Daniel N. Brewer

Male homoeroticism in Plato?s Symposium and the Greek lyric poets: Complimentary or contradictory?

Images of male homosocial and homoerotic relations pervade Athenian culture. From plays to poetry and jugs to the justice system one can find these relations represented pictorially and in words. But do all these images align with each other or are there irreconcilable differences between them? To look at this question we will take two small pieces of culture, a philosophical treatise, Plato?s Symposium and the lyric poetry of Theognis and Anacreon.

Homoerotics are mentioned in several speeches in Plato?s Symposium but I will focus on those statements made by Phaedras and Pausanias. The reason for the use of these two sources is to elucidate the numerous representations of homoerotics in Athenian Greece.Ê

Phaedras begins by stating that everyone can agree that, ?? the greatest benefit, to my mind, that a young man can come by in his youth is a virtuous lover, and a virtuous boyfriend is just as good for a lover too.? (Plato, 178c) This is a value that the modern world can easily grasp, a young man (the object of love) is well served by a virtuous older man (erastes) who will honor his superior position and treat the young man well and teach him what he can. In turn, the the erastes is better off with a virtuous boyfriend (eromenos) who will stay loyal to him. After all, the older man is the ?lover? to which Phaedras refers and so a young boyfriend who was not faithful could be quite injurious to the older man?s heart and reputation. So does this image fit with that of the lyric poets?

Indeed, Phaedras? representation of male homoerotics aligns quite easily with that of the lyric poets. Theognis speaks often of loyalty ? usually in the context of betrayal, ?Boy, your slutting around has wrecked my affection, / you?ve become a disgrace to our friends?.? (Theognis, 1267-1270) and again, ?Boy, you?re like those adrift in risks, / your mood now friendly to some, now others.? (Theognis, 1257-1258) Theognis speaks clearly of an erastes who?s virtuous behavior has been repaid with infidelity and ?slutting around.? The erastes feels betrayed and regretful that this boy he cares for appears headed for dangerous risks implying htta he expects honorable behavior. But this is not the end of Phaedras? praise for homoerotic relations.

Phaedras continues on and speaks of the things that Love can inspire men to. Though he does not confine these benefits to homosocial interactions, he does specifically include them. After stating that older men are more prone to die than be humiliated in the sight of their eromenos, he goes on to say that,

??as for abandoning his boyfriend or not helping him when danger threatens ? well, possession by love would infuse even utter cowards with courage. ? Moreover, only lovers are prepared to sacrifice themselves ? and this goes for women as well as men.? (Phaedras, 179a)

Phaedras claims, similarly to modern poets that love will drive one to the brink or even over the edge of death. It is hardly surprising, then, to find a similar image again in the poetry of Theognis, ?Boy, as long as your cheek is smooth, I?ll never / stop praising you, not even if I have to die.? (Theognis, 1327-1334) On the inclusion of women, however, Theognis disagrees with Phaedras? claim and says so in, not surprisingly, a poem.

As, stated before, Phaedras includes women in his statement that ??lovers are prepared to sacrifice themselves? and quotes the story of Alcestis as evidence. Theognis, however, believes differently, ?There?s beauty in a boy. But to a woman, no one?s a true / mate. She always loves the one that?s there.? (Theognis, 1367-1368) So Theognis believes that only men will ever really remain loyal to their lovers. While Theognis is the lyric poet who states this belief explicitly, Anacreon does not disagree with him. In his own poetry he refers mostly to women who? get around: ?Girl, since you?re so sweet to strangers, give a thirsty fellow a drink.? (Anacreon, PMG 389) and more explicitly, ?And you have burst..?into the middle / ?.?exiting the hearts / of many citizens, / Herotima, whom all men ride.? (Anacreon, PMG 364 fr. 1) So while not explicitly agreeing with Theognis, Anacreon certainly doesn?t appear to actively disagree either. So while Phaedras is willing to make allowances that there are some benefits that can be gained by heterosocial relations as well as homosocial relations, these lyric poets, at least, are not. But, not surprisingly, this is not the end of the debate. Next comes Pausanias, who has some slightly differing views on Love.

