βομβυλίους καὶ τοὺς ἅλας καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα βουληθέντων ἐπαινεῖν κ.τ.λ.) Isocrates scoffs at the eulogists of "bees and salt and such-like trumpery," and his language is echoed in the allusion (put in the mouth of Eryximachus quoting Phaedrus) to a βιβλίον ἀνδρὸς σοφοῦ ἐν ᾧ ἐνῆσαν ἅλες ἔπαινον θαυμάσιον ἔχοντες πρὸς ὠφέλειαν (177 Β). This eulogist of salt is commonly supposed to be Polycrates, since encomia on similar paltry subjects-mice, xúτρaι, ñ—are ascribed to him1. Dümmler, however, takes the reference to be to Antisthenes (Protreptikos), on the strength of the statement in Pollux vi. 16. 98: βομβύλιος δὲ τὸ στενὸν ἔκπωμα καὶ βομβοῦν ἐν τῇ πόσει, ὡς ̓Αντισθένης ἐν προτρεπτικῷ. And for ἅλες as eulogized in the same work he quotes also Rep. 372 в ff. (öyov éέovσw aλas). It may be added that a further allusion to the βομβύλιος, as στενὸν ἔκπωμα, may be discovered in the mention of Kтwμа péya in Sympos. 213 E. Since Antisthenes seems to have devoted a good deal of attention to the subject of pélŋ3, one is inclined to suppose that his views are alluded to in Sympos. (176, 213-14); and another allusion to him may be found in the mention of the xpnoroi σopioraí who eulogized Heracles (177 B), since Heracles was, notoriously, the patron-saint of the Cynics. However much they might differ on other points, Plato and Isocrates were agreed in so far as both found the Cynic leader an objectionable person.

(f) A significant indication is given us at the conclusion of the Prologue that the account of the speeches which follows is not an exhaustive account, but only a selection. And it is a selection that has been sifted twice. For Apollodorus states (178 A) that neither did Aristodemus remember all the views put forward by every speaker, nor did he (Apollodorus) remember all that Aristodemus had related. This statement is further confirmed by the later statement (180 c) that Aristodemus passed over the discourses of several speakers who followed next after Phaedrus. We are to infer, therefore, that there was a good deal of speechifying at the banquet which was not aέioμvyμóvevrov. But why Plato is at pains to emphasize this point is

1 So Hug (Sympos. ad loc.) following Sauppe and Blass: also Jebb, Att. Or. II. 99. I may note here an inconsistency as to the date of Polycrates' "Accusation" in Jebb, Att. Or. 1. 150-51 compared with ib. XLV: in the latter place it is set in 393 B.C.

2 In this Dümmler (Akad. p. 66) follows Winckelmann (Antisth. fr. p. 21). Polycrates, however, may be alluded to as well as Antisthenes, as the terms of the reference are wide (äλλa тolaûтa σvxvá); moreover, a close relation may have existed between these two writers.

3 See Dümmler, Antisthenica, pp. 17 ff.

4 See Gomperz, G. T. 11. p. 151; Dümmler, Akad. p. 66.

not wholly clear. It may, of course, be merely a literary device meant to enhance the verisimilitude of the account, since the speeches actually related might be thought insufficient to occupy the length of time supposed to elapse between the end of the Seπvov and the hour of Alcibiades' arrival—which would probably not be early. It is possible, however, that we should look for a deeper reason. If so, may not the intention be to brush aside and discredit other speeches stated by another author1 (äλλos Tɩs, 172 в) to have been delivered on this occasion?

(C) The Interludes.

