The Philosopher's Frenzy

The Philosopher's FrenzyAuthor(s): J. D. MooreReviewed work(s):Source: Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 22, Fasc. 3 (1969), pp. 225-230Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4429749 .

Accessed: 16/02/2013 12:43

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

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Mnemosyne.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 12:43:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4429749?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


THE PHILOSOPHER'S FRENZY

BY

J. D. MOORE

"Words about wisdom bring me both profit and delight. But you who speak only of money and business enjoy an empty facade of

success; you cause me pain and provoke my pity". In these terms roughly, Apollodorus, narrator of Plato's

Symposium, attacks his nameless companions, near the beginning of

the dialogue (173c 2-d 3). The attack is abrupt and apparently

unwarranted, for his companions have shown an interest in philo-

sophy. These unnamed money-making enthusiasts have urged

Apollodorus to narrate for them?and hence for us?the lengthy account of Agathon's banquet; and they will prove an ideal

audience, for, as the narration proceeds, we shall not hear another

word from them; we shall perhaps feel that we have taken their

place?that Apollodorus speaks directly to us. It is puzzling that

such fleeting figures should be so attacked.

Equally puzzling is one anonymous companion's reply (173d

4-10):

"You're always the same, Apollodorus; you attack yourself and

others, and you seem to me simply to consider that all men are

miserable except for Socrates?beginning with yourself. And

where exactly you got that nickname, ?a?a??? ('Softy') I don't

know. In your conversation you are always so ; at yourself and at

others, you rage?except for Socrates".

Apollodorus now asks whether it is obvious from his judgments that he is mad (?a????a? ?a? pa?apa??; 173e 1-3), but he is urged

to tell his tale, and this curious incident is forgotten. In place of ?a?a???, at 173d 8, T2 W2 read ?a?????. The manuscript

confusion reflects an ancient uncertainty: the reading ?a?a??? is

supported in Socratic epistle 21 (Hercher, Epist. Gr. p. 642) while

Mnemosyne XXII 15



22? THE PHILOSOPHER'S FRENZY

Plutarch (Cato min. 46) uses the word ?a????te??? with reference to

our narrator. The second reading ('madman') has been adopted by

e.g. Hug, Bury, and Sykoutiis; and supported by Wilamowitz

(Platon II, 357) and Pohlenz (Aus Platos Werdezeit, 2, ?. ?). But

both Burnet and Robin have excluded it from their texts; and

recently Paul Friedl?nder (Platon III2 [i960], 431 ?. 5) and G. J. de

Vries (Mnemosyne IV 19 [1966], 147) have argued in support of

?a?a??? *). None of these latter scholars mention Plutarch.

An examination of the context will reveal that ?a?a??? is

unsuitable in terms of both grammar and sense. It has crept into

our texts as a result of unusual syntax and a learned scribe's

knowledge of Apollodorus' quite different behaviour in the Phaedo

(59 a-b, ii7d). The syntactical difficulty stems from a specialized use of the word ????those who prefer 'softy' understand it as a

simple explicative of the preceding ??? ??da ????e. De Vries, for

example, writes: "The ?ta???? wonders how Apollodorus got his

nickname 'Softy', ... for this nickname might seem not to be

appropriate, since in discussions Apollodorus is far from showing

any softness, but always is harsh". (This interpretation also

requires that t????t?? [in line 9] refer proleptically to what follows?

and not, as is far more natural, to the three preceding phrases : ?e?

d????? e? . . ., ?e? ?a? sa?t?? te ?a?????e?? . . ., and ta?t?? t??

?p?????a?, and to their specific culmination in the word ?a?????) 2). But the key to the problem is the expression ??? ???, a combina-

tion used sparingly elsewhere by Plato not as an explicative of a

brief preceding phrase such as ??? ??da e???e but as a restrictive

formula which emphasizes a single instance out of two or more

possibilities, ??? gives special emphasis to the words which precede or surround it, and ??? refers that particular instance to the broad

context which precedes. My explanation of ??? here differs some-

i) De Vries' note contains in the third paragraph a misleading typographical error: in place of "Both (Wilamowitz and Pasquali) . . . defend the reading ?a?a???. . .", read "Both . . . defend the reading ?a?????".

2) De Vries cites Riddell, Digest of idioms, section 53, for the proleptic use of t????t??, but, as Riddell makes clear, t????t?? in such instances prepares the listener for an explanation of something "not yet explained"; here the hetairos repeats almost verbatim the explanation given immediately above (173d 4-6). More likely here is the use of t????t?? noted in Riddell, section 54: "As a mere substitute or symbol of a particular word preceding".



THE PHILOSOPHER S FRENZY 227

what from Denniston's (Greek Particles, 62) : he imagines an ellipse, which I think not entirely necessary; Denniston did not treat the

combination ??? ??? specifically, but did mention the Symposium

passage, with the comment "?a????? not ?a?a??? must be right?'you are ?a????? enough ?? t??? ??????' ".

