B O O K R E V I E W S

SPECIAL REVIEW: EROS, PLAT0 AND FREUD GARFIELD TOURNEY, M.D.

The Lajayette Clinic and Wayne State University School of Medicine

A REVIEW OF:

JOSEPH PIEPER: Enthusiasm and Divine Madness. O n the Platonic Dialogue “Phae- drus.” Translated by Richard and Clara Winston. 107 pp. New York, Har- court, Brace and World, Inc. 1964. $3.75.

THOMAS GOULD: Platonic Love. 216 pp. New York, the Free Press of Glencoe. 1963. $5.50.

DOUGLAS N. MORGAN: Love: Plato, the Bible and Freud. 174 pp. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1964. $5.00.

JOHN M. RIST: Eros and Psyche. Studies in Plato, Plotinus and Origen. 238 pp. Toronto, University of Toronto Press. 1964. $6.95.

J. Z. EGLINTON: Greek Love. 504 pp. New York, Oliver Layton Press. 1964.

INTRODUCTION A charismatic.aura hangs over Plato and Freud. Both attempted to penetrate

the meaning of man’s most fundamental emotions and the burdens of the human psyche. Classical scholars, such as Cornford (1) and Dodds (2)) readily discerned the parallels in the thought of the pre-Socratic philosophers, Plato and Freud. Freud realized his dependency upon Greek thought in many ways, (3) and equated his concept of the libido of the sexual instincts with the Eros of the Greek poets and philosophers. Among Plato’s many hegemonic philosophical doctrines, two have relevance for Freud and modern psychology, his teachings regarding Eros and the Psyche. The five works being reviewed here touch upon many aspects of these affinities between contemporary and classical thought. Pieper, in his study of Phaedrus, deals with the Platonic concepts of madness, natural and divine, and their relationship with Eros. He makes many interesting comparisons in his study between these Platonic ideas, neo-Thomistic thought, existentialism and depth psychology. In the initial chapter in his study, Gould distinguishes Platonic love from the Christian, Romantic and Freudian approaches to the subject. Similarities between Freud and Plato are seen in their mutual concern with human unhappiness as conflict within the psyche, and in their mutual assertion that only through self knowledge can happiness be achieved. They both aim at achievement of harmony within the psyche that can be achieved through love. But there are many differences in their fundamental concepts of love for Freud’s remains rooted in sensuality while

$12.95.

256

BOOK REVIEWS 257

Plato’s seeks the Ideal beyond all sensual experience. Morgan’s work, aimed at the general reader, summarizes the Platonic, Biblical, and Freudian viewpoints. “Platonically, the world would never have come into being except for love, and except for love, our world would now be no more than static, nonmoral nonsense. As Jews and Christians, we are fully men only as we reflect God’s love by loving our God and our fellow men. Psychoanalytically, we live in health only as we can love, and thereby work, in health” (4). Rist presents a scholarly study of Platonism in antiquity, untouched by interpretations and correlations with modern depth psychology. Platonism is followed through its history to the school of Neo-Platonism and both their influances on the early Christianity of the Alexandrian school. Rist examines a number of Platonic motifs such as Eros, Psyche, Virtue and Knowledge, all of which are pertinent to the history of psychology. The final work in this review, Greek Love, presents an argument reminiscent of the speech of Pausanias in Plato’s Symposium. Eglinton’s book is a polemic in defense of the type of homosexuality called Greek love, that occurs both on an intellectual and physical plane, between an adult male and an adolescent male. Because of its scholarly and historical nature, this work has value, although many concepts and historical details too frequently become lost in the author’s wordy disputes, in which he attempts to bring much of modern psychodynamic thinking as support for his argument.

EVOLUTION OF THE EROS CONCEPT AMONG THE GREEKS Before specifically focusing upon the books in review, it seems important to

study the mythical and philosophical bases for the Platonic Eros, as well as ex- amining the practice of love among the ancient Greeks. Eros, has been used to represent the procreative, sensual and even more general psychological forces of both man and the universe. He has often been poetically personified, expressed in physical equivalents and finally as a system of abstract principles. In Greek mythology, Eros is the God of love, physical desire. In Homer, Eros is not per- sonified, but the word Eros is used to exemplify the violent physical desire that drives Paris to Helen, Zeus to Hera, and arouses the suitors of Penelope. For Homer, love is personified in Aphrodite. Hesiod gives us a cosmic interpretation of Eros, hypostatizing him as the basic creative force which manifests itself in all the creations of the later dynasties of the gods.

First of all there came Chaos, and after him came Gaia of the broad breast, to be the unshakable foundation of all the immortals who keep the crests of snowy Olympos, and Tartaros the foggy in the pit of the wide-wayed earth, and Eros, who is love, handsomest among all the immortals, who breaks(he limbs’ strength, who in all gods, in all human beings overpowers the intelligence in the breast, and all their shrewd planning. (5)

One can see that Hesiod makes Eros, along with Earth (Gaia) and the dark abyss (Tartaros) the oldest and most powerful of the gods. Hesiod also identified Eros as the constant companion of Aphrodite, although he can appear with any god when a love story is involved.

The lyric poets of the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. pictured him as a hand- some winged youth, smiting the lovestruck with an axe or whip and playing with frenzies and confusion. the other hand, he symbolizes all attractions which

258 BOOK REVIEWS

provoke love, being young, beautiful and warm in heart. For Sappho, Eros is the “deepest offspring of Earth and Heaven.”

In the sixth century Orphism, Eros, also known as Phanes, the Bright One, plays a very important role. ( 6 ) Aristophanes in the Birds has Eros appear as the bird with golden feathers hatched from the primordial world-egg whose two halves formed Earth and Sky. Such a process was symbolic for the birth of all things in the orgiastic ceremonies in honour of Dionysius. In Orphic ritual, the egg was used for both purification and as an offering to the dead. The supreme god of Homeric theology, Zeus himself, was worked into the Orphic system by making him Eros. In Orphism, Eros becomes the Lord of Life and Death, the demiourgos. “The religion of Orpheus is religious in the sense that it is the worship of the real mys- teries of life, of potencies rather than personal gods; it is the worship of life itself in its supreme mysteries of ecstasy and love.” (7)

There was a general condemnation of Eros in Olympian theology. Eros sym- bolized unlawful and all consuming ambition, devouring the reason of man with the madness of desire. Pherekydes said that when Zeus set about making the world, he changed himself into Eros. (8) Sophocles speaks of Eros as a power that “ways to wrong the righteous mind, for its destruction.” (9) Euripedes has the chorus cry out in the Hippolytus

Eros, Eros, who blindest, tear by tear,

Deep in our heart joy like an edged spear; Come not to me with Evil haunting near, Wrath on the wind, now jarring of the clear

There is no shaft that burneth, not in fire, Not in wild stars, far off and flinging fear As in thy hands the shaft of all Desire,

Eros, Child of the Highest. (10)

Men’s eyes with hunger, thout swift Foe that pliest

Wing’s music as thou fliest.