Of

The first Interlude, worthy of the name, occurs between the second and third encomia (185 c-E), and it is noticeable, first, for the reference to the "isology" of the rhetorical sophists; secondly, for the device by which the natural order of speakers is changed (Eryximachus taking the place of Aristophanes); and thirdly, for the alleged cause which renders such a change necessary, namely the hiccough (λúys) of Aristophanes. As regards the significance of this last matter considerable diversity of opinion exists among the commentators. the ancients, Olympiodorus (vit. Plat. 3) supposed that Plato here ἐκωμώδησε ̓Αριστοφάνη when he εἰσάγει αὐτὸν μεταξὺ λυγγὶ περιπεσόντα καὶ μὴ δυνάμενον πληρῶσαι τὸν ὕμνον: and similarly Athenaeus (187 ) writes τὸν μὲν ὑπὸ τῆς λυγγὸς ὀχλούμενον...κωμῳδεῖν ἤθελε καὶ διασύρειν : and Aristides (or. 46, II. p. 287), ἀλλ ̓ οἶμαι λύζειν αὐτὸν ἔδει, ἵνα εἰς άπληστíaν σкwp0n. Of the moderns, some have followed the ancients in supposing that the incident is meant to satirize Aristophanes and his intemperate habits (so Stallbaum, Rückert, Steinhart); while some (Stephens, Sydenham, Wolf, Schwegler) take the object of the ridicule to be not so much the habits of the poet as his speech with its "indelicate ingredients." On the other hand, Schleiermacher held the view that Eryximachus with his "physiological and medical notion of love" is here being satirized; while Ast-whose view is shared in the main by Hommel, van Prinsterer and Rettig-argued that the real object of the ridicule is Pausanias, by whose speech Aristophanes implies that he has been "fed up" to the point of loathing. This view Rettig thinks is supported by the phrase Παυσανίου παυσαμένου, which he takes to indicate Apollodorus' ridicule,—by the allusion made by Aristophanes to Pausanias' speech in 189 c,-and by his mention of Pausanias again in 193 в; and he construes the hint of another

1 See above, § ii. A, ad fin.

possible cause ( vñó tivos ädλov, 185 c) as "affording the key to the hidden meaning of the word Anoμový." This view, however, is open to the objections (urged by Rückert against Ast) that, first, it makes Aristophanes guilty of excessive rudeness in feigning a hiccough to show his disgust ("aliud est in convivio iocari, aliud in scena," e.g. Nub. 906 ff., Ach. 585 ff., the places cited by Rettig); and that, further, there is no plain sign that the hiccough was feigned, but on the contrary the whole incident is stated by Aristodemus as matter-of-fact. It seems safe, therefore, to conclude that the most obvious view-that of the ancients-is nearest to the truth. The incident shows up Aristophanes in a ludicrous light, and at the same time it gives further occasion to Eryximachus to air his medical lore; so that we can read in it the intention of satirizing gently both these personages. But to construe it as aimed at Pausanias is far-fetched and improbable: he is already disposed of in the satirical reference to sophistical "isology"; and to discover a fresh allusion to him in the "other cause " of the hiccough is to discover a mare's nest, for-as the Scholiast ad loc. informs us-other physical causes of this symptom were as a matter of fact recognized by the medical profession, and it is only polite on the part of Aristodemus to leave the matter open.

The second Interlude (189 ▲—c) and the third (193 D—194 E) call for no special remark.

The fourth Interlude (198 ▲-199 c), which follows on the speech of Agathon, is linked to the third both by a remark which Socrates addresses to Eryximachus, and also, at the close, by his appeal to Phaedrus (cp. 199 B with 194 D). Here, in even a greater degree than in the previous Interludes, Socrates is the central figure of interest, and this position he continues to hold throughout the rest of the dialogue. This Interlude, indeed, may be regarded as one of the cardinal points of the structure, in which the First Act, as we may term it, passes on into the Second; and in the Second Act we reach at length the theoretical climax, in the doctrine of Socrates-Diotima. To this climax the present Interlude, wherein is laid before us Socrates' confession of rhetorical faith, serves as prologue.

The fifth Interlude (212 c—215 a) is by far the longest and, as regards the action of the piece, the most important. For it introduces a new actor, and he a protagonist, in the person of Alcibiades. The contrast is striking between the prophetess in her soaring flights to the heavenly places of the spirit and the tipsy reveller with his lewd train who takes her place in claiming the attention of the audience. The

comic relief which, in the earlier scenes, had been supplied by Aristophanes, as yeλwτоTоlós, is now supplied by Alcibiades. We should notice also how a link with the Second Act is furnished here, at the commencement of the Third Act, by the mention of an attempt by Aristophanes to reply to an observation made by Socrates in the course of his speech. But apart from this, the rest of the speakers and banqueters are left out of account except only Agathon, Socrates and Eryximachus. The action of the last of these here is parallel to his action at the commencement of the First Act where he had taken the lead in fixing the rules for the conduct of the symposium. As regards Agathon and Socrates, the most important incident in this Interlude is the decision concerning their contest in σopía which is pronounced by Alcibiades, when, acting the not inappropriate part of Dionysus, he awards the crown to Socrates,—an incident to the significance of which we have already (§ ii. B, C) drawn attention.

