American Classical League

THE SPEECH OF LYSIAS IN PLATO'S "PHAEDRUS"

Author(s): Ronna Burger
Source: The Classical Outlook, Vol. 55, No. 5 (MAY-JUNE 1978), pp. 81-86
Published by: American Classical League
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43933947
Accessed: 25-01-2018 23:41 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

American Classical League is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Classical Outlook

This content downloaded from 191.85.153.222 on Thu, 25 Jan 2018 23:41:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Eiļt (Elaaatral (iuílook
VOLUME LV MA Y- JUNE 1978 NUMBER 5

THE SPEECH OF LYSIAS the written speech of Lysias, as the the result of art than of chance. If this (
IN PLATO'S PHAEDRUS fundamental obstacle to universality. principle could be generalized, the )
By Ronna Burger By attacking the natural particularity of "authentic" speeches incorporated int
Graduate Center eros , the non-lover implicitly points to the dialogues would represent Plato's
of
its conflict with the apparent whole own ability to set forth the position of
The City University of New York
exemplified by the political community his historical characters, as he does for
as well as with that whole sought by the his fictitious ones, more succinctly and
On the the plane tree
grassy treemarks
which bank the
which
sac- of marks a river the under sac-
lover of wisdom. The paradigmatic appropriately than would be possible
red grove of the nymphs, Socrates and written speech of Lysias, which praises by simply interjecting what might
Phaedrus lie down together to read. But
the non-lover by demanding the happen to be their actual work (cf. the
this private encounter between two lov-
application of art in the service of speech of Protagoras in Plato's
ers of speeches is set in motion by the
desire, is a mirror which paradoxically Protagoras 320d-322d).
reflects and inverts that artful product The ability to reflect the character of
written speech of the rhetorician Lysias
which Phaedrus carries beneath his of writing in which it comes to life. the speaker which is said to be the
cloak; with the artificial "drug" of The
a speech of Lysias which essence of Lysias' reputation thus
written speech, Phaedrus captivatesPhaedrus conceals in his left hand constitutes a link with the art of
Socrates and draws him outside his beneath his cloak is introduced as an imitation exhibited by Plato in the
usual habitat in the city (cf. 230d).occasion
At for deception; the paradigm of speeches of the characters in the
the conclusion of the recital, Socrates dialogues. But just as the love of speech
writing is presented in light of its power
insists that he is overcome by the for
de- deceit. Behind the innocent which unites Socrates with Phaedrus
monic speech of Lysias because of ob-willingness for disguise which marks must be understood in light of the
serving Phaedrus' glow in reading Phaedrus'
it character, lies the distinctions between them, so as art of
and following in his divine frenzy intentionally cloaked nature of Lysias' imitation which unites Plato with
(234d). It is not Phaedrus, however, work, whose effect always depends Lysias must be examined in light of its
but the feast which he offers that lures upon the success of deception. internal The articulations. If the
Socrates to the fountain of the nymphs; choice of Lysias as the fitting concealment of the author behind the
behind the illusion of Socrates' erotic representative for the power of voices of his characters represents, for
interest in the beautiful youth Phaedrusdeception must be considered in light of Lysias, the pursuit of self-interest
lies the reality of Lysias' presence his historical identity as "ghostwriter" determined by economic and political
through his product of writing: for the litigants of the Athenian necessities (see Lysias, Against
4 Tor I suspect that you have thelawcourt (cf. Dionysius of Eratosthenes 18-20), that art of
speech itself. If that is so, think Halicarnassus, De Lysia 1.16). Lysias'
this of me; while being very fondsuccess in this activity, and his
of you, I have no intention ofconsequent fame in antiquity, rest on IN THIS ISSUE...
lending myself to you to practice his ability to make the written speech
on. But come, show it, (228e)."reflect the character of the speaker (see Ronna Burger,
The origin of the speeches on eros ,Dionysius of Halicarnassus, De Lysia "The Speech
exchanged between two amateurs, is a1. 15). If the written speech attributed to of Lysias"
product of writing ironically praised forLysias in the Phaedrus is intended to Meyer Reinh
the multi-colored (POIKILOS) wisdom reflect the character of the one who "Philhellenism
it displays (cf. 236b). This product of utters it, it should provide a mirror in in America"

art, which consists appropriately in awhich Phaedrus' image is cast. The Samuel A. G
condemnation of eros, elicits Socrates'fitting equivalent to a court case of "A Roman E
struggle in the defense of eros; butaccusation or defense, in light of Falls in Hicksville"

Socrates himself admits that the Phaedrus' nature, would be the Andrew Horto
speech, however one-sided, persuasive speech of a coy lover "Festive Come
necessarily contains a germ of truth wooing his beloved in the guise of a Sacred Clowns"

(236a). Lysias' speech must be non-lover.