Anaximander, the early pre-Socratic philosopher, followed the Olympians in his condemnation of Eros, rejected the language of poetical expression, and reduced Eros to physicalistic terms. (11) Parmenides emphasized that the world was created through Necessity, the Goddess Ananke, who created Eros as the first of the gods. (12) Eros’s portrayal as a beautiful winged youth occurred under Athenian influences and as such he was frequently portrayed in art and literature. Later he became represented as the Cupid of the Romans, the pudgy child with his bow and arrow, arousing people to love and desire.

The Greeks distinguished several different types of love which were designated Eros, philia and agape. (13) Eros refers to sexual need or desire, philia to love born out of common interest, a feeling of warmth and friendship, and agape to nonphysical, ideal, and spiritual love. Plat0 used the term Eros to distinguish love, but this frequently took on the meaning of non-sexual love. Empodecles in his doctrine of Love and Strife, used philia. Agape was a Greek term originally meaning desire in which the love object was highly esteemed. This concept was emphasized by the early Christian fathers who thought of this as man’s love of the spirit and eternity in contrast .to the common use of Eros as sensual love.

BOOK REVIEWS 259

But philosophically speaking, as Aristotle noted in the Metaphysics, mythical and poetical personifications were the antecedents of the physical equivalents for Eros, which finally culminated in the abstract principles of Platonic philosophy. With Plato, Eros is the name for the impulse of desire in all its forms, moving from sexuality to the desire for the Beautiful, the Good, and the Eternal. “Pro- creation is the divine attribute in the mortal animal. Eros is, in the last resort, the desire for immortality.” (14) According to Plato, Eros leads from the love of a single beautiful person to the love of Beauty itself, and finally Eros becomes the passion for immortality. Initially Eros needs to be detached from the individual person and physical beauty, One must then learn to value moral beauty in the mind above beauty in the body, and to contemplate the unity and kinship of all that is honorable and noble. The intelligible world best realized in the intellectual beauty of the mathematical sciences is then entered, and finally one reaches the “Beautiful” itself, the eternal Form, exempt from relativity and change, and the ultimate object of Eros.

THE PHAEDRUS The dating of Plato’s Phaedrus has been conflictual, once being regarded as

an early dialogue, but on stylistic grounds most scholars treat this as a work of Plato’s maturity and a general agreement exists that it was most likely composed shortly after the Republic. Another problem has existed as to the purpose of this dialogue. Is this a rhetorical discourse in which Plato is illustrating several types of fallacious argument, or is its proper subject that of Eros? Taylor (15) argues that its aim is to examine the right use of “rhetoric,” for with Socrates it is intel- ligible that a discussion of rhetoric should be found to lead up to the great issues of conduct, and that sexual love, because of its method of presentation, is irrelevent to the main scope of the work. According to Jaeger, (16) unity in the dialogue is achieved with rhetoric, Eros being its common subject in order to demonstrate the advantages of the Socratic method. Hence for these two scholars, what is discussed in Phaedrus is the best way to write and speak, and the fundamental basis of rhetoric in dialectic.

However in this dialogue, we have three speeches, each dealing with the subject of Eros, in variations from homosexual sensuality to the contemplation of the Beautiful. Socrates dismisses the rationalizing of mythology, states that there is no need for myths, and expounds man to follow the Delphic oracle to know thyself. There is a discussion of the soul, its importance, pre-existence, and immortality and the doctrine of the transmigration of souls. Finally, Plato’s concept of madness is described, in which the famous differentiation between natural and divine mad- ness is made. Madness is proclaimed as one of man’s greatest blessings, provided it is divine. Pieper rejects the meaning of the Phaedrus as a rhetorical model and practice piece, and attempts an interpretation to show that the dialogue illuminates some of the fundamental aspects of existence. The author gives us no coherent system, rejecting the ideas that Plato ever strove for a coherent system of thought, but presents the story of the dialogue and discusses its relevance for several schools of modern thought that include the neo-Thomistic, existential and depth psycho- logical.

260 BOOK REVIEWS

In the dialogue, Socrates meets his friend Phaedrus, who relates a recent speech about Eros given by Lysias. In this speech, Lysias, representing the avant- garde intellegentsia, expounded that handsome boys should give their favor to non-lovers rather than to lovers, proposing a normative standard for desire and enjoyment without love. “His statement, cast in choice and polished diction, is based on a rationalistic view of life as a ‘technique’ which attempts to secure a maximum of pleasure with a minimum of lcomplication’.” (17) In Lysias’ speech, sensuality is separated from spirituality, an idea which Socrates’ rejects as sophistic verbal magic. Socrates then speaks in answer to Lysias, being witty and punning, unmasking Lysias by taking him at his word.

Both speeches, that of Lysias and his own, are then criticized by Socrates who then makes a second speech, a meditation upon love and erotic emotion con- sidered in terms of the whole of human existence. Pieper relates that Socrates follows Kierkegaard’s viewpoint of two thousand years later “to beguile a person into the truth.” Socrates tells Phaedrus the religious truth about love. The mas- querade is over, and the real power of the dialogue revealed with a new note of strong emotion. “Love is a god or something divine.” Further recantation of the first two speeches is then made.

Socrates continues with his famous pronouncement, “The greatest blessings come by way of mania, insofar as mania is heaven-sent.” (18) Mania is a frenzy or madness, a being-beside-oneself, a loss of command over oneself. It is not nec- essarily an evil or a sickness, but may represent a divine gift, theia mania, an en- thusiasm, being filled with the god. Four different forms of theia mania are described. The first is prophetic ecstasy or divination, inspiration from the Diyine and exemp- lified in the Prophetess of Delphi. Pieper suggests a Christian interpretation for this “enthusiastic” ecstasy and mania, and that Thomas Aquinas description of the process of revelation is virtually the same as that contained in Phaedrus.