Pausanias differentiates Love into two entities. Both entities include homoerotic love but are otherwise very different in their functioning. He says of common Love that,

?This is the Love which ordinary people experience. ?they love women as well as boys? they?re attracted to the bodies rather than the minds of the people they love? the reason they?re attracted to the most unintelligent people imaginable is that they all they?re after is the satisfaction of their desires?? (Symposium, 181b)

Within this are several ideas. First of these is the accusation that most people love ?the bodies rather than the minds?? as stated above. The lyric poets both agree and disagree with this statement. Theognis supports Pausanias, saying, ?I won?t mistreat you, even if the deathless gods / would treat me better, pretty boy. / And I don?t sit in judgment on petty errors. / Pretty boys get away with doing wrong.? (Theognis, 1279-1282) Essentially, he says that he?s fallen for a beautiful young boy and, because the boy is beautiful, other things, such as right and wrong, cease to matter. But Anacreon disagrees.

Anacreon disagrees with Theognis?s previous poem ? saying ?I don?t kiss the guy who guzzles wine beside the brimming bowl / and talks battles and tearful war, / but the one who mingles dazzling gifts of the Muses and Aphrodite?? (Anacreon, Elegy 2) In other words, no matter how pretty you are, some ability of the mind ? a connection to the Muses ? is essential. Here, instead of Theognis? position, he supports Pausanias who says that celestial Love is,

??wholly male, with no trace of femininity. (This, then, would be the love which is for boys? and incapable of treating people brutally.) That is why this Love?s inspiration makes people feel affection for what is inherently stronger and more intelligent?? (Symposium, 181c)Ê

Ê

That is to say that the best form of love is intellectual. So to have a truly good love affair, the beloved must have the glorious gifts of the Muses that Anacreon speaks of.

Theognis? point of view is not as cut and dry, of course, as all that. He disagrees with himself saying,Ê ?Boy, you were born good-looking, but your head / is crowned with stupidity. / In your brain is lodged the character of a kite, always veering, / bending towards the words of other men.? (Theognis, 1259-1262) He berates the young boy for exactly what Pausanias describes. The boy may be beautiful but it doesn?t matter because he is stupid and easily swayed by other men. Therefore, it is implied that he is unwanted, of no use as a beloved because it is impossible to trust one who is easily swayed by a man making the weaker argument the stronger, not to mention the disappointment of watching one?s beloved fall prey to the wiles of evil men with quick tongues.

So it seems that the poets again agree with the speeches of the Symposium. There is an admittance of the existence of common love - that is, love of young boys purely for their beauty and the pleasure they can bring. But at the same time, the higher, or celestial form of love, which includes at least some element of the intellectual, is praised as well. Pausanias, however is not done.

He continues on about celestial love saying of those attracted to men,

??only some are motivated by a pure form of Celestial Love, in the sense that they don?t have affairs with boys who are younger than the age at which intelligence begins to form, which more or less coincides with when they begin to grow a beard. It seems to me that not having affairs until then is a sign that one is ready to enter into a lifelong relationship?? (Symposium, 181d)

Here is where Pausanias may run into some conflict with the lyric poets. The poems of Theognis and Anacreon are all written from the perspective of the erastes, that is the older lover. None seem to be written about boys of the same age. There are a few poems that do not refer at all to age, but these tell us nothing. Most, as in the following example refer to a younger lover, ?Happy the man who?s got boys for loving?? (Theognis, 1253) The references are to boys, not men. The one exception is the previously quoted poem by Anacreon, which begins, ?I don?t kiss the guy who guzzles wine?? Even alternate translations leave ?guy? as ?man? never ?boy.? This hardly seems enough, however to lay a foundation upon. So, it appears that while the lyric poets agree with Pausanias on the ideal form of Love, they do not hold to his ideal of lifelong homosocial partnership.Ê

So for the most part, it appears that the ideals of homoerotics set forth in Plato?s Symposium by Phaedras and Pausanias align well with those of the lyric poets. Love for boys is a wonderful thing, especially if both parties are virtuous and loyal. Also, Theognis and Anacreon, likely along with Pausanias, attribute more loyalty to men than to women, resulting in a deeper commitment to ?relationships.? Phaedras disagrees saying that women can, in fact feel equal loyalty. There is general agreement that a love for boys based purely on beauty is a common thing, and not a good one. It leads to having stupid eromenai, which is not desirable. The lyric poets do seem to maintain that while intelligence is important, young boys are still better material for love than older men. Pausanias disagrees, arguing for lifelong homosocial relationships. So while there are a few differences between the lyric poets and these speakers of the Syposium they seem to be based more on choice of lifestyle than true differences of paradigm.