Herbert Huxl
superseded, for the non-lover's praise Without prolonging the 4 'Phalacrocorax' '

of himself distorts a partial perspective

centuries-old controversy as to whether
Bernice L. Fox,
by presenting it as a whole account; but
or not the speech presented by Phaedrus
"Report of the
the non-lover's condemnation of the is an actual work of the historical SPQR Convention"
madness of eros provides precisely that Lysias, one might assume, for reasons Fred Mench,
germ of truth which Socrates develops which should become increasingly "Were There Butterflies
in his own subsequent speeches. Theobvious, that an extant speech which so in Rome?"

experience of eros , condemned for its perfectly coincides with the specific Stephen Acu
lack of artful control and its arbitraryfunction of Plato's own arguments and "Iphigenia"

selectivity, is first exhibited, through dramatic purposes, is more probably

This content downloaded from 191.85.153.222 on Thu, 25 Jan 2018 23:41:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Page 82 THE CLASSICAL OUTLOOK

concealment represents, fromforthe viewpoint

Plato, of thethe beloved,Lysias'
a speech, as Socrates succinctly
attempt to overcome speech the dangers,
whose content set presents it, is to praise the
concerns the lack
forth by Socrates, of of the for the return of love reasonableness
dead written
justification by of the non-lover and to
word. Unlike the Platonic the beloved to dialogue,
his lover. blame the unreasonableness of the
which contains the clues Socrates begins his criticism
necessary for of the lover (235e). It is precisely the attempt
overcoming its own false appearances,
speech with the claim that Lysias seems to rearrange this necessary argument
the written work of Lysias to say theissame thing two or three which determines the form and content
a product
of writing whose intention times, "exhibiting can be to speak of the speeches on eros which Socrates
his ability
fulfilled only by sustaining the same other its false
and other, saying both delivers in competition with Lysias.
appearances. excellently" (235a); Socrates, In the central section of the dialogue
The activity of writing pursued byironically, states this very claim two Socratesor suggests that the greater the
Lysias as an instrument in the service ofthree times. While Socrates appears extentto of ambiguity in the subject, the
the art of money-making is reflected in condemn the unnecessary redundancy greater the power of rhetoric to
the nature of the erotic relationship of Lysias' arguments, he implicitly deceive. The persuasive power of
advocated by his written speech. The Lysias' speech must, then, rest on some
suggests that the written speech, which
appears to "always say the same,"unanalyzed ambiguity; that ambiguity,
relationship of exchange for the mutual
benefit of two4 contracting parties, might hide various levels of as Socrates and Phaedrus later agree, is
interpretation behind its apparently
which Lysias praises in the name of the the quality of eros which allows it both
non-lover, is grounded on the to be condemned as harmful to beloved
unitary surface. Socrates thus indicates
principles of exchange in the economic and lover and to be praised as the
sphere (cf. Aristotle Nichomachean greatest of goods (263c). It is this
Ethics 1 163b28-l 164al2). The concealed ambiguity which guarantees
THE CLASSICAL OUTLOOK
non-lover, who is not carried off the germ of truth present in the
beyond the rule of self-interest, must necessary argument of Lysias' speech.
2nd-class postage paid at Oxford. The
Ohiotransformation of eros to
persuasively demonstrate his own 45056
merits, in a proportion equal to the philosophic eros , which takes place in
desired youth and beauty of his BUSINESS MANAGER: Joan Myers.
the course of the speeches delivered by