Of the Epilogue or concluding scene (222 c-end) it is unnecessary to say much. The persons that figure most largely in it are the three central characters, Alcibiades, Agathon and Socrates; while towards the close the rest of the characters receive, as it were, a farewell notice. When the curtain finally falls, it falls significantly on the solitary figure of Socrates, the incarnation of the Eros-daemon, behind whom in his shadow stands the form of his erastes, the "shadow"-biographer Aristodemus.

§ iii. THE FIRST FIVE SPEECHES.

1. Phaedrus, son of Pythocles, belonged to the Attic deme Myrrhinus. Lysias describes him as "impoverished" in circumstances, but respectable. In the Protagoras he is represented as a disciple of Hippias; while in the Phaedrus-named after him-his chief characteristic is his ardent interest in erotic oratory (λóyo pwτikoi), a specimen of which, by Lysias, he has learnt almost completely by heart. It is, then, in accordance with this character that we find Phaedrus, in the Symposium, made responsible for the theme of the series of speeches (viz. ἔπαινος Ερωτος, 177 D), and entitled πατὴρ τοῦ Móyou. We may gather also from certain indications contained both in the Phaedrus and in the Symposium that Phaedrus was neither physically strong nor mentally vigorous'. The ostensibly prominent

1 See Phaedr. 227 ▲, Symp. 176 c, 223 в, and, generally, his cultivation of medical friends. Also the probable word-play in the deme-name Muppivovσios, Symp. 176 D, Phaedr. 244 A.

position assigned to such a man in the Symposium is more natural if we assume that it is due to the desire to make him a link between this dialogue and the Phaedrus1.

Phaedrus's speech, although not without merit in point of simplicity of style and arrangement, is poor in substance. The moral standpoint is in no respect raised above the level of the average citizen; the speaker pays little regard to consistency, and the method of argument, with its want of logical coherence, savours much of the sophists. As examples of this self-contradiction we may point to the statement that Achilles, as younger than Patroclus, must be raidika not paorýs, whereas Alcestis, though younger than Admetus, is treated as the pŵσa, not the pwμévn; we may point also to the other inconsequence, that the self-sacrifice of Achilles, the raidiká, is cited in support of the contention that oi èpŵvтes μóvo, are capable of such self-sacrifice. The arbitrary handling of the Orpheus myth is another striking illustration of the sophistic manner.

What is, however, most characteristic of the speech of Phaedrus is its richness of mythological allusion. Lacking, it would seem, in native force of intellect, Phaedrus relies upon authority and tradition. He quotes Hesiod and Homer, Acusilaos and Parmenides: he builds his argument, such as it is, on the sayings of "them of old time," and on the legendary histories of the son of Oeagrus and the daughter of Pelias; and when he can confute Aeschylus on a point of mythology his joy is great. As a lover of religious tradition, we may credit Phaedrus with a capacity for genuine religious feeling; certainly, in his rôle as high-priest of Eros, on the present occasion, he shows a strict regard for ritual propriety when he rebukes Socrates for interrupting the service of speech-offerings to the god (194 D)3.

In point of literary style we may notice the following features:-(a) Rhetorical ornamentation: chiasmus (178 D), paronomasia (179 c), special compound verbs (ȧyaσ0évτes 179 c, vπepaɣaσlévtes 180 Α; ἀποθανεῖν 179 Ε, ὑπεραποθανεῖν, ἐπαποθανεῖν 180 Α);

1 Cf. P. Crain, p. 7: Vera causa, cur Plato sermonis in Symposio Phaedrum parentem praedicaverit, haec mihi videtur esse: rediens ad eas cogitationes quas in Phaedro dialogo instituerat, eundem quoque auctorem colloquii reduxit.

2 Hug sums up the position of Phaedrus thus (p. xlvi): "Phädros stellt den gewöhnlichen athenischen Bürger dar, den eine rastlose Neugierde zu den rhetorischen und philosophischen Kreisen hindrängt, der da und dort etwas aufschnappt und sich aneignet, jedoch ohne tieferes Verständnis, aber mit desto grösserem Selbstbewusstsein." Cp. Jowett (Plato 1. p. 528): "The discourse of Phaedrus is half-mythical, half-ethical; and he himself...is half-sophist, half-enthusiast."

B. P.

C