9 1 .

V i c k e r s , M i c h a e l ( 1 9 9 5 ) : A l c i b i a d e s a t S p a rt a . A r i s t o p h a n e s ' Birds. In : Classical Quar

terly 4 5 , 3 3 9 - 3 5 4 .

V l a s t o s , G r e g o r y (1971) : The Philosophy of Socrates, G a r d e n C i t y .

man as monster. eros and hubris in plato's symposium

Documents