beloved; to accomplish this, the American Classical League. Oxford, Socrates, depends upon the attempt to
non-lover must compose an Ohio 45056 take up that germ of truth by disclosing
advertisement against his competitor, the concealed ambiguity which
the lover. That such a conception of John E. Rexine. Colgate underlies it. Because it is true that
EDITOR:
love is destructive of the very nature of
University. Hamilton. N.Y. 13346 Lysias seem to "say the same other and
love, Socrates attempts to demonstrate other," it is difficult to provide any
in his recantation to eros , which he EDITORS: Lynne S. Abel,
ASSOC. coherent outline of the speech as a
Cornell
introduces by expressing his fear ofUniversity. Ithaca. N.Y. 14853; whole. The clues for its organization,
4 'buying honor among men
Edithin
M.A. Kovach. University of however, are provided in Socrates'
exchange for sinning against the Detroit.
gods' Detroit.
' Mich. 4822 1 : Louis W. later examination of the speech, during
(242d). At the conclusion ofRoberts.
his Syracuse University. the discussion on the principles for an
recantation, Socrates condemns Syracuse.
the N.Y. 13210; Joseph H. art of rhetoric (cf. 264a). The opening,
non-lover's intimacy as "mortal Zeinz.
and S.M.. University of Dayton. in which Lysias "attempts to swim
Dayton. Ohio 45469 backwards up the current of the speech
thrifty economizing," which "begets
in the soul of the loved one that from its end" (264a), constitutes a
Subscription $10.00 per year, which
illiberality praised by the many as logical summary of the central
includes membership in The
virtue" (256e). argument. The remainder, which
American Classical League seems to be "thrown out in a flood"
The non-lover whom Lysias imitates
thus exhibits his essentially non-erotic (264b), consists in a loose enumeration
Published bi-monthly, Sept. to June
character by revealing his own of contentions with no deductive
inclusive, by The American
self-interest as the necessary basis for Classical League, Hall Auditorium, structure, as is confirmed by the
all reflection and action. He therefore
Miami University, Oxford, Ohio unusual frequency of purely
necessarily condemns any sign of 45056 mechanical connectives in transitions
madness or loss of control, both in it between sentences (231a6, 23 1 cl ,
subhuman and its unacknowledged 23 IcO, 23 ld2, 231e3, 232a6, 232bl,
superhuman manifestations. The 232e3, 233a6, 233d3, 233d6).
self-interest moving the non-lover can the ground for interpreting the Platonic Lysias begins with the assumption
be fulfilled, however, only by its art of writing in which the that his argument is already known:
concealment behind the artful speech multi-colored speech of Lysias is "About my affairs you know, and how
intended to seduce the as yet unaroused imitated. Immediately after his ironic I think these matters would be
beloved. The very need for seduction reproof, and apparently in advantageous for us you have heard"
reveals the identity of the beloved as the contradiction with it, Socrates (231a). The self-contradictory
true non-lover, while the artful speaker establishes the fundamental principle
character of the speech which follows is
who poses as non-lover makes himself of rhetoric which determines the heralded by an enigmatic opening
into an image of the beloved he wants to statement
structure of the dialogue as a whole: the which seems to serve as a
seduce. Certainly Phaedrus, who conclusion
art which is worthy of praise consists in (cf. Aristotle Rhetoric
identifies himself with the role of the ability to rearrange in other 1420b2-5).
ways The defense against this
beloved, could find nothing any given ''necessary argument"
more reproach depends, of course, upon the
clever than a speech about love (236a). The necessary argument of
written assumption of previous familiarity with