The second type is called “cathartic mania.” Because of ancient sins and old guilts which Plato calls “grevious maladies and afflictions . . . by reason of some ancient sin,” there is need for ritualistic purification, leading to catharsis in madness as deliverance. The correspondences with psychoanalysis are then described by Pieper. “And among the things psychoanalysis confirms is this: that there really are maladies and afflictions in the life of the soul which demonstrably stem from ‘ancient sins’ or ‘old guilts’, in which the affected individual and preceding gener- ations are indivisably implicated and in which, furthermore . . . a perverseness of will coincides with the inexorable fatality that comes from outside. In short, a view of man which comprehends the whole of existence seems to suggest, in our times as much as in Plato’s day, that such afflictions from such origins are indeed a reality.” (19) And one important aspect of therapy in modern depth psychology bears the same name as in Plato: purification, katharsis. But then, the theory of the unconscious has no place for the divine madness of Plato. The author then turns to the Christian view for interpretation of divine mania, and the alleviation of sin on the basis of melanoia, of repentance and conversion.

Thirdly, there is a poetic mania, the ecstasy finding its origin in the Muses. True art and poetry too are manifestations of divine inspiration; they spring from a state of the soul which is madness rather than sanity. Goethe uses this Platonic language. “The poet is truly deprived of his wits; if he wishes to be modest he

BOOK REVIEWS 261

must admit that his state quite corresponds to a trance, and at bottom I do not deny that a good deal seems to me dreamlike.” (20)

After this preparation, we finally reach the motif of Eros, erotic mania. As a prelude to his discussion, Plato speaks of the nature of the soul, its spirituality and immortality. I n a metaphor that repeats itself again and again in philosophy, Plato describes the soul as a chariot team, the famous “myth of the soul.” The charioteer tries to control an unmatched team, one steed noble and docile, the other wild and refractory. “The parable of the soul does not, to be precise, speak of man a t all. The matter under discussion is the nature of the human mind. Plato is saying that the possibility of degeneration and downfall lies within the structure of the human mind itself, which is finite . . . the human mind, because it is non-divine, because it is finite, is susceptible to evil.”

Love awakens a recollection of something that exceeds any possibility of gratification in the finite realm, having no place for the lust of Lysias. What is loved is Beauty, a Form, the prototype not directly encountered, but sought by the philosopher. Philoso- phizing itself is an erotic emotion seeking Beauty, Truth, Reality and the Good in the Eternal Forms. There is no rest in the physical world or in the gratification of the senses, but only in the contemplation of the Forms. Plato describes four types of love: (1) the brutishness of the multitude seeking sensual pleasure, (2) the sophisticated sensuality of rational techniques of living, again with the goal of pleasure, (3) one which removes enjoyment and (4) true amorous passion leading to salvation through Beauty and the Forms, “What Plato means is that love, insofar as it is real ekstasis, stepping out of the narrow circle of the self-concerned ego, a frenzy, mania, is capable of carrying aloft with it even the heaviest burden, for it remembers the holy things it once contemplated.” (22) Finally the Christian point of love cannot wholly be reconciled with Plato, although both are concerned with spirituality. Plato’s concept of Eros remains an egoistic enrichment and ful- fillment for the priviledged few, the philosophers, while Christian love is renuncitory, unselfish, a giving love for all mankind.

Pieper’s work has value in giving a contemporary meaning to a famous dia- logue of Plato’s, too often regarded as a brilliant rhetorical discourse. His inter- pretation of Phaedrus gives vitality to the Eros and Psyche of Plato, seen from the vista of modern philosophical inquiry.

Pieper interprets this metaphor as follows:

(21) Erotic mania is the shock of emotion caused by Beauty.

PLATONIC LOVE Love is the principle subject of two other Platonic dialogues, Lysus and the

Symposium, and is often discussed in other works. Lysus, an early minor work, does look forward to one of the supreme achievements of Plato’s prime, the Sym- posium. These two works, and the Phaedrus, are the principal sources for Gould’s study, although he makes reference to many other works by Plato, and in order to complete his exposition on Love, summarizes Plato’s philosophy. Gould defines four types of love: the Platonic, Christian, Romantic and Freudian. Parallels and divergencies between these approaches are frequently discussed, and Freud emerges as “a more considerable challenge to Plato than any which we have found in all the centuries between.” (23) This is a difficult thesis to prove, and can only arouse

262 BOOK REVIEWS

considerable discussion by most theologians and scholars, not-withstanding their acknowledgement of Freud’s tremendous impact on modern thought. However, Gould is correct in giving Freud consideration as a philosopher and emphasizing that his writings will be influential long after psychoanalysis ceases to be a lively profession. Freud’s reputation as a social philosopher will likely endure after he has been disregarded as a scientific psychologist.

Gould distinguishes many interesting parallels between Plato and Freud. Both are concerned with human unhappiness, diagnosed as a conflict within the psyche. Their aim is harmony within the psyche, affected by conversation, through the dialectic or the psychoanalytic method. Love in both philosophies is the life giving energy, rooted in egoism or narcissism, but leading to higher aims of beauty, altruism and self sacrifice. Freud speaks of the primary sexual drives as Eros and admits that many of his ideas may be derived from what Plato has to say about Eros in the Symposium. Destruction, as Ares, is described by Plato, and the death instinct, as Thanatos, is emphasized by Freud. Both Plato and Freud speak of a tripartite psyche, which have interesting correspondencies, (1) appetitive-id, (2) passionate-ego, and (3) rational-superego. The rational soul is analogous to the conscious, and the irrational soul to the unconscious. Plato’s concept of anam- nesis is similar to the idea of the racial unconscious in Freud. The evolution of the soul to Beauty and the Good resembIes Freud’s theory of sublimation. Both emphasized the importance of dreams, and Plato had a primitive wish theory to account for their meaning. Even though Plato’s theory of dreams has many ele- ments of superstition, one must recall that Freud himself had considerable interest in the possible occult significance of dreams.