In support of my interpretation of ?e? ???, I shall offer two of

several examples I have found in Plato 3). In Phaedrus 229a 3-4, Phaedrus says to Socrates: "It is opportune, it seems, that I

happen to be barefoot", s? ??? ?a? d? ?e? ("But you, of course,

are always barefoot"). Here ??? ??? does not in any way explain Phaedrus' unaccustomed lack of shoes, but rather emphasizes that

in the case of Socrates, at least, it is not a matter of chance

opportunity. In Politicus 264c 4) the Eleatic stranger wants to know whether

the young Socrates has ever heard of schools of tamed fishes, and

says "I know that you have not personally seen these tamed herds

of fishes on the Nile or in the king's pools", ?? ??? ?a? ????a??

t??' ?? ?s?? e??? ?s??????? ("But in fountains, of course, you may

perhaps have noticed them"). Here, too the phrase can hardly

explain why the boy had not seen such fishes in exotic places. As

elsewhere, it narrows our attention to one particular?fountains, and the ??? is explicative only to the extent that it explains why

3) In addition to the two passages discussed, cf. also Laws 794e 4-6 ?? ?s??? ??? ?a? t?? ????? ?? ???a d?af??e? . . . p????a ??d??, "of course, in those tasks where it makes little difference ... it is of no consequence, but. . .".

InGrg 523c 2-3 ??? ??? ?a? ?a??? a? d??a? d??????ta?, the context is less clear, but Zeus seems to be saying "As matters now stand, of course, the process of judging is being badly handled". The comment would refer back, then, to the reason behind Pluto's dilemma, and is not meant to explain the

immediately preceding ???' ???, ?f?, pa?s? t??t? ??????e???. 4) This passage was first noted by Vahlen and cited by Hug, Platons

Symposion2 (Leipzig 1884) note ad loc, p. 9 and "Kritischer Anhang" p. 213. Hug's interpretation requires an ellipse after a preceding negative, and thus differs somewhat from mine. De Vries also notes the Pit parallel and Hug's comment, but seems to confound the sense of 'restriction' and 'exclusion'. For if ??? ??? is restrictive, it points out one of several possibilities; if it is causal in the Smp passage it must exclude one possibility from others. This exclusive causal interpretation can be observed in de Vries'

paraphrase "since in discussions Ap. is far from showing any softness. . .". Such an interpretation of ??? ??? cannot, I think, be applied to any of the other passages noted here.



228 THE PHILOSOPHER'S FRENZY

the stranger is confident that the boy knows something about

tame fishes in herds. (The stranger is in fact grasping at fountains, lest he be unable to make a division between herds of animals

on the sea and herds of animals on the land). When we turn back to the Symposium passage, it will be clear,

I think, that the eta???? is not explaining his ignorance in the

phrase e? ??? ?a? t??? ??????, but is offering a single instance in

explanation of Apollodorus'nickname. What he says is: "I don't

know precisely 5) where you got that nickname, 'madman'. But in

your words, of course, you are always this way; at yourself and at

others you rage, except for Socrates".

In his reply Apollodorus picks up ?a????? with the verb ?a????a? and adds pa?apa?? to reinforce the sudden mention of madness.

But as many modern scholars have done, some ancient scribe

seized upon ??? as an explicative of ??? ??da, ignored the preceding word, and recalled that in the Phaedo (59 a-b, 117a) this same

Apollodorus surpassed all in weeping?so overcome was he by emotion that he required comforting from Socrates, thus reversing the customary roles. Our scribe thought ?a?a??? ('Softy') an

appropriate epithet for such behavior, and so inserted it here where

it is worse than absurd.

For within the context of the dialogue as a whole, the importance of the second reading, ?a????? is very great indeed. The very

abruptness of Apollodorus' attack upon anonymous straw men and

the forced insertion of an esoteric nickname ought to alert us that

Plato has taken special pains to strike a thematic note. And if we

listen carefully, we shall hear the theme played twice again: towards the end of the dialogue, Socrates expresses his 'terror' at

the (imania and jealous devotion" of Alcibiades (213d 6), and

Alcibiades proclaims that all present "have shared in the philo-

sopher's madness and Bacchic frenzy" (218b 3-4).

5) For the use of p?t? with an interrogative to express a wide range of possibilities for which a specific answer is sought, cf. among countless exx. the closely parallel Ap 2od 2-4 ???? ???? pe???s??a? ?p?de??a? t? p?t' est?? t??t? d ???? pep????e? t? te ????a ?a? t?? d?a????? .... d?' ??d?? ???? ? d?a s?f?a? t??? t??t? t? ????a ?s???a. (???? is my correction of Mss. and edd. ???'; it is difficult to believe that ???' would be used in close conjunction with the simple neuter negative).



THE PHILOSOPHER S FRENZY 22?

In drawing attention to the madness of Apollodorus, Plato does

not, as some have argued 6), intend us to think of his offensive

behavior?that is only a convenient device for placing the nick-

name ?a????? before us. The madness Plato has in mind is of quite another sort. If we look to the Phaedrus we shall find that Eros is

there defined as the Philosopher's madness, his inspiration?that

frenzy which sets him apart from other men (e.g. 244a ff, 265 a-b) ; and there, from the word ?a????, Socrates derives ?a?t??? (244 b-d). It can be no accident that the narrator of the Symposium is identi-

fied as ?a?????, and that the central doctrine on Eros is attributed

to Diotima, a representative of ?a?t???. At the start of the Symposium, Plato has shown us what it means

to be afflicted with philosophic frenzy. Like Diotima's Eros,

Apollodorus is never content, though he shares in joy; like Love, the philosopher, he is neither ignorant nor wise, but midway between

the two. And so he must always be frustrated?so he must always

yearn for wisdom (cf. Symposium 203b ff). And towards the end of

the dialogue, in Alcibiades' speech, we shall learn how Apollodorus became 'the madman' 7). It was Socrates who drove him mad, just as he had done with many others?just as he had exposed all

6) See e.g. H. Neumann, On the Madness of Plato's Apollodorus, TAPA 96 (1965), 283-289, who overstresses political behaviour and thinks that both variant readings at 173d amount to the same idea. S. Rosen, Plato's Sym- posium (New Haven 1968), 10-15, seems to understand the point but con- fuses the issue with a number of imaginative but dubious speculations.

7) It is, at the very least, interesting to note that some have identified Plato's Apollodorus with the Athenian sculptor described by Pliny, N.H. 34, 81, with the epithet insanus?a name he earned from his peculiar habit of breaking his completed statues to pieces. Such frustrated dissatisfaction would accord well with our narrator's character, and though Apollodorus must have been a very common name, the coincidence of the epithet is

tempting. Pliny lists Apollodorus among those sculptors who made portraits of philosophers, and mentions that Silanion made a bust of him (a copy of which may be extant). Unfortunately, since Plato gives no hint here or in Phd that his narrator was a sculptor, it is impossible to be certain about the identification. If the two 'madmen' are identical, Plato would be taking advantage as he does elsewhere (cf. e.g. the frequent puns on 'Agathon' in

Smp) of a significant name, and manipulating it for his own purposes. For a discussion of the mad sculptor and philosopher with citation of earlier literature, see esp. G. Rettig, Piatons Symposion II (Halle 1876), 67, and more recently C. Picard, Manuel d'arch?ologie grecque: La sculpture III, Part 1 (Paris 1948) vol. 1, 145-149; vol. 2, 829-841.



230 THE PHILOSOPHASTER's SOFTNESS

present to "the philosopher's madness and Bacchic frenzy". For,

with his erotic behaviour, Alcibiades tells us, he lures us on; then

like the Satyr Marsyas, he begins to pipe with magic words a

maddening Siren-song. His song is made of words daimonic like

himself?lowly words "of pack-asses and metal-workers and

cobblers and tanners of leather", yet words which contain within

the height of intelligence and arete, words without musical ac-

companiment which yet possess a music all their own (2i5b-222a). And so we dance a frenzied, Bacchic dance of love for beauties

dimly spied within this Satyr's song.

Apollodorus at the beginning and Alcibiades at the end of the

Symposium provide us with both example and explanation of that

madness which is the philosopher's inspired love?his motive force.

Because he yearns for what he saw within the magic words of

Socrates, he is discontent with what he is and with what others are.

Only Socrates stands where Apollodorus yearns to stand. And so, in

the companion's words, he is always attacking himself and others, and seems to consider all men miserable?except for Socrates-

beginning with himself.

Apollodorus' unnamed companions were gratuitously attacked

in order that one might respond with the 'nickname' ?a?????. Thence we were expected to see the philosopher's love personified? a living example of Socrates' wondrous protreptic power. The

scribes have cheated us of the vision; they must cheat us no

longer 8).

Stanford University

8) A slightly shorter version of this paper was read at the annual meeting of the American Philological Association in Toronto, December 1968. I should like to thank T. B. L. Webster for reading and commenting upon this revised version.

THE PHILOSOPHASTER'S SOFTNESS

Professor Moore's paper gives me the opportunity to restate my opinion about a difficult passage; this is a cause for gratitude. Another is his kindness in calling my inaccuracy a typographical error. It was not, I think, 'misleading', as I criticized Wilamowitz



The Philosopher's Frenzy

Documents

Transcript of The Philosopher's Frenzy