This content downloaded from 191.85.153.222 on Thu, 25 Jan 2018 23:41:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE CLASSICAL OUTLOOK Page 83

the argument of the speech; the implication that the understood as the statisfaction of
course, hides that
assumption in fact points to the harm experience by association with mutual self-interest.
character of the speech as a product of the lover has more to do with the In unfolding the absence of
writing which is necessarily repeatable, cessation of love than with the justification in the demand for requited
as Socrates later illustrates (cf. 262d, relationship itself. love, the non-lover presents his own
263e). But it is precisely the true Confirming the identificationversion
of theof Socratic irony (227d); he
character of the speech as a product of beloved as the true non-lover, the suggests that granting favors to lovers
writing which must be concealed, for speaker argues for the possibility of ought to be followed by always
the speech delivered in the name of the greater selectivity among non-lovers conferring benefits, not on the best, but
non-lover cannot acknowledge itself as than among lovers, as if the response of on the most needy. Instead, the
a mere display, but must present itself the beloved were completely free from non-lover insists on the reasonableness
as a persuasive attempt to win the the compulsion of desire. In addition to of granting favors only to the most
favors desired from the beautiful youth the impossibility of reasonable deserving, who are not only most able
it addresses. selectivity, the impossibility of love as to repay the beloved, but also most
In spite of his role as non-lover, then, the basis for enduring friendship is secretive about the affair. On the basis
the speaker immediately reveals his assured by the compulsive jealousy and of this reasonableness, the relationship
intention: 4 'I deserve not to fail in what possessiveness which force the lover to to a non-lover does not result in conflict
I ask because I do not happen to be your keep his beloved from associating with with friends or relatives, who never
lover" (231a). This claim is clarified the wealthy, the educated, or anyone blame the non-lover for badly
by the subsequent description of the else possessing some good. But the managing his own affairs. The
lover, who gives benefit out of desire non-lover, who is favored for his justification for the arguments of the
and necessarily repents of his excellence would hate those not non-lover rests on his understanding of
well-doing when his desire ceases. This wishing to associate with the beloved, the tension between individual love
inexplicit definition of eros , whichas though he himself were slighted by
relationships and the bonds of familial
Phaedrus later declares absent (cf. them. Behind this appearance of or political community. In condemning
263e), leads to the description of the openness, however, the non-lover must the compulsory and arbitrary
non-lover as one who gives benefit, not artfully pursue his self-gratification in selectivity of eros , without
from the necessity of desire, but secret; the superiority of submitting to acknowledging its value, the non-lover
willingly, according to his own view of the non-lover thus ultimately depends cannot help but point to the truth of its
his best interests. That the definitions upon its advantage in terms of public limitations.
of lover and non-lover already opinion. The non-lover finally The apparent non-particularity,
incorporate condemnation and praise is acknowledges, as the ground for the which justifies the superiority of
fitting for the persuasive character ofinconstancy of that love which he yielding to the non-lover, is, however,
the speech (cf. Górgias 481d-e). condemns, its foundation in "desire of necessarily controverted by the
Hidden beneath these definitions, lies the body"; in contrast, he simply persuasive purpose of the speech
the silent assumption of self-interest as assumes the primacy of friendship in addressed to the particular beloved
human health and the self-forgetfulness the relationship with the non-lover, whose favors are desired. In
of passion as an inevitably temporary which is, mysteriously enough, not conclusion, therefore, the speake
aberration. lessened by the favors received from reveals his seductive intention,
The implications of this assumption the beloved. affirming that he does not advocate
are unfolded in the series of contentions In the central sentence of the speech,granting favors to all non-lovers, since
which follows. Lovers are to be the speaker switches to the first person, the favors would then be worth less and
distrusted because they provide insisting that "It is better to yield to could not be kept secret. The
benefits out of passion which is me" (233a). This sudden admission ofself-contradictory character of the
necessarily unenduring; when they the speaker's own self-interest speech introduced in its opening
immediately precedes his identification
eventually calculate the harm to their statement is, in that light, confirmed by
own interests, they will regret their
of the true superiority of the non-lover its conclusion: "From it, never harm
kindnesses. Non-lovers, in contrast,with the objectivity of his judgement. but advantage to both should come"
Such objectivity is contrasted with the
acting in accordance with the assumed (234c). If the subject of the statement
motivation of all reasonable human lover's distorted praise for the words were understood as eros , the
and deeds of his beloved, arising from
action, provide benefits to the beloved conclusion of the speech would
with regard to their own interest; his fear of displeasing the beloved and contradict its entire argument; if it is
because they avoid any conflict withfrom the blindness of his passion. The understood as the proposed association
objectivity of the non-lover
neglect of personal affairs, calculation for mutual benefit, the statement is
of self-injury, or quarrels with paradoxically consists in the simply a tautology. The non-lover's
relatives, they can eagerly do whatever calculation of his own self-interest, as concluding assertion brings him back in
they think will please the beloved. guarantee for the stability of thea circle to the original assumption of his
Because lovers are willing to be hated relationship: "But if you yield to me, Ispeech.
by others in order to please the beloved, shall associate with you caring not only The attempt to make sense of Lysias'
whenever they fall in love again they for present pleasure, but for future speech in light of the utilitarian
will injure the old love to please the advantage" (233c). The concern for relationship it advocates is based upon
new one. Lovers themselves admit the future advantage, which is absent fromthe admission of desire for self-benefit
sickness of their lack of control, and the madness of the lover, renders the with which the non-lover concludes his
therefore cannot identify with actions association with the non-lover like speech. But the idea of a non-lover
committed through passion when they long-lasting friendship or family ties, approaching a particular beloved
regain their senses. The non-lover, of although those very ties must be because he desires his favors exhibits

This content downloaded from 191.85.153.222 on Thu, 25 Jan 2018 23:41:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Page 84 THE CLASSICAL OUTLOOK