But profound differences exist between Plato and Freud. Freud related love to the pleasure principle in a simple sense, while for Plato sensual love was a “fall” from the original goal of love for the Forms. Freud stated that one should admit and accept his niore primitive drives, while Plato emphasized that these only lead to unhappiness and need to be overcome. In their search for happiness they dif- fered, Freud concluding that we vainly hope to recapture a sexual bliss lost in infancy, while Plato longed for the true vision of the world as it really exists in the Forms. However they readily agreed on the importance of love in hunian endeavors. “Finally, like Freud, Plato sees in love the key to civilization, art, justice, and all great, brave achievements in this world, while the Christians and Romantics, in different ways, thought love destroyed society or offered an escape from it.” (24)

Gould then reviews the Symposium, which aims at the identity of the purist of the truly desirable and the coniprehension of the real-the identity of desire and learning, of love and philosophy, Eros and Socrates. The first five speeches of the dialogue are reviewed, and then the emphasis is placed upon Diotima’s discourse as related by Socrates. Phaedrus speaks of love as incentive to justice and moral action; Pausanius defends homosexuality and boy-love, differentiating the honorable and dishonorable aspects; Eryximachus points out that Iove has not only human significance, but is a cosmic phenomenon; then there is Aristophanes’ famous description of love as the pursuit of a lost unity through coition; finally Agathon gives a flamboyant and exhibitionistic description on love. Socrates then commences, and reveals what he has learned from the priestess Diotinia. Love for Plato goes far beyond sexual infatuation. Love itself is an instance of the utmost

BOOK REVIEWS 263

rationality, and is not to be reduced to its irrational bonds as in Freud. Love is the energy striving for perfection, not divinity, but a longing for it, a daemon binding together heaven and earth and the whole cosmos. The daemon possesses the philos- opher, the fairest lover of them all, whose love aims for the beautiful, the special form of the Good, that will in turn reveal happiness. “Love, says Socrates, is the key to everything he has done. It is the only subject which he has even pretended to have knowledge of. Correctly understood, love is the same as philosophy, which is not so much the profession to which Socrates belongs, as a name for his way of life, and his only, in the whole history of mankind.” (25) For Plato, the real world is found in the Forms, of which existence is but a shadow; the visible world is but the shadow and reflections of the real world of the Forms. This intelligible reality, reached through the abstract thinking of mathematics and the sciences, is the love of the philosopher. These are some of the metaphysical implications of love as revealed in the Republic.

Gould then discussed the Phaedrus, where the emphasis is placed upon love as the universal longing for happiness, and the problem of unhappiness in love. Again many parallels with Freud are made. The rhetorical approach to this dialogue is completely disregarded and its content examined and compared with Freud. The confusion developing in this dialogue regarding the psyche as self caused motion is discussed. If the psyche is self caused motion, it is difficult to see how the Good and the Beautiful could be the first cause even of intellectual energy. Later in the Timaeus, Plato spoke of two types of self caused motion, psyche and necessity. These metaphysical arguments are difficult to follow, and were readily rejected by Aristotle. However, Gould does admit that “Plato’s tripartite division of the psyche, like Freud’s is the product of an acute appreciation for the facts-the facts of men’s misery and of unhappy love above all, but the facts of the rewards of intelligence as well-but Plato the metaphysician will not be satisfied until he has given a precise and consistent description of the motions represented in each part of the psyche: the unreasonable appetite of the black horse, the unthinking energy of the white one, and the dizzy vision of the charioteer.” (26)

Gould elaborates on Aristotle’s critique of Plato and his attitude toward love. Finally he evaluates the various aspects of Platonic love and its relationship to the rival theories considered. His final plea is for us to be aware of the Platonic viewpoint that we are impaired in reaching our goal of happiness, because far too often our desires are ill conceived, but that through the exercise of intelligence desires can be changed, and in turn influence experiences, which may make earlier goals loose their desireability. Finally then, the relevance of Plato for the modern world is again designated. Gould’s work is a valuable introduction, not only to Platonic theories of love, but to Plato’s philosophy and its relationship to modern thought, particularly to the social philosophy and sexual psychology of Freud.

PLATO, THE BIBLE AND FREUD A less specialized and more general approach to subject of love is made by

Morgan in his study. For him, Plato made the first adequate conception of love, a disciplined passionate commitment to all that is good and true and beautiful and through these to the Forms, Goodness, Truth and Beauty. The continuity of the development of the concept of love in the Symposium and Phaedrus is made,

264 BOOK REVIEWS

with beauty arising above sensuality as love’s final goal. In the Symposium sexuality is condemned, while in the Phaedrus, it is treated as a logical step to love’s ultimate purpose.

Love is a central theme throughout the Bible. The creation occurred as an act of love, and man was coiiinianded to love. “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart arid all your soul.” A deep satisfaction and happiness is realized for those who love, honor and obey, which results in intense family love, love of husband for wife, of parents for children, and a practical sexual morality. Here the emphasis on family organization among the Hebrews is readily seen as a contrast to that of the Greeks. For the Hebrews, the family was of primary significance, molded by love, following the exaniple of God. For the Greeks, the wife had sig- nificance only as bearer of children, and sexual and intellectual pleasures were largely gained through honiosexuality and contacts with prostitutes. This misogy- nous attitude is well exemplified in Plato. The Hebrews in turn condemned pros- titution and homosexuality.

With Christianity, the Eros concept of love was rejected, and agape, a verb for desire with esteem for the love object was used, which came to have to have the connotation of spiritual love. St. Paul used agape as the transcendent self sacrifice of Christian love. Agape was regarded as God’s innlost essence, and the ultimate source of all other lesser loves. The New Testament abounds in eulogizing the greatness of love, largely through Christ’s perfect love for man, and his sacrifice for man through love. Man should turn away from evil and hatred to goodness and love. Man is admonished “Love thy neighbor”; “Love your enemy.” Man should accept the love that God freely offers hiin and express this love freely ( h r d his fellow man. But Paul condemned sexuality and became the first Jewish Puritan in emphasizing that thc human flesh is weak, that first chastity and continence are desired and then marriage as a means of obtaining sexual gratification. Paul’s Platonic influence was seen in his “looking to things that are unseen,” as eternal, in the sense of the Platonic Forms. Christian and Platonic love can be seen in the contrasts between Socrates and Christ. Socrates looks to the Good as the goal of life, while for Christ the source and destiny of life is seen in God. The Good is impersonal, God is personal. The creative urge in the world is seen by Socrates not in the Good, but in the inetaphysical concept of the demiurge, while God has these attributes for Christ. With Socrates, there is no place for sin, but only un- reason, which can be conquered through rationality. Christ sees sin as a reality, not to be explained rationally, but to be overcome by man’s unreasoned faith in God.

