The Middle Speech of Plato's Phaedrus

The Middle Speech of Plato's Phaedrus MALCOLM BROWN JAMES COULTER IN THE PRESENT PAPER we offer a contribution to the solution of two problems in the interpretation of the Phaedrus? The first is the question of how we are to "read" the middle speech. Is it, as some have suggested, 2 a generally well intentioned half-way stage on the way to Plato's own position as expressed in the Great Speech? Or should we rather conclude, as others have done, 3 that the speech is faulty in every vital respect, and that it is repudiated by Plato in toto? The thesis of the middle speech, that the nonlover is to be preferred to the lover, is clearly rejected. But, are there nonetheless benignly placed anticipations of the full truth to come? The second problem is the much debated one about the unity of the Phaedrus. We deal with this in only a general way, although we believe our interpretation of the middle speech implies a clear answer to at least one part of the problem, i.e., "is there an inherent connection between the two themes of the dialogue, eros and rhetoric?" The question about how to interpret the middle speech is the central one of the paper and has been treated in far greater detail. Our main argument aims at the conclusion that in the middle speech Plato is sketching a certain type of rhetorical sophist whose philosophy (or more accurately "philodoxy") is totally unPlatonic. We go a step further when we venture to identify the mentality represented with that of Isocrates. Whether or not the stronger thesis is true, the thought of Isocrates, representing as it does at least the type of rhetorical sophistic culture we have in mind, can be used as a touchstone of that culture in the study of the middle speech. 1 The "we" of this paper is not an editorial fiction. The two authors have written the piece in close cooperation and neither of us disclaims responsibility for any part of it or for its organization as a whole. Nonetheless it is true that Brown is principally responsible for the writing of the first half, Coulter the second. 2 E.g. Hackforth, Plato's Phaedrus (Cambridge, 1952), p. 40, who goes so far as to see in the middle speech "a glimpse of the erastes par excellence, Socrates himself." Hackforth is anticipated, at least in the general view that the middle speech is congenial to Platonism, by Hermias (In Platonis Phaedrum Scholia, ed. P. Couvreur [Paris, 1901], 50, 2-14). 3 The notable example of this is P. Friedl~inder, Plato III (Princeton, 1969), pp. 222-226. [4051 406 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY Let us first review the speech to bring out some of its more obvious features. It is delivered by a dissembling lover, in blame of love. Before the speaker gets to the blame, he executes a definition of his subject. Moreover he insists upon the general point that such 'theoretical preambles' ought to introduce any properly constructed speech. The definition itself is formed on a strained etymology linking the word eros to rhome, or force, and implies that love can only be of bodies and pleasure from them (238C). The speaker supports the definition with an argument about the human soul: it has two parts, and two only, namely epithymia and doxa. In the well ordered soul, doxa is in the lead position. The preliminaries methodically taken care of, the speaker proceeds to the substance of the attack on love. He premises it on the assumption that love can be judged only in terms of utility, pleasure, and the trust which ioins the lovers. The form of the attack is as follows: (1) when somatic love is measured against the standard of utility (subdivided into psychic, somatic and financial), it is found positively harmful, (2) it fares no better when measured against the pleasure standard, and (3) lovers are untrustworthy: they are unlikely to remain in love. The speaker's emphasis falls on love's effects on the soul and its education, especially what he calls its 'philosophical' education. The injury love does to 'divine philosophy ' is cited in...