an obvious self-contradiction. The the needs and desires of those he seeks

in associating with a true lover, serves
written speech can parade as an actual
to rule (cf. Republic 521b). The written as the basis for his own conversion to
address only if the non-lover speech of Lysias, delivered in the voice the role of lover (255d). Even the
acknowledges the purely semanticof the non-lover, is a fitting portrait of divine madness of eros does not do
significance of his designation; the
the demagogue courting the favors of away with the desireability of
name "non-lover" must be understood the people through his power of responsiveness from beloved to lover.
as a label for a certain kind of lover (cf. persuasion. While Socrates does not, then,
237b). But that semantic interpretation, In his later denial of any private use question the justification of the lover's
with its acknowledgement of the of the art of rhetoric (261b|, Phaedrus demand for reciprocity from the
non-lover's desire, is destructive of theironically unveils, without his own beloved, he reveals, as the central
persuasive purpose of the speech, awareness, the impossibility of Lysias' paradox of the divine madness of eros ,
which can be supported only if thespeech on the level at which it is the dependence of mutual love for
self-designation of the non-lover is presented and the necessity of its another individual upon the existence
taken literally, as the proper name for reinterpretation. The reality of the of a love which cannot be reciprocal.
one who does not see the satisfaction of speech as a written work is mirrored in The very possibility of divine madness,
his own desire. The unanswerable the content of the speech, hiding its for lover or beloved, requires the
question of why a particular beloved political significance under the guise of unification of love for another
would elicit the desire of a non-lover a private seduction. The tension individual with the "love of wisdom."
reveals the impossibility of the speechbetween the private particularity of The object of love with which the lover
as the actual conversation between two eros and the pseudo-universality of the of wisdom seeks some kind of
individuals which it pretends to be. Thecity, which forms the basis for the communion is not a mutually
proof of this impossibility is the argument of the speech, is revealed responsive ensouled being, but the
complete absence of vocatives in a through the tension between the "beings which always are," the ideas
speech which purports to be a directappearance and reality of the speech as fixed "beyond the heavens" (cf.
address from one individual to another. a product of writing. For it is not only 249c). In their fullness and
(I owe this insight to a suggestion in the the content of Lysias' speech, but the self-sameness, the ideas lack nothing,
as yet unpublished manuscript of Seth essential nature of the written word
they exhibit no impulsion toward
Bernadete, entitled "The which constitutes an address to
becoming, no mutual desire or their
Condemnation of Socrates: Plato's everyone in general and to no human
one in lover (cf. Sophist 248e). In
particular
Theaetetus, Sophist , and Statesman , ' ' (cf. 275e). The true contrast with the non-symmetrical
p. 207). Paradoxically enough,non-lover
the is the written word. relation between the lover of wisdom
self-designation of the non-lover canThe
be suppressed description of the and the vision of the whole he desires,
taken literally, hence consistent with
political relation between the potential the lover's worship of the beloved as a
his persuasive purpose, only ifruler the and the people he woos, which is god may rebound back from the
speech presents itself as a producthidden
of by the apparent description of beloved to the lover; but precisely that
the erotic relation between lover and
writing, hence without the persuasive desire for the particular beloved which
purpose of an actual address tobeloved, the is uncovered through may carry the lover upward toward the
beloved. Lysias' written speech cannot recognition of the necessary silence of vision of the ideas, stands as an
be brought to life without the non-lover's speech, which cannot obstacle to any non-perspectival vision
self-contradiction . be addressed to any individual; but theof the whole. The speech of the
Lysias implies that the non-lover's truth of that silence is concealed by thenon-lover sets forth the true limitations
choice of beloved, hence the beloved's expressed intention of the speech as anof human eros , just as it points to the
choice for the recipient of his favors, is
effort of persuasion. The very intentionnecessary non-erotic moment in the
completely free from the compulsionof ofpersuasion, as well as the reflection eros of dialectics" (cf. 266b).
particularity in desire. Lysias' of that intention in the content of the The silence of the ideas in granting
non-lover cannot address any particular non-lover's address, throw into favors to the lover of ideas is first
beloved without contradicting himself; question the justification of the demand brough to light by Lysias' attempt at
the beloved he addresses must be the for mutual love between lover and calling into question the necessity of
many as one, that is the demos (cf. beloved. By questioning the reciprocity in love. A persuasive and
Gorgia 481d-e). In attacking the justification of that demand, the deceptive speech by a concealed lover
essential particularity of eros, the non-lover achieves his victory over the to his beloved, with its underlying
speaker points to the conditions for lover, who desires the favors of his political significance as an address by a
persuasion and submission in the beloved simply on the basis of his own demagogue to the demos , in fact
relationship, not of individual lover and love. The problem of non-reciprocity in represents a description of the ideas in
beloved, but of ruler and ruled in the love, and the consequent absence of relation to the lover of wisdom. The
city. The speaker who disclaims his justice in the experience of eros , ironic model for the element of
love, in the sense of being carried should, presumably, be resolved by non-love necessary for the passive
away, but demands the favors of Socrates' praise for the divine madness vision of the ideas enjoyed by the
another for his own benefit, is the of eros , characterized by a "charioteer" of the soul in Socrates'
model for the potential political ruler self-forgetfulness which obliterates mythic
the hymn to eros , is provided by
seeking to gain the favors of the demand for equitable returns (cf. Lysias' art of writing. Introduced as the
electorate. This wooer of the demos 252a). But Socrates speaks of the model of writing in the conversation
must provide an assurance of his own blessings brought to the beloved from on writting, the seemingly
completeness, personal disinterest, the divine madness of his lover; the self-contradictory speech of Lysias
perfect self-control, as well as a pledge self-evidence of such benefits, finally emerges as an image for the
of his willingness and ability to satisfy necessarily recognized by the beloved silence of the written word in its