Freud’s great contribution is seen in his emphasis on the value of the human personality and his sympathetic respect for individuals’ different ways of solving their problenis. The metaphysical framework of Freud‘s work is delineated, with its roots in nineteenth century materialism and the romanticism best exemplified in Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Freud’s basic psychoanalytic concepts such as the libido theory, infantile sexuality and the widened use of the term sexuality re1,sting to love are then described. Gould concludes that Freud has truly enriched science and art through his psychological teachings, but in many ways remains irrecon- cilable with the Platonic and Christian viewpoints.

Morgan’s work has value as an introduction to his subject, and as such is recommended to the university student and the general reader.

BOOK REVIEWS 265

EROS AND PSYCHE Rist presents a scholarly discussion of Platonic philosophy, particularly the

Platonic concepts of love and the psyche. His presentation is bereft of the approach of Pieper, Could and Morgan who attempted to relate Platonic philosophy to the problems of our modern age. Rist deals primarily with Platonism in the ancient world, its evolution from the Dialogues to the early Platonic Schools, Neo-Platonism, and finally the incorporation of Platonic philosophy into early Christian doctrine. Rist deals with a vast number of sources, primary as well as secondary, and fre- quently quotes from the original works in Greek or Latin. However one can easily follow his argument without any formal knowledge of these languages.

Many fluctuations in Platonism have occurred during its history, as is charac- teristic of most philosophical movements. Divergences on the highest topics, such as the Good, the nature of life, and aim of a virtuous existence occurred, but unity in certain beliefs continued, such as the supra-sensible realities, the Forms, and some aspects of the immortality of the soul. Plato’s philosophy was meant for a chosen aristocratic intelligentsia, and made no appeal to the common man. Most men were not regarded as intelligent enough to accept Plato’s godhead, and only the Philosopher has wings to reach the Good, to realize that virtue is knowledge, and that in mathematical Form one discovers the One. The love Plato describes has been dehumanized, and his concept of philosophic love is difficult for us to accept. Grube states, “As we follow the philosopher on his upward journey, we feel that something has gone wrong, that passionate oratory has somehow left love behind; that in the contemplation of supreme beauty, the philosopher may indeed find a sublime satisfaction, but we would hardly call this the satisfaction of love, which surely must be limited to relations between individuals . . . Love, we feel must have and retain some sort of physical basis and Plato has here . . . been carried away on the tide of his own magnificent metaphors.” (27)

Rist then examines in detail Plato’s concept of love as presented in the Phaedrus and Symposiunz. Love for Plato evolves from love of individuals to love of learning and finally into a love of the Eternal Verities, with a discarding of the personal and physical elements. We begin with Eros as a sense of desire, and soon the dichot- omy of love becomes apparent, between the appetitive notion and a less egoistic outlook. Love aims for the beautiful. Philosophers will more readily subdue bodily desires, placing a greater emphasis on the soul than the body. In the Symposium, a purified philosophic love is possible in seeking the Forms, the Good, Beautiful and Just. In the Phaedrus, it is stated that the aim of Eros is to make the beloved more godlike, and Eros can reach this pinnacle through the philosopher. The gods themselves traveI toward the Forms, which rest a t the head of the universe. Love culminates in the contemplation of the World of Ideas, pure, everlasting, immortal, changeless, uniform and dwelling by itself. The concept of the Good occurs fre- quently in Plato, where it comes to mean Wisdom, Thought, Moderation, Appro- priateness, Beauty and Virtue. “. . . . the true lover, in Platonic terms, is a lover of the Forms as quasi-exemplars of mathematical perfection and reasonableness. He is a lover of something which can show no response of any kind. This is subli- mation indeed, and we shall suggest that it is one of the reasons for the failure of the Platonic system in its original form to secure a hold upon the minds even of powerful thinkers.” (28) Rist, in not trying to reveal the comparative value of

266 BOOK REVIEWS

Plato’s concept with modern theories, such as Freud’s, is undoubtedly closer to a more definitive summary of Plato’s position. Platonic love has little meaning for human relations and mankind as a whole, but is a philosophy for a highly priviledged class.

Plotinus was influenced, not only by Plato, but by a number of other Greek and oriental sources. The Platonic theory of Forms was criticized by several schools of ancient philosophy. Zeno and the Stoics regarded the Forms as concepts in the mind, and Seneca stated that the Forms rest in the Mind of God. Plotinus intro- duces a quasi-personal element in the Forms as they exist in the Divine Mind. The Plotinian One incorporates the Divine Mind and is described by many super- latives such as the One as Father, the One as the source of Being itself, and Good as the One that is Love. Eros is the creative force of undiminished giving. Mystical union of the Soul with the One, with a final discarding of this self in union, remains the goal of his philosophy. This is to be reached through wisdom, purifications, prayer, the negation of bodily preoccupation, the intuition of the Forms and through identification with the World-Soul. For Plotinus, the highest state of man is reached when he has outgrown his own personality. In Plato, love is an emotion between two men seeking to grasp the philosophic life together. Plato does accept hetero- sexuality in his last work, the Laws, but rarely mentions women, and the homo- sexual orientation of his earlier life is often discussed in the early dialogues. Plotinus speaks of Eros in a context that may imply heterosexuality, of male-female marriage, and interestingly likens the soul to a maiden yearning with a noble love.

Identities between Plato and Plotinus are made by Rist. For Plato, the Good is both Being and “beyond Being”, while “beyond Being’’ for Plotinus. Although both emphasize the need for ritualistic purification, Plotinus is more rigorous in his approach. A low value of individual personality characterizes the teachings of both, and for Plato this extends to the impersonality of the Ideal world while the Good is “supra-personal” or ‘ Lquasi-personall’ for Plotinus, but never reaches the qualities of the Christian personal God. Eros becomes a form of divine madness for Plato, but this is extended to union with the Divine Mind and the equating of Eros with the One in Plotinus. The force of the universe is the Demiourgos for Plato, while here Plotinus is close to a personal guide. With Plato the soul views the Forms and the soul for Plotinus is the cause of the Forms. “Plotinus, then, took a step towards personalizing certain theories of Plato.” (29) However these steps were not sufficient for many of the devotees of religions that accepted a completely personal God, but Augustine beIieved that Platonism was the choice of several philosophical systems that could best be incorporated into the Christian framework with a minimum of alterations.

