This essay is a brief overview of a new discovery of hidden structure in The Phaedrus and The Symposium. It has potentially far-reaching implications for our view on the philosophy of Plato and Socrates for reasons laid out briefly in the concluding section.
Plato’s symbolic writing
Throughout most of the history of Plato interpretation, and until recently (about 300 years ago), the majority of Plato scholars assumed that he wrote symbolically[1] (Kennedy 2010).
In 2010 Jay Kennedy proposed that he had found that secret divisions of 12 existing in many of Plato’s Dialogues (when reconstructed in their original papyrus scroll layout) and that these divisions map onto a 12 note musical scale, with passages relating to harmony and goodness coming at harmonious ‘notes’ and passages relating to discord and strife set at the discordant ‘notes’.
Over ten years on it seems the scholarly community didn’t feel on balance that the evidence was strong enough or the implications interesting enough for this line to be pursued further. However, Kennedy’s research on Plato’s symbolic writing was strong (Kennedy 2011) and lends credibility to the possibility of Plato writing this way.
It is fortunate for me that recognising the hidden structure presented in this essay does not require specialist knowledge[2] in Papyrology or Pythagorean music theory, just a familiarity with the content of Plato’s dialogues and to perform some straightforward textual analysis.
The Phaedrus and the Symposium
The Phaedrus and Symposium are two of Plato’s most closely related dialogues, not least because ‘the two Dialogues together contain the whole philosophy of Plato on the nature of love’ (Jowett 1924). This essay proposes the idea that there exists a hidden structure spanning these works, not previously noted by scholars[3].
The Esoteric “Key”
The Phaedrus is a dialogue (conducted in private) between Phaedrus and Socrates on the bank of a stream outside of Athens. There are three speeches on the topic of Eros making up the first half of the text, then suddenly the subject changes to ‘true rhetoric’. This change is all the more surprising because the first half has such a satisfying unity of form and content. The three speeches each symbolise one of three parts (Rationality, Spirit and Appetities) of the ‘tripartite soul’ (Griswold 1986), and this ‘tripartite soul’ is a key idea in the third, “Great” speech by Socrates.
And so when we read on into the second half it reads like a different dialogue. However there are many links from this second section back into the first half. One of which is when Socrates is discussing what a ‘true rhetorician’ must accomplish:
(1)
[H]e who is to be a rhetorician must know the various forms of soul. Now they are so and so many and of such and such kinds, wherefore men also are of different kinds: these we must classify.
(2)
Then there are also various classes of speeches, to one of which every speech belongs. So men of a certain sort are easily persuaded by speeches of a certain sort for a certain reason to actions or beliefs of a certain sort, and men of another sort cannot be so persuaded. (Phaedrus 271d)
This passage is the key we claim. And, keeping it in mind, we may remember back to Socrates’ second great speech where, in a short section, Socrates describes nine types of people according to how much truth their souls perceived in their past life:
(3)
[T]he soul that has seen the most shall enter into the birth of a man who is to be
a philosopher or a lover of beauty, or one of a musical or loving nature,
and the second soul into that of a lawful king or a warlike ruler,
and the third into that of a politician or a man of business or a financier,
the fourth into that of a hardworking gymnast or one who will be concerned with the cure of the body,
and the fifth [248e] will lead the life of a prophet or someone who conducts mystic rites;
to the sixth, a poet or some other imitative artist will be united,
to the seventh, a craftsman or a husbandman,
to the eighth, a sophist or a demagogue,
to the ninth, a tyrant.’
(Phaedrus 248d)
So Plato here has done part of the work of the ‘true rhetorician’ [see (1) in the “key” passage above] and classified nine soul-types[4] (lets simplify the list above to: Philosopher, Warrior-King, Statesman, Doctor, Prophet, Poet, Farmer, Demagogue, and Tyrant).
Plato has discussed many of these soul-types and their characteristics in more detail both here in the Phaedrus and in other dialogues. It should be noted that some of these soul-types are controversial regarding their definitions, with Plato taking a different view on what defines, say a Philosopher, from the common view of his time.[5]
But what about the speeches that ‘belong’ to these soul-types - the different kinds of speeches that ‘persuade’ these different men? [see (2) in the “key” passage above]
Has Plato also given us in his dialogues examples of the kinds of speeches that belong, or are attractive to these nine soul-types? Certainly, he hasn’t written a dialogue in which nine different characters, a Philosopher[6], Warrior-King, Statesman, Doctor, Prophet, Poet, Farmer, Demagogue, and Tyrant, all sit around arguing over some topic! However what is important is not the characters but the speeches; there are a variety of ways that a character could deliver a speech that does not belong to her own soul-type, as we shall see.
The nine speeches on Eros in The Phaedrus and The Symposium
It is wonderful and surprising to discover that there are nine[7] speeches on the same topic - Eros – from very different perspectives, spanning these same two dialogues.
1. In The Phaedrus, Phaedrus delivers a speech, written by Lysias, condemning ‘the Lover’ so that the speaker can win sexual favours from a youth. (230e - Phaedrus)
2. Then Socrates, in a competitive spirit, delivers a counter speech, a mini tragedy where a secret Lover condemns ‘the Lover’ (and so himself), in order to win his beloved. (237a - Phaedrus)
3. Promoted by his Daimonion, Socrates then delivers his “Great” palinode praising Eros. (242b - Phaedrus)
4. In The Symposium Phaedrus delivers a speech praising the good side of Eros for making a Lover manly and heroic. (178a - Symposium)
5. Pausanias, the lawyer, then speaks at length about Eros’s effect on the city and civic life; it can have good or bad effects depending on how it is channelled. (180c - Symposium)
6. The next speech is from a doctor, Eryximachus, and takes a doctor’s view of Eros. (185e - Symposium)
7. Aristophanes then delivers his speech which is a comic story about why falling in love can feel like finding your other half. (189a - Symposium)
8. Agathon, who the day before won first prize for his tragedy, speaks next, praising Eros in an over-the-top manner. (194e - Symposium)
9. Finally Socrates’s speech remembers a conversation he had with Ditoma when he was young during which she teaches him about Eros. (199b - Symposium)
It is even more satisfying to realise that these nine speeches are the different speeches of the nine souls types - Plato has given us these little model speeches as examples, demonstrating his understanding of these souls (see [2]) in this esoteric way.
Matching the nine speeches with the nine souls
To show this we will need to match up the nine speeches with the nine souls with strong arguments why a particular speech matches Plato’s definition of that soul-type and couldn’t be just as likely from another soul-type.
On first glance there are a couple of matches to be made based on the stated profession of the characters: Eryximachus is a doctor and Socrates a philosopher. However Socrates has three speeches (and Phaedrus two), so we have to explain how a person can give speeches of more than one soul-type or the hypothesis of this paper fails. Moreover, of the other characters, two are famous poets (Aristophanes & Athagon), one a legal expert (Pausanias) and one who doesn’t seem to have a profession (Phaedrus). None of these people are known to have been a tyrant, farmer, prophet, statesman or warrior-king.
We will now show the ingenious way Plato wrote these nine speeches to match with the nine soul-types, using these six characters that speak in these dialogues.
The following table shows the proposed match and a brief reason (in the form: Soul-type X has defining attribute Y (according to Plato), and Speech A is the only speech displaying that attribute Y, therefore we propose to match X and A. i.e Plato has written A as an example speech for soul-type X.
Or the reason is that Plato has the speaker explicitly state that they speak as that soul-type (e.g Y), and this is the only speech that makes this claim for that soul-type Y)
Now we will go through each one in more detail, giving some strong lines of evidence and countering some of the obvious objections.
Philosopher – Socrates’ Symposium speech
Socrates is, for Plato, the model philosopher, which is a way of being defined in the Republic as:- a lover of learning, someone with a good memory, with broadness of vision and also, distinctively, as someone who uses dialectic. Each of these characteristics is on display in Socrates’ speech; He engages with Agathon dialectically, and his main speech is a remembered (partly dialectical) encounter with Ditoma (who takes the philosopher’s part in the conversation). By recalling a conversation from boyhood in which he is eagerly learning about Eros, he certainly demonstrates a good memory, as well as a love of learning. Famously this speech is known as the ‘Ladder of Love’, because it demonstrates the broadest vision that sweeps from the lowest form of love (sexual lust) to the highest (love of the Good).
And so we see that all the characteristics of a philosopher (as Plato understands this type) are on display in this speech – they can safely be matched.
Warrior-King – Phaedrus’ Symposium speech
The laconic speech is full of praise for Eros’ role in the promotion of honour and bravery, and makes frequent reference to mythical heroes.
But to really see how this speech belongs to the Warrior-King we can look at actual events inspired by this speech. In it the idea is expressed that ‘if only there were a way to start a city or an army made up of lovers and the boys they love...a few of them in battle, side by side, would conquer the whole world’ (Phae 178e-179a). It’s an idea actually put into action when Theban general Pelopidas created The Scared Band of Thebes as a result of this speech!
But how could Phaedrus, a character seemingly opposite to the ‘manly’ type (he is obsessed with his health), deliver this speech? The answer is that from the Phaedrus we know that he loved to learn other people’s speeches, also that he is the one that got everyone at the symposium to make speeches, and he decided the topic. We can reasonably conclude that he memorised this speech (someone else’s) for this occasion and made sure he got a chance to use it.
Statesman – Pausanias’ Symposium speech
Pausanias is a lawyer, an advisor to statesman, and, as the Visitor in the Statesman dialogue says: an advisor should have the same expert knowledge as the person they advise (Statesman 259a). The speech itself is about Athens’ customs and laws regarding their pederast system. It shows a statesman’s concern for the legal and social issues that result.
Doctor – Eryximachus’ Symposium speech
Eryximachus, is a doctor, and self-consciously (186b-d) talks about Eros in terms of the body and of health.
Prophet – Socrates’ second speech from the Phaedrus
Although this speech is poetry, it is of the high-minded, religious kind (inspired by Apollo not the Muses). The speech is a palinode, prompted by Socrates' Daimon (his inner oracle) - and is a form of religious ritual whereby Socrates purifies himself of the sins of his first speech. Socrates as prophet is not really himself (see next section), but prophet and philosopher are closely related, sharing a concern for the divine and a broadness of vision.
Poet – Socrates’ first speech from the Phaedrus
The form of the speech is poetry. Socrates works himself up into a poetic trance, eventually speaking in verse. It is difficult to argue that any other soul-type would speak in poetry inspired by the Muses, as Socrates does here (Phae 237a), other than the poet. The only other possibility would be the prophet. But, as we are told in Socrates’ second Phaedrus speech, the madness that inspires poetry (the Muses) is different from that of the Prophet (Apollo).
Socrates is a philosopher so why is he here a poet? - Socrates is outside of Athens’s walls for the only time, except when he went to war, and as he says ‘I must be forgetting who I am myself’ (Phae 228a)
Farmer – Phaedrus’ speech from Phaedrus
The speech itself was not written by Phaedrus but by Lysias, who was a speechwriter and orator. This speech is written for a ‘non-lover’ trying to win someone’s sexual favours. The farmer has the kind of simple, non-rational soul that this lustful speech would appeal to; because for Plato this soul-type is led by the appetitive part of the soul (see Republic).
This speech’s dramatic setting is the farmland around Athens, where Socrates is intoxicated by the pleasures of the scene (230b-c). All the scene setting of the speech supports its matching to the farmer.
Demagogue – Agathon’s Symposium speech
It is often assumed that since Agathon is a poet who has just won a prize for his drama then this speech must somehow represent poetry. However this is not so (at least according to Plato’s definition of a true poet): the speech is pure demagogy or sophistry ‘imitating the style of Gorgias’ (Cobb 1993, pg 69). Before his speech, Agathon says he is nervous in such illustrious company, so it’s not surprising he doesn't give a speech inspired by the Muses (as Socrates does in the Phaedrus), rather, his speech is inspired by what he, a rich young man, has picked up from the sophists – it is rote-learned phrases for certain effects, in this case, praise.
After the speech, Socrates comments that the speech reminds him of Gorgias, the famous sophist (Sym 198c). Agathon says he wasn't wholly serious in giving this speech (197e) - i.e he was not himself.
Tyrant – Aristophanes’ Symposium speech
Aristophanes was to speak after Pausanias not Eryximachus, but had hiccups (185c-e). Hiccups are like a tyrant - a small insignificant part of the whole taking control for a time, disabling proper functioning.
In Aristophanes’ story Zeus acts like a tyrant, worried about man overthrowing him -'divide and conquer' gets a literal meaning here.
By linking Aristophanes with the lowest form of soul, could this be a subtle dig at him in revenge for The Clouds – the comedy that helped convict Socrates?
Where does this lead?
So what if this paper’s ideas are correct and Plato hid this design for these dialogues? Is there any philosophical interest in this? Is this just a case of Plato playing a harmless game? Does this discovery have any effect on other parts of Plato’s philosophy?
We need to analyse further the nine soul types and their interrelationships since this was clearly important to Plato. But how do we harmonise the nine souls with the Tripartite soul or the 5 type of man from the Republic for example?
Are there any other way these nine types show up in some form or other across the dialogues? What about in Aristotle, Plato’s student of twenty years?
References
Cobb, William 1993, The Symposium and the Phaedrus; Plato’s erotic dialogues, New York State University Press
Jowett 1924, Dialogues of Plato Vol 1, Oxford University press, H. Milford,
Kennedy, Jay 2010, Plato’s Forms, Pythagorean Mathematics, and Stichometry, Apeiron
Kennedy, Jay 2011 The Musical Structure of Plato's Dialogues, Routledge
Griswold, Charles 1986, Self-knowledge in Plato's Phaedrus, Yale University Press, pg27
Plato 1997, Plato - Complete Works (John M. Cooper, ed.), Hackett Publishing
[1] ‘Symbolic writing’ could also be called ‘Esoteric writing’ or ‘Allegorical writing’. This implies that some or all of the structures, characters, events or words in the writing stand for something else. Writing can be constructed as a puzzle, hiding teachings, unlocked only if readers have the correct interpretive key.
[2] Although I am not a classics scholar, and unearthed this as an independent researcher, I had done undergraduate and postgraduate work in Philosophy at St Anns Oxford, and the Open University.
[3] This fact seems almost unexplainable
[4] ‘Soul-type’ will be my terminology for these ‘various forms of the soul’
[5] See the Republic for his arguing different characteristics for a Philosopher than the common view.
[6] My convention in this essay is to underline the soul-types whenever written from this point in the essay onwards
[7] There is of course a tenth speech to end this series, by Alcibiades, however it is not about Eros, rather it is inspired by his love for Socrates; it tells the story of their relationship, and demonstrates that Socrates deeds match up to his words.