This content downloaded from 191.85.153.222 on Thu, 25 Jan 2018 23:41:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE CLASSICAL OUTLOOK Page 85

non-erotic relation with a public The cyclical form of the epigram, Socrates begins this competition by
audience. The silence and immutabilitywith its possibility of continuous exhibiting his ability, inspired by the
attributed to the written word at the repeatability (cf. 264e), confirms the gods of the place, to artfully rearrange
conclusion of the conversation (cf. victory over time vaunted by its the necessary argument assumed by
275d-e), universalizes the model of content. That victory is achieved by the Lysias. But Socrates is finally
Lysias' speech as image for the silence voice, frozen for all time, of the bronze compelled, through the inspiration of
and immutability of the 4 'beings maiden. But the statue of the maiden his internal daimonion , to replace the
beyond the heavens." remains silent without the written multi-colored speech of 4 4 that good
While the argument of Lysias' epigram to ensoul it, and the written poet" by a defense of the divine
speech offers a description of the nature epigram requires the presence of those madness of eros against artful human
of the ideas in relation to the lover of passing by in order to bring the bronze moderation. In the course of that
wisdom, its arrangement confirms such maiden to life. If Lysias' speech for transformation,
the Socrates points to the
an interpretation. The cyclical non-lover points to the desired possible unification of nature and art in
character and repeatability attributed toimmortality and immutability sought in the activity of 4 4 love with philosophic
the speech in the course of its the act of writing, its recalcitrance to speeches" (cf. 257b). Such an activity
examination (264e), brings to mind 44ensoulment" precludes its own necessarily excludes the art of writing
Socrates' image of the 4 4 feast on the fulfillment of that desire. Only in the only insofar as adequate paradigm of
beings," enjoyed by the gods "carried context of the Platonic dialogue as a the written word.
round by the revolution of the whole can the speech of Lysias reveal In the sacred grove outside the city,
heavens." The clue to the cyclical its own intention; only in its convoluted Socrates establishes a dichotomy
character of Lysias' speech is manifest status as the Platonic imitation of between external wealth and internal
in the seemingly conclusive tone of its Lysias' imitation of the non-lover wisdom (cf. Republic 416e-417a. Laws
742a-d, 743d-e); this dichotomy is
opening statement, with its assumption addressing his beloved, can the speech
is, in fact, reflected in Socrates' fulfill its paradigmatic role in immediately preceded by a division
description of the process of coming to indicating the power and danger of thebetween the external product of writing
know, as an activity of discovering written word. and the internal 4 4 word written in the
experience as remembering (cf. 249 d). While the tombstone epigram of a soul of the learner" (2116). In contrast
In their later examination of the bronze maiden may be the appropriate to the implication of Socrates'
opening of Lysias' speech, Phaedrus is for the product of writing in concluding prayer, however, the
image
commanded by Socrates "to read" general, the appropriate image for the dialogue as a whole suggests that his
(< anagnosesthai ), that is, "to know written speech of Lysias is specifically alienation of the written word is only
again"; language itself providesthe theinscription on the tomb of Midas one aspect of it potential. Like the
and Phyrgian, mythical model for the human madness of eros condemned by
clue to the capacity of the written word.
Insofar as the product of writing allowsself-destructive capacity of the love of Lysias, it represents a part parading as a
for the possibility of "knowing again, gain' '(cf. Republic 488b, Laws 660e). whole. It is Plato's purpose in the
it seems to fulfill that function of The connection between writing and Phaedrus to indicate the existence of
money-making points to the particular that whole. In doing so, he necessarily
4 'reminding' ' which Socrates praises as
the true benefit of divine eros (cf. sophistry of Lysias' enterprise; the acknowledges the distance between
249d0250c). The germ of this insight connection between the love of money himself and his imitiation of the lover
lies, ironically, within the and the art of writing is established in of wisdom who condemns the art of
multi-colored written speech of Lysias opposition to the gods of the sacred writing. Socrates therefore appears
which sets the dialogue in motion.grove outside the city, who inspire outside the walls of the city, wandering
In the course of examing the cyclicalSocrates' desire for inner beauty. barefood along the river, praising the
nature of Lysias' speech, Socrates Before departing from Phaedrus, beauty of the sacred grove,
presents as its likeness the epigram Socrates
on addresses to the god Pan the experiencing the divine inspiration of
the tombstone of Midas the Phyrgian prayer that his external possessions be the local gods and finally of his own
(264d). The image for the paradigm in harmony
of with his inner soul, that he daimonion. But Socrates' self-willed
consider
writing in the dialogue on writing is the the wise man rich, and that he alienation from the city is a reaction to
inscription on a tomb; Socrates have only such wealth as the wise man the artfulness of the sophoi ,
prepares the way for Phaedrus' later can bear and carry (279c). Socrates' represented by the clever writer Lysias;
distinction between the dead written contentment with inner beauty, his Socrates thus allies himself with love
word may serve as the condition for its indifference to external possession, is and nature in opposition to death and
immortality. The connection of writing inseparable from his disdain for the human art (cf. 229d-e). But just as his
with death, evoked by the tombstonepractise of writing. Socrates' closing allegiance to love is grounded in his
epigram, is thus transformed by the communion with Phaedrus in a prayer pursuit of self-knowledge, his alliance
content of that epigram, which in fact for inner beauty, the wealth of wisdom, with nature is determined by his love of
declares the immortality of the written and moderation, stands in sharp learning. It is, ironically, the attraction
word: contrast to the opening association of of a speech in a book which allows
4 4 A bronze maiden am I; I lie uponwriting and wealth in Phaedrus' Socrates to put together his alliance
the tomb of Midas. As long ascommunion with Lysias at the heart of with nature and his love of learning (cf.
water flows and tall tress flourish the city. 230e).
with leaves, Remaining in this Socrates is compelled to compete It is because he shares Socrates'
same place upon a much lamented against Lysias' product of writing, with justification for his allegiance to love
tomb, I shall declare to those its praise of the non-lover, in order to and nature that Plato unites himself
passing by that Midas is buried win the admiration of Phaedrus, 4 4 Torn with the paradigmatic lover of wisdom
here." (264d) between two directions" (cf. 257b). against the values of the sophoi ; those