An examination of Plato’s ethics is then made, exemplified in his dictum, “Virtue is Knowledge.” Aristotle said that Socrates’ interests were primarily ethical, and Plato emphasized that the Knowledge of good and evil is the only knowledge that will bring happiness to society. I n the Republic, again the philosophers are regarded as those only capable of the knowledge of Virtue, and that habit serves as the key to morals in mankind, and that the aim of society is the cultivation of right habits. As Plato states, “Virtue then, it seems, is some kind of health and beauty and good condition, while vice is a disease and a deformity and a weakness.” All evil is folly, of which there are two types, madness and ignorance. In a further

BOOK REVIEWS 267

discussion of madness in the Timaeus, Plato defined this as being purely in the soul or due to undue influences exerted upon the soul by the body. One of the principal physiological causes was related to an accumulation of too much semen. Plato has a particular concern for this “madness”, and believes that an excess of pleasures or pains is the greatest possible evil for the soul. For Plato, virtue was the philoso- pher’s knowledge of t<he Good, his likeness unto God, the knowledge of the Forms, and the kinship of man’s soul with God as the final source of morality. The impor- tance of virtue was disregarded by the Stoics, who placed little emphasis on learning and metaphysics, and by the Epicureans, who subordinated virtue to pleasure. Plotinus emphasized again the importance of virtue in philosophy, which undoubt- edly influenced Augustine to state that in Plotinus Plato lived again. The higher virtue was to be obtained through purification and the contemplation of the Divine Mind. Contemplation was regarded as man’s highest function, and the practical life and everyday actions of the state did not concern him. “For Plato virtue means being like the Platonic God; for Plotinus it means that state which leads to union with the One. We have seen in what sense, for Plato, virtue is knowledge: it is knowledge of the kind that guarantees action. For Plotinus, virtue-if we may use the word at all of the crown of philosophy-is creativity, since the One is emi- nently creative.” (30) Since Plotinus has identified the One with Eros, Rist con- cludes that “whereas for Plato virtue is knowledge, for Plotinus it is love, that love which is the source of all.” (31)

The author then discusses Origen, the third century Alexandrian theologian, about whom there is question as to whether he should be designated a biblical theologian or a neo-Platonic philosopher. Origen in many ways was obsessed with sexuality, and a sexual imagery characterized his erotic mysticism. According to Eusebius, he literally accepted the teaching of Saint Matthew, “There are eunuchs which make themselves eunuchs of the kingdom of heaven’s sake,” and so volun- tarily castrated himself. Origen speaks of a personal love with God, through the Bridegroom-Logos, whereas Plato’s love of wisdom of or the Form of the Good, or of the One is an impersonal love. As Rist concludes, Origen personalized the cosmic aspects of the Platonic down flowing Eros. His work makes a notable contribution in giving substance to the Platonic background in which Early Chris- tianity became enmeshed, particularly with Augustine.

GREEK LOVE Our discussion has developed from the early Greek myth of a personal god,

Eros, to Plato’s discussion of the desire and longing of Eros as impersonal, seeking Beauty and the Good. Plotinus identifies his One with Eros, in which man seeks the unio mystica. Finally God becomes personalized, particularly in Origen, and God’s relation to man is described in erotic imagery. Throughout this discussion, little has been discussed of actual physical love within the family, heterosexual behavior and homosexuality. The form of homosexuality known as Greek Love or pederasty will now be reviewed. This type of love, common in classical Greece, is characterized by the establishment of a close relationship between an older man and a youth in which both assume a masculine role, with the older functioning in a noble manner as teacher, spiritual adviser, military example; physicaI sexuaI relations may also assume an important part of this relationship. This discussion will

268 BOOK REVIEWS

focus upon Eglinton’s work, Greek Love, in which the subject of pederasty is espoused through historical, socio-cultural and psychosexual viewpoints. This proves to be a daring, controversial and provocative work with serious intent, regardless of the reactions of the reader, and the general derogation of it to be anticipated from psychiatrists and psychologists.

In the previous works reviewed, the subject of homosexuality among the Greeks was casually discussed. Pieper does not come to grips with the homosexual content of the Phaedrus in reviewing primarily Socrates’ second speech and his longing for a desexualized love found in the contemplation of the Forms. Gould is also reluctant to face up to the role of homosexuality in Platonic love, although summarizing the speeches dealing with homosexuality as found in the Symposium and Phaedrus. Morgan stated that as far as Platonic philosophy is concerned, the Athenian attitudes toward pederasty have no significance, and “Plato’s inter- pretation of love stands wholly outside the problem of homosexuality and hetero- sexuality.” (32) However, Plato does not reject Eros as the source of desire, and Plato accepted physical homosexual behavior as a part of his culture, only suggesting preference for heterosexuality in his last work, the Laws. Plato is dismissed in regard to his attitudes toward homosexuality by Eglinton because of several reasons, particularly Socrates’ rejection of Alcibiades’ overtures in the past part of the Sym- posium, which is regarded as a manifestation of Platonic hypocrisy.

The subject of honiosexuali t.y among the ancient Greeks has been discussed in a number of works, most notably John Addington Symonds’ A Problem in Greek Ethics (33), Havelock Ellis’ Sexual Inversion (34), and Hans Licht’s (pseudonym for Paul Hans Brandt) Sexual Life in Ancient Greece. (35) Defenses of homosex- uality have appeared in numerous recent works, particularly in the writing of Donald Webster Cory (36) (a pseudonym Don Cory, based on the transposition of Corydon, a subject of boy-love in Vergil’s Ecologue I I , and the title of Andre Gide’s philo- sophical defense of homosexuality). Eglinton extends the viewpoints of many of these authors, to promulgate the practice of Greek love in our contemporary society as of great positive value in managing many of the problems of youth and serving as a step in the maturation of the personality.

But let us return to ancient Greece to examine briefly the status of woman, the organization of the family and the prevalence of homosexuality, all of which have relevance for our discussion. (37) During the time of Plato, marriage and the home were regarded as expensive social obligations, to be avoided if possible because of its expense and the hindrance to personal freedom for the man. Love was not an essential part of marriage, which functioned solely for the purpose of procreation, and the man expected to find love outside the home often in bisexual practices which included male youths and companions or the various grades of prostitutes, particularly the hetaera. Xenophon in the Economist wrote that love had nothing to do with marriage; esteem, respect and honor a woman could expect to obtain from her husband, but not love. The aims of marriage were cooperation in managing the common fortune and property, along with procreation, Women remained confined to the home, where they learned little but domestic skills, in- cluding the control of their slaves, and intellectual activity was limited to a meager knowledge of reading and writing. Women were regarded as shrews, best exemplified in the wife of Socrates, Xantheppe, a ferocious termagant, who even physically

BOOK REVIEWS 269

attacked her husband. Although Plato expressed less misogyny than many writers of his day, he repeatedly emphasized man’s superiority to women. Aristotle stated that man was not only superior in mind, but in body. In procreation, he believed that semen bore the principle of the soul, while female secretions contributed only to the material of the body.

Sexual pleasures outside the home centered then on the pleasures of the brothel and pederasty. Three strata of prostitutes occurred, the pornae, or common pros- titutes, the auletrides or flute players, hired to dancc, play and amuse men as well as copulate, and the hetaerae, companions and intellectual friends of the males, who lived independently in elegance and wealth, and presented themselves as complex and captivating women, choosing lovers as they so desired. The status of the hetaerae, in the eyes of men, was higher than that of the housewife. In fifth century B.C. no woman was more influential than Aspasia, the hetaera who became the mistress of Periclea, and was regarded as the uncrowned queen of Athens. In homosexuality, the Greeks found their other source of sexual outlet. Apparently many aristocratic Greeks were bisexual in their bchavior, and effeminate manner- isms seen in homosexuals today were not characteristic of the Greeks, although such effeminate traits were seen in the adolescent boy with his immature, half-girlish face and body. Mature men engaged in homosexual relations, but the preference and most common pattern was that of pederasty. Having no Kinsey report as to the actual frequency of homosexual behavior, it is difficult to say exactly how common this was, but as the behavior is commonly discussed in the literature of the period, it must have bcen a familiar and acceptable form of behavior among most Greek aristocrats. The major sources for such opinion rest in Plato’s Sym- posiunz and the S?~inposiuin of Xenophon. Even though Aristotle regarded homo- sexual coition as a morbid state, he defended at length in the Nichoinachean Ethics the proposition, “Lore and Friendship are found most and in their best between men.”

Eglinton clarifies his position that a Grcek love relationship, existing between an adult inan and a younger boy, has little to do with the adult homosexuality of today, and although physical sexual rclatioiis may be involved, other factors such as education, idcritification and affection play a very significant role. This type of relationship is not to be regarded as a Greek aberration, but a widespread pattern of behavior, about which the reader is asked to put aside his likely prejudices as he examines this work. The author decries that his work is less a polciiiic than an interdisciplinary study, but his plea for the acceptance of Grcek love as a normal pattern of behavior, although based on its affirmed education and spiritual nature, still has the rationalizing quality of the homosexual apologist. Because such behav- ior has been recorded historically and comparatively in many cultures, does not mean necessarily that this was either acceptable or desirable behavior, or that i t involved more than a very limited segment of the population. The spectrum of sexual behavior has bcen undoubtedly quite varied a t most times, with many differences as to what is regarded as tolerable, acceptable and normal. But what is tolerated may in no general sense be regarded as desirable or normal.

Greek Love is divided into two parts, the first, Theory and Practice and the second, History and Literature. A postscript follows by Albert Ellis and a rebuttal by the author. In the initial chapter of the first part, the author summarizes his

270 BOOK REVIEWS

viewpoint, after admitting a selfish element, as follows: “I am suggesting Greek love relationships, judiciously handled, with or without overt sexual aspects accord- ing to considerations of prudence, as a feasible solution to the increasing common social problem of the alienation of the adolescent from the adult world, one aspect of such alienation being juvenile delinquency.” (38)

The author then reviews the status of our current sexual mores, its basis on Judeo-Christian tradition and English common law, and defends his rejection of the “age of consent” legal provision regarding homosexuality, arguing that Greek love is largely a social problem because it is illegal. Arguments are then presented to demonstrate that Greek love can function to alleviate such social problems as adolescent alienation and rebellion, the need of an ego-ideal, sexual education, the need of a safe and dependable love object, and finally the emotional preparation for non-jealous love. After a discussion of man’s primordial need for affection and bodily contact, to some extent gained from the work of Sullivan, Maslow, Reik and Harlow, the author then describes the sexual aspects of the subject. In the last two chapters of the first section, case histories are reported of complicated and difficult Greek love affairs, and the author ends by raising many questions that admittedly cannot be readily answered.

From the historical viewpoint, the second half of the work proves more reward- ing, as i t reviews Greek love from classical antiquity to the twentieth century. He documents his argument largely from literature and art dealing with this theme, rather than any legal codes relating to sexual practices. The special contribution of Greece, beginning in the eighth or seventh centuries B.C. is traced in detail, including Sparta’s exploitation of boy-love for military morale and Attica’s aim in preparing boys for public life. Greek love was unknown in the Roman empire except among the small number of educated Hellenists. In Rome homosexual behavior was common although its aims were essentially sensual. With the growth of Christianity, there was a rejection of Greek love along with the Roman creulities and sensualities, and much emphasis was then placed on asceticism and celibacy, with the acceptance of sexuality solely for procreative functions by those who could not restrain their passions. In the writings of the twelth century Goliards, and later the Provencal troubadours and French trouveres, evidences of Greek love appeared, and some troubadours loved boys. With the Rennaissance rediscovery of the Roman and Greek art, literature and philosophy, a vogue for apeing the ancients in many ways occurred, and so Greek love was rediscovered, finding expression in many poems dealing with classical subjects, such as Jove and Ganymede, or Hercules and Hylas. Kings and artists had their favorites, and the theaters utilized boy- actors and castrati for the female roles. Partial acceptance and general rejection waxed and waned for the next several hundred years. The writings of various authors such as Ulrichs with his third-sex theory, Verlaine, Rimbaud, Symonds, Whitman, Wilde, Edward Carpenter, and Stefan George presented a literary awareness of homosexuality and Greek love. Havelock Ellis, Freud, and Magnus Hirschfeld were among the early workers to examine the subject scientifically. Eglinton concludes his study making eight recommendations aimed at the acceptance of Greek love within our society.

Even with his intense and varied interest in his subject, Eglinton has neglected one of the most important summaries on pederasty, mainly the chapter “Pederasty

BOOK REVIEWS 27 1

in Classical Education” in H. I. Marrou’s A History of Education in Antiquity. (39) This brief chapter does more to clarify the subject than the extensive polemics and interdisciplinary arguments of Eglinton, although Eglinton does state his argument as not being one of clarifying Greek Pederasty, but arguing for its practice today. Marrou states that “we are all aware of the place occupied by masculine love in Greek civilization, and its place was particularly important in the educational field. Nevertheless this subject . . . is seldom mentioned by the historian without an excessive circumspection, as though it were bound up with an unhealthy curi- osity. And indeed certain modern writers have wasted a great deal of time in malignantly scrutinizing the acient evidence relating to ‘love affairs with boys’, confining their interest to the sexual aspect of the matter. Some have tried to represent ancient Greece as a perverts’ paradise, but this is going too far: the very vocabulary of the Greek language and the laws of most city states show that homo- sexuality was always regarded as something ‘abnormal’. Others have tried to deceive themselves into making a case for pure pederasty as opposed to carnal inversion; but this contradicts the most unequivocal evidence.” (40) Marrou then sketches the role pederasty played in Greek society which include its close connection to the military caste system, which fosters homosexuality because of the close shut-in contact between men and lack of associations with women. Pederasty occurred throughout the Greek states and was not just a Dorian phenomenon as many Greek historians have concluded. It did embody a moral and political idealism and became an important instrument in the educational process. But Marrou clearly points out that as pederasty was brought from the military into the political sphere, pederasty produced an unexpected twist of fortune. “This love between men was responsible for a great number of erotic crimes as was to be expected in a tense atmosphere in which jealousy and masculine pride were so fiercely inflamed. We know from history, especially from that section of it which deals with the age of tyranny, how many tyrants were assassinated and how many revolts were fomented against them by jealous lovers.” (41)

Without the use of Professor Marrou’s work and sources, Greek Love has limited validity as a historical document. Without a historical basis for his argument, and highly questionable support from other disciplines, his thesis for the encour- agement of Greek love within our society has no sound validity. However, this is not to negate the fact that such behavior may be partially adaptive in some indi- vidual instances and that it need not be regarded strictly as a psychopathological phenomenon. Theories of homosexuality continue to debate the issue as to whether this is a psychopathologic state or normal behavior occurring in a special social and cultural context.

REFERENCES 1. CORNFORD, F. M.: The Unzwitten Philosophy and Other Essays. Cambridge, University Press,

2. DODDS, E. R.: The Greeks and the Irrational. Berkeley, University of California Press, 1951.

3. TOURNEY, G.: Freud and the Greeks: A Study of the Influence of Classical Greek Mythology and Philosophy U on the Development of Freudian Thought. Journal of the History of the Be- havioral Sciences. tol . I, 1965, pp. 67-85.

MORGAN, D. N.: Love: Pluto, the Bible and Freud. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964. p. 3.

1950. p. 78.

pp. 119-20, 151-2.

4.

272 BOOK REVIEWS

5. HESIOD: Theogony. Translated by R. Lattimore. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Prass,

6. HARRISON, J. E.: Probgomena to the Study of Greek Religion. Cambridge, University Press, 1903. 1959. Lines 116124, p. 130.

pp. 626659. 7. Ibid., p. 658. 8. CORNFORD, F. M.: Principiuwa Sapientiae. Cambridge, University Press, 1952, p. 195. 9. SOPHOCLES: Antigone. Lines 791f.

10. Cited by Harrison: op. cit., p. 638. 11. CORNFORD: op, eit., pp. 159-186. 12. BURNET, J.: Early Greek Philosophy. 4th Ed. London, Adams and Charles Black, 1930,

169-1 96. PP *

13.

14. CORNFORD: The Unwritten Philosophy. p. 74. 15. TAYLOR, A. E.: Plato, The M a n and His Work. 6th Ed. New York, Meridian Books. 1956.

pp. 299-320. 16. JAEGER, W.: Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture. Vol. 111. New York, Oxford University

Press, 1944. pp. 182-196. 17. PIEPER, J.: Enthusiasm and Divine Madness. New York, Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc.,

1964, p. 37. 18. Zbid., p. 47. 19. Zbid., p. 60. 20. 21. Zbid., p. 78. 22. Ibid., p. 89. 23. 24. Zbid., p. 17. 25. Zbid., p. 25. 26. Zbid., p. 120. 27. 28. Zbid., p. 51.

30. Ibid., p. 191. 31. Zbid., p. 191.

33. SYMONDS, J. A.: A Problem in Greek Ethics. London, Privately Printed, 1901. 34. ELLIS, H.: Sexual Inversion. Part Four of Studies in the Psychology o fsex . New York, Random

35. LICHT, H.: Sexual Life in Ancient Greece. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1932. 36. CORY, D. W.: The Homosexual in America: A Subjective Approach. New York, Greenberg, 1051. 37. This discussion is largely based on Brinton, C.: A Uistory of Western Morals. New York, Har-

court, Brace, 1959. pp. 70-104, and Hunt, M. M.: The Natural History of Love. New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1959. pp. 15-51.

38. EQLINTON: op. cit., p. 40. 39. MARROU, H. I.: A History of Education in Antiquity. New York, Sheed and Ward, 1056. pp.

40. Zbid., p. 50. 41. Zbid., p. 54.

MORGAN: op. cit., pp. 65-71. Eglinton, J. Z.: GreekLove. New York, Oliver Layton Press, 1964. pp. 122-9.

Cited by Pieper: op. cit., pp. 65-66..

COULD, T.: Plutonic Love. New York, The Free Press of Gleneoe, 1962. p. 14.

Cited by RIST, J. M.: Eros and Psyche. Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1964. p. 24.

29. Zbid., pp. 111-12. .

32. MOnQAN: Op. bt., p. 34.

House, 1936.

50-62.