This content downloaded from 191.85.153.222 on Thu, 25 Jan 2018 23:41:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Page 86 THE CLASSICAL OUTLOOK

values are represented through

turbulent and fugitivethe orderly America could not be forced
character of
absent presence of themany speechwriter
Greek commonwealths. True, into the classical mold. This retreat
therethe
Lysias in his speech for were occasional
non-lover.rhetorical from the Roman model - dare I say
In alliance with Socrates, Plato flourishes to Sparta as the "land of' the
'Paradigms Lost' ' ? - was in full swing
in the early national period. (Meyer
free and home of the brave," to Athens
confronts that class of writers ignorant
of the relation between eros and the Reinhold,
as the ' ' nursery of liberty and the arts , ' ' 4 'Eighteenth-Century
to the valor of the coalition of small
eros of dialectics, hence unaware of the American Political Thought," in Clas-
Greek states that defeated the Persian
dependence of all art on the principles sical Influences on Western Thought ,
of dialectics; but in opposition tomonarch. James Wilson wrote in 1790: 1650-1870, ed. R. R. Bolgar. Cam-
Socrates, who refrains from writing "At the mention of Athens, a thousand bridge, 1978, pp. 223-243).
through his slavery to the 4 'despot refined and endearing associations rush And what did the future have in store
eros " (cf. 265c), Plato must defend theimmediately into the memory." Andfor classical learning in America? No
Jefferson's special love of Homer, sooner was the national life inaugurated
possibility of a dialectic art of writing.
If the imitation of Socratic love of "this rich source of delight," is wellin 1789 than classical learning declined
wisdom manifests Platonic love of known. {The Works of James Wilson , precipitously from its Golden Age in
ed. Robert G. McCloskey. Cambridge, the Revolutionary Period into a Silver
wisdom, the very activity of imitation
Mass., 1967, Vol. I. p. 400; Meyer Age - and worse - in the following de-
necessarily manifests their separation.
The multi-colored speech of Lysias,
Reinhold, The Classick Pages. Classi- cades. There ensued a sharp deterioria-
which Socrates condemns, ironically
cal Reading of Eighteenth-Century tion in. classical studies, superficiality
conceals the germs of the PlatonicAmericans . University Park, Pa., of scholarship and teaching, low stan-
defense for the art of writing. Just as1975,
the p. 130). dards, decline in popular esteem, and
sophist's desire for the acquisition of But these were tangential judgments. virtual stagnation. In 1973 Hugh Henry
money reflects, in a distorted mirror,For example, in 1787 Jefferson gave Brackenridge in his satirical novel/
the philosopher's desire for the his verdict that in the study of foreign miscellany Modern Chivalry could por-
acquisition of wisdom (cf. Sophist languages "I think Greek the leasttray an illiterate Irishman passing him-
268c), so the art of Lysias, which useful" - the general view. In the mas- self off as a professor of Greek in an
defends the moderation of non-love in sive efforts to restructure American American college on the strength of his
the service of desire, points to theeducation after the Revolution, the heavy Irish brogue.
Platonic art of writing, which defendsstudy of Greek was widely assailed as But in the midst of this disarray there
the necessity of non-love for the dispensable. By 1803 Samuel Miller, emerģed, like the Phoenix from ashes,
transformation of eros to the divine in his famous Brief Retrospect of the the first intimation of a rebirth: a burst
eros of dialectics. Eighteenth Century (New York, 1803. of Philhellenism in America. In 1811
Vol. II, pp. 36-37) noted that the study John Adams discerned this new trend in
of Greek in American colleges was en- classical learning in America: a new
dangered, that it was a mere "smatter- interest in the Greek language and Hel-
PHILHELLENISM IN AMERICA
ing which scarcely deserves the name lenic culture. He ventured to explain
IN THE EARLY NATIONAL
of knowledge , ' ' and that popular hostil- this development - simplistically, it
PERIOD ity to Greek was so marked in some must be noted - as a consequence of the
By Meyer Reinhold colleges that the college authorities had American revolution, which, he aver-
University of Missouri to exert great effort "to prevent popular red, motivated the writing of the first
ignorance and prejudice from expelling formal histories of Greece, and thus
the study of Greek." At Yale and opened up this new interest in antiqui-
When manmanJohn he asked
he asked AdamsBoston
the leading the leading was a Boston young elsewhere the anticlassical student re- ty. It was indeed in the 1780s that
lawyer Jeremiah Gridley whether he bellion in the first decade of the
Greek history was for the first time
should study Greek. Gridley replied nineteenth century was directed primar-since antiquity taken seriously on both
drily, "It is a matter of meer Curios- ily against the study of Greek. sides of the Atlantic.
ity." {Diary and Autobiography of At the same time there was taking This nascent American' Philhel-
John Adams , ed. L.H. Butterfield. place in the early national period a
lenism was, as a matter of fact, not
Cambridge, Mass., 1962, Vol. I, p. steady disenchantment with and eman- influenced by the sentimental idealiza-
55). Greek, in fact, had only a token cipation from the previously revered tion by the English poets of the
role in the traditional humanistic cur- classical political models: they were eighteenth century of ancient Greece as
riculum of the colonial period. Andnow deemed unsuitable for the Ameri- an idyllic Arcadia and symbol of beau-
when classical learning was can national character and experience. ty , repose, liberty; nor even initially by
politicalized in the Revolutionary Charles
Age, Pinckney of South Carolinathe New Humanism in Germany, with
Greek and Hellenism receded into the had said at the Constitutional Conven- its Hellenic Renaissance in classical
shadows. Latin was for centuries the tion in 1789: "Can we copy from
studies and its Greek aestheticism, as-
Greece and Rome?... We surely differ
elite subject, and for American liberta- sociated with Winckelmann, Herder,
rians the Roman Republic became the from the whole. Our situation is un- Lessing, Schiller, Goethe, Hölderlin.
archetypal model, "the lamp of experi-exampled." {Secret Proceedings and No, Americans began to "discover"
Debates of the Convention. Richmond, Greece by themselves - by travel. In
ence," the pure fountain of lessons for
1839, p 175). In reality, the Roman 1 806 one of the first Americans to set
the building of the first modern repub-
lic. pattern known to the Founding Fathersfoot in Greece was the Philadelphian
In their search for analogs in an- was but a stereotype, a timeless abstractNicholas Biddle, whose reverence for
tiquity, the Founding Fathers dis- model, a canonical standard for a free,Greece took him there, and who wrote
counted the Greek experience, espe- virtuous republic; but it soon becameback, that 4 'The soil of Greece is sacred
cially Athens, largely because of the apparent that dynamic, pluralistic, dis- to genius and to letters." Others in in-

This content downloaded from 191.85.153.222 on Thu, 25 Jan 2018 23:41:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms