Phaedrus of the Phaedrus: The Impassioned Soul

Michael Stoeber
But the young Phaedrus gave tjs neither cotnment nor query. He
lay there on the bank of the ghostly llissus streatn, his beautiful
face profiled handsotnely in the shade of the splendid agnus-castus,
tnotionless and silent, nestled by the gentle breeze, as he sweetly
lingered in the magic of the starry-eyed isolation of his satyr-like
companion.
I
Perhaps the above image conveys the fundamental mood Phaedrus
brings to the dialogue named in his honour. Yet there is a very
subtle active element to the character that this brief portrait ne-
glects, and he is such an unusual and enigmatic figure that the
depiction only begins to capture the atmosphere that he sets. In-
deed, what is the symbolic significance of Phaedrus to this dia-
logue? Why did Plato choose this character as foil for this work?
What are Phaedrus's figurative and methodological advantages
his literary and philosophical purposes in the Phaedrus?
These questions are complicated by the thematic intricacies of
the dialogue. The Phaedrus can be distinguished by tone and sub-
ject into two parts. The first involves the theme of love developed
through (i) the speech of Lysias as recited by Phaedrus depicting
the hazards of genuine love, (ii) the first speech of Socrates, which
is a superior adaptation and refinement of Lysias's effort, and (iii)
Socrates' second speech, which contains the famous myth of the
soul, i.e., the allegory of the charioteer and the horses, as well as a
recantation of the negative views on love espoused in the first
speech. Only in the second part does the Phaedrus become a dia-
logue proper. Here Plato moves to a more dynamic interchange
between Socrates and Phaedrus, from the rhetoric of symbolic
myth expressed in the love-monologues to a dialogue that is critical
of unperfected rhetoric.
One wonders about the relationship between the theme of love
in the first section and that of rhetoric in the second, and about
Philosophy and Rhetoric, Vol. 25, No. 3. 1992. Copyright 1992 The Pennsylvania
State University, University Park PA.
271
272 MICHAEL STOEBER
Phaedrus's role in this regard. Although it is clear that Socrates'
second speech on love is secondary to rhetoric,' one senses an
intimate connection between the two themes and feels that some-
how Phaedrus must be the link between them. My intention, there-
fore, is to focus on Phaedrus. By clarifying his literary role and
methodological significance, I hope to show both how these fea-
tures draw the themes of love and rhetoric together, and how
Phaedrus's location and status in the dialogue illustrate Plato's own
allegorical rhetoric as it is poetically expressed in the myth of the
soul.'
II
Socrates' second speech on love cannot be understood simply as
background for the attack on rhetoric, certainly not in the manner
of his first speech. In fact, in the context of the whole dialogue, the
second speech could be completely eliminated, leaving the primary
theme, rhetoric bashing, virtually intact. On the other hand, as it
stands, the second speech is obviously a positive example of effec-
tive rhetoric. Socrates makes this plain later in the dialogue when
he distinguishes madness according to two types of love, that of his
first speech, which is "properly reprobated," and that of his second
speech, which he considers "divine" (266a).' Unlike Socrates' first
speech, the second must be seen as a serious expression of Plato's
view of love.
We should thus presume some connection between The Sympo-
sium, which has love as its major theme, and the Phaedrus. More-
over, Phaedrus is a character in both dialogues, and since The
Symposium seems to have been written before the Phaedrus, one
is led to ask why Plato chose Phaedrus as the passive foil in the
later dialogue, and not another character from The Symposium.
Why Phaedrus as opposed to Pausanias, Eryximachus, or Aris-
tophanes? Or would not the beautiful Agathon be the most hkely
candidate here? Or how about the rejected Sover Alcibiades, or
perhaps even a completely new character? Surely someone less
sincere, naive, and passive would have more effectively high-
lighted the dangers of unexamined rhetoric. But perhaps there was
more to Plato's choice than just the main theme of the later dia-
logue. With this possibility in mind, let us change our approach
somewhat, and briefly examine some elements of the Phaedrus
figure that are common to both these dialogues.
THE IMPASSIONED SOUL 273
In both The Symposium and the Phaedrus, Phaedrus comes
across as a rather romantic and unassuming youth who is sincere
and naive. In The Symposium he is the one who suggests the theme
of the symposium but only via the more forward physician Eryxi-
machus. There he also provides the first speech that praises the
noble effects love has upon lovers. In characterizing love as a
parentless and single God, most ancient and inspiring, he provides
the framework within which the following speakers participate. He
also emphasises quite vividly and effectively the practical, virtuous
effects that love has upon lovers. It is the principle without which
nothing "great or fine" {178d) can be achieved, that alone on
account of which lovers will "sacrifice their lives for another"
(179b), and that whereby souls may rise "from Hades" (179c). In
summing up, Phaedrus says, "I maintain then that Love is not only
the oldest and most honourable of the gods, but also the most
powerful to assist men in the acquisition of merit and happiness,
both here and hereafter" (180b).
Some scholars consider this speech a rather poor and unsophisti-
cated effort. A. E. Taylor, for example, considers it "jejune and
commonplace," as a rather unoriginal defense of upper-class Athe-
nian homosexuality in the Spartan context.'' But this evaluation
seems unfair. Surely Phaedrus's speech is not that bad. It cannot be
regarded simply as a defense of upper class Athenian homosexual-
ity, for Phaedrus gives the example of Alcestis who was willing to
die for her husband (179b-c). Furthermore, the implicit main
point of the speech is to indicate the virtuous effects of love upon
lovers. If the main force of the speech was the military value of an
army of lovers, Phaedrus would have made the point more clearly.
Nor can the speech be considered utterly unoriginal. It provides an
interesting and sufficient introduction for the following speeches,
shows not a superficial synthesis of mythic material, and illustrates
some thought in its use of this material.'
In the Phaedrus, we encounter the same unassuming youthful
figure setting out alone on a quiet countryside stroil with the inten-
tion of memorizing a speech by the sophist Lysias. Hearing it
earlier that morning from Lysias himself, he had, in his enthusi-
asm, been quite taken by it. He suggests naively to Socrates that
the speech could not be improved "either in fullness or quality"
(235b). On simple reading of the two dialogues, this comment
should come as some surprise because the Lysias speech is quite at
odds with that of Phaedrus in The Symposium. Lovers, Lysias
274 MICHAEL STOEBER
argues, are apt to value new lovers more than old, and to "inflict
injury on the old love if the new love requires it" (231c). Further-
more, lovers "are mad" (231d) and therefore not to be trusted.
Their "passion impairs their judgement" (233b), thus distorting it.
For these reasons, as well as others, Lysias argues that love is an
inhibiting factor in any relationship. Thus this speech proposes
quite the opposite of what Phaedrus says in The Symposium; it
takes the view that a relationship is far more beneficial when it is
unencumbered by the passions of love.
Here, in this metamorphosis of Phaedrus's thinking, we begin to
see the significance of Phaedrus as the foil in this later dialogue.
Such a radical shift of view accentuates the youthful malleability of
the character. In The Symposium, he habitually follows the advice
(not merely medical) of Eryximachus (176d), and in the Phaedrus,
despite the incongruence with his views as expressed in The Sympo-
sium, he falls hard under the sway of Lysias, to the point of suggest-
ing that Lysias is "the best writer living" (228a). But later in the
dialogue, he seems quite taken by Socrates' contrasting view, los-
ing himself "in wonder at the immense superiority" of Socrates'
second speech (257c), and he becomes convinced by Socrates' at-
tack on Lysias's rhetoric (259d-278b). In this intellectual shifting,
Phaedrus is pictured as blind to questions of veracity, as persuaded
merely by the fiamboyancy and artistry of ideas and style. Socrates
remarks that the reading of Lysias's speech had put Phaedrus "in a
glow," that he was an "inspired man,'' and in "ecstasy" (234d).
Phaedrus himself remarks that he becomes "lost in wonder" at
Socrates' speech (257c), leaving one with the distinct impression
that Phaedrus, in both dialogues, is a highly enthusiastic but uncriti-
cal observer of speeches.' We must, however, be careful not to
write Phaedrus off too quickly; for he is much more interesting and
significant than might appear on the surface.
Ill
Though perhaps at times a bit tongue in cheek, Socrates does
treat Phaedrus relatively congenially and positively in the later
dialogue. Socrates is interested in what Phaedrus has to say, so
much so that he is drawn by Phaedrus away from his habitual
urban stomping grounds. Also, in light of the compliment Socrates
gives him in the Phaedrus regarding his prowess as speech-
fomenter (242b)," it is not insignificant that in the earlier dialogue
THE IMPASSIONED SOUL 275
Phaedrus is characterized as the prime mover of the symposium on
love. Indeed, this peculiar dynamic of his personality sets him in a
very favourable light, so much so that his youthful exuberance for
all intriguing ideas, and his ability at drawing them out of his
companions, tends to compensate for his lack of critical acumen.
More significantly, though, Phaedrus's speech in The Symposium
shows an important connection to Socrates' second speech of the
Phaedrus, in that it is concerned with individual, homosexual,
love, and the noble effects it has upon the participating lovers. In
Socrates' second speech, this motif is adapted to the mysticism that
Plato espouses through Socrates' speech in The Symposium. In the
second speech of the Phaedrus, love for one's beloved is described
as capable of the most noble effects, as that which can lead one
from the realm of mere opinion to that of the absolute and un-
changing truths of the Forms. The divine blessings arising in love
for one's beloved stimulates, in the words of the myth of the char-
iot, the growth of the wings necessary to carry one to this higher
realm of the Real (256b). So Socrates continues along the same
lines as Phaedrus's speech, concentrating on the noble spiritual
effects that iove for an individual has upon the ascending soul.
It seems, therefore, that the choice of Phaedrus as foil in the
later dialogue is not determined simply by his passive gullibility.
As the speech-fomenter who instigates the symposium on love,
Phaedrus is the natural figure to lead Socrates out of his urban
environment, so that the symposium on love that Phaedrus himself
had earlier begun might be continued and concluded. And in his
second speech, Socrates adapts and refines the content of Phae-
drus's speech in The Symposium to the mysticism that he himself
had espoused in that dialogue. But both these facets of Plato's
figurative associations here point to a more significant symbolism
at play. In his initial disregard for truth, Phaedrus proves to be the
ideal character for illustrating the power and danger of the Soph-
ist. He quite unwittingly and naturally succumbs to the magic of
Lysias. But, though obviously lacking in sound critical faculties, he
is endowed with an incredible appetite for story, myth, argument,
and ideas. He is deeply passionate towards the activity of the
Muses," and he charismatically inspires passions in those around
him with similar enthusiasm. Thus we see just how essential Phae-
drus is to the later dialogue; not only is he the natural choice as
foil given his role and speech in The Symposium, but he also
illustrates a key feature of the soul as developed in Socrates' sec-
276 MICHAEL STOEBER
ond speech in the Phaedrus. He illustrates not oniy the danger
presented by the Sophists, but also Plato's powerfully moving
rhetoric of the soul.
IV
In order to illustrate this deeper symboUsm, I turn to an examina-
tion of the nature of the soul as pictured in Plato's allegory of the
chariot. This requires a preliminary account of the importance of
beauty and love as developed in the Phaedrus. The Form of
Beauty has an extraordinary status in that it is the only Form
whose earthly likeness is recognizable by all human beings. Bodily
inhibitions and limitations adversely affect the recollection of
Forms, restricting the recognition to a special few, but Beauty is
relatively unaffected by the fallen nature of humankind (250b-d).
Its likeness in material form maintains a "lustre" that these other
Forms cannot. As Socrates says:
But beauty, as we were saying, shone brightly in the world above,
and here too if still gleams clearest, even as the sense by which we
apprehend it is our clearest. . . . But as things are it is only beaufy
which has the privilege of being both the most clearly discerned and
the most lovely (250d).
Beauty, then, plays a unique role in Plato's mystical ascent. Physical
beauty is a relatively clear image of its Form, so that in beholding
physical beauty one is reminded of the true Beauty encountered in
primordial experience. And this recollection is made possible by the
madness of love, a mania that in turn can move one forward, so to
sj>eak, in one's spiritual return.
Love is closely associated with the image of Beauty and can be
properly understood oniy in the context of confiict within the soul.
There exist two related levels in the love of the beautiful. The
lower level is love of physical beauty; the sensual urge to possess
erotically one's beloved. It is that passionate frenzy that Plato
characterizes in his image of the black steed of the soul, a horse
that he pictures in the most negative of terms:
The other horse is crooked, lumbering, ill-made; stiff-necked,
short-throated, snub-nosed; his coat is black, and his eyes a blood-
shot grey; wantonness and boastfulness are his companions, and he
THE IMPASSIONED SOUL 277
is hairy-eared and deaf, hardly controllable even with whip and
goad (253e).
In contrast there is the higher ievel love, an attraction that is
illustrated in the image of the white steed and the charioteer. The
white horse requires neither whip nor goad. The charioteer con-
trols the chariot, he drives it, but with great difficulty because the
lower ievel passion of the black horse conflicts with his own higher
type of love. In the early stages of the ascent, the driver experi-
ences feelings of warmth and "an itching and the stings of desire"
(254a). He is, however, free of the sensual attraction characteristic
of the black steed; in drawing towards the beloved, he is reminded
of the prior experience of absolute Beauty and is thereby blinded.
Fear and awe force him to hesitate, to pull the black horse back
from his ignoble approach (254b). The necessary moderating fac-
tor of the soul is symbolized by the counterpart to the black steed.
Without the cooperation of the white horse, the driver would be
dragged forward against his will. But together they subdue the
beast, convincing him by might to postpone the advance. In this
way, Plato pictures the madness of love, the internal confiict that
the human being undergoes in the face of physical beauty. But
there is more to the story.
Somehow, after all this, the driver and the white horse are still
inclined to avoid their beloved. Somehow the higher spiritual inter-
course is just too bedazzling for them. But the black steed reminds
them of their object: "When the time comes they pretend to forget,
but he reminds them; forcing them forward, neighing and tugging,
he compels them to approach their beloved once more with the
same suggestion" (254d). So the battle resumes. The driver wants
no part of the ignominious affair of the dark horse; he pulls the bit
back, again and again, unmercifully, until the horse finally submits
to the higher wiil (254e). Out of this submission arises the possibility
of moving from the image of the Form to the Form itself. Thus the
moral to the story: reason and spirit must maintain the upper hand
throughout this transitory battle in which the power of passion
draws the soul ever closer to the beloved. Nevertheless, this passion-
ate power, this black steed of the soul, is important. Without it,
human beings would remain passively immobile; they would not be
drawn to the likeness of beauty in this world that images the higher
spiritual Form. Consequently, the transition from material beauty to
absolute Beauty would be impossible.
278 MICHAEL STOEBER
V
Returning to Phaedrus, we can now begin to see the subtle but
powerful symbolism Plato incorporates in the figure. At one level
Phaedrus symbolizes the black steed, the passions of the soul that
uncritically draw lovers toward their beloved. The beloved in this
case is not a material object; in his inordinate passion for the
Muses, Phaedrus is enthusiastically inspired towards a higher
realm. Moreover, in much the same way that the biack steed af-
fects the white steed and the charioteer, Phaedrus draws his com-
panions with him. As such, Phaedrus is, at one level, personified
passion. He is a fervent but blindly uncntical figure, and like the
black steed, he is amorously drawn to his beloved, which in his
case is the rhetoric of speeches. But the Form behind such rhetoric
is Knowledge or Wisdom, Knowledge that requires the power of
reason in order to be experienced. In his youthful eagerness, Phae-
drus becomes wrapped up in the style and artistry of digressions.
He neglects the higher Form and is uncritically drawn towards
Lysias's rhetoric. Socrates is not. He symbolises the power of rea-
son in the context of rhetoric. Like other companions of Phaedrus,
he is drawn by Phaedrus's contagious enthusiasm towards the be-
loved abstractions, just as the charioteer is pulled towards the
beioved by the black steed. So he is drawn to hear Lysias's view.
Yet like the charioteer of a healthy soul, Socrates does not give
Phaedrus the upper hand. First he gives a structurally stronger and
more coherent adaptation of Lysias's speech, then he sets before
Phaedrus a speech that enchants Phaedrus even more by its imag-
ery and form, and finally shows him through reason the weak-
nesses of Lysias's rhetoric. At this point we encounter a necessary
twist in Plato's symbolism. For Phaedrus comes to symbolise the
passion-dominated soul rather than simply the black steed. He
begins (apparently) to awaken to reason; his critical faculties come
alive under the guidance of Socrates.
Thus Plato draws this dialogue together and connects it with The
Symposium through a marvelously intricate display of symbolism
that is centered around the figure of Phaedrus. His introductory
speech in The Symposium has set the stage for Socrates' second
speech in the Phaedrusa speech in which the ascent theme of the
earlier dialogue is presented within the context of the individual.
In leading Socrates to expound on the subjects of iove and rheto-
ric, the role of Phaedrus as speech-fomenter is explicitly extended
THE IMPASSIONED SOUL 279
to the later dialogue, and the character is given a depth and scope
that is consistent with his role as it is briefly glimpsed in the former.
He is the youthful unassuming romantic who is deeply attracted
towards al! manner of speech, a yearning that he passes along to
his companions. Indeed, he is even capable of drawing Socrates
out of his urban setting to listen to Lysias's work. In this context,
the subject of rhetoric is naturally connected to the theme of love.
For Phaedrus is drawn fo all manner of this abstract realm, being
heediess of the power that could properly judge and evaluate this
higher beloved. So Phaedrus illustrates the role and the dangers of
the black steed in the transition from earthly beauty to its higher,
absolute, source. But for Phaedrus, it is abstract images that he
seeks indiscriminately to possess. Thus Plato is able to slide the
topic of rhetoric inandaround,and over, the earlier theme of iove,
Understood as a passion-dominated soul, Phaedrus then becomes
Socrates' student. Socrates gives Phaedrus a contrasting image of
love that is more powerful than Lysias's speech and this contrast
stimulates Phaedrus's previously latent faculty of reason. He sees
Socrates' second speech over and against Lysias's, becomes intel-
lectually aroused, and begins to appreciate the theoretical princi-
ples that establish the formal superiority of Socrates' effort. At this
point, Plato turns away from the myth and symbol that so power-
fully animate the figure of Phaedrus, and sets Socrates against the
Sophists in a more obvious and straightforward manner.
Phaedrus symbolizes the necessary passionate power in the transi-
tion from earthly beauty to its higher source. To obtain Knowledge,
one must first of all be drawn to abstract images. This is Phaedrus's
role, a role that highlights the danger of the Sophists. For Phaedrus
is the passionate but uncritical figure who succumbs to the sensuous
magic of Lysias. Socrates symbolizes reason in this context, like the
charioteer who subdues the biack steed in Plato's myth of the soul,
and the Phaedrus symbolism thereby shifts from that of the black
steed that draws his companions blindly towards an abstract be-
loved, to that of a soul awakening to the light of reason.
Thus Plato links together the subjects of rhetoric and iove in a
subtle but powerful display of imagery surrounding the figure of
Phaedrus. As such, Phaedrus becomes a stimulating rhetorical de-
vice. For Plato draws the reader into his dialogue in much the same
manner that Phaedrus lures his companions towards an abstract
beloved. Indeed, the "uncritical" and "superficial" Phaedrus comes
off as a fascinating character, the captivating foil in the elucidation
280 MICHAEL STOEBER
of the highly provocative myth espoused by Socrates. These facets
of the Phaedrusthe myth and the character of Phaedrus
perhaps begin to explain the powerful allure the dialogue exerts
upon its readers.
Department of Religious Studies
University of Calgary
Notes
1 am indebted to Professor P. W. Gooch of the Philosophy Department at the
University of Toronto, who read and commented upon an earlier draft of this paper,
and I thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for
their financial support. Also, I appreciate very much the many positive stylistic
suggestions provided by a reader for Philosophy and Rhetoric.
1. A. E. Taylor points out that the business of rhetoric, both before and after,
would be irrelevant if the second speech on love were not subordinate {Plato: The
Man and His Work [London: Methuem and Co. Ltd.. 1978]. 300).
2. Speaking of positive rhetoric in terms of both moral purpose and sound
argument that establishes belief and persuades, Lynette Hunter insists that Plato
thinks that "rhetoric needs poetic to be positive . . . " {Rhetorical Stance in Modern
Literature [London: Macmillan Press, 1984], 56). I think the provocative symbolic
complexity of the Phaedrus character, which will become evident as we proceed,
exemplifies the importance Plato gives to poetics in effective rhetoric.
3. Both the Phaedrus and The Symposium are translated by Walter Hamilton
(Harmonsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1986). I will refer to these translations
by the Stephanus page numbers.
4. Taylor, Plato, 212.
5. Hamilton, for example, notes in The Symposium on p. 117, endnote 9, that
Orpheus's descent is traditionally understood as one of courage, and his death is
seen as due to the disdain of Dionysius. Plato proposes here through Phaedrus that
the descent was an act of cowardice, and his death a punishment for this ignobility.
6. Cf. Walter Hamilton, Phaedrus, Introduction, p. 12. Also, in chapter 1 of
Plato J Phaedrus: A Defense of a Philosophic Art of Writing (University AL: Univer-
sity of Alabama Press, 1980), Ronna Burger illustrates in some depth and insight
the appropriateness of the Phaedrus figure as foil to this dialogue. Here Burger
emphasises the passive nature of Phaedrus, his inability "to think, to understand, to
discuss, to defend, to attack," with any philosophical rigour or clarity (p. 12),
Burger argues further that ". . . Phaedrus seems incapable of representing that
'self-moving motion' which Socrates later identifies as the being and logos of soul"
(p. 9) However, it will become apparent that Burger not only neglects the positive
and dynamic aspects of the symbohc significance of Phaedrus, but is also mistaken
in dissociating Phaedrus from the soul.
7. Socrates says "Your passion for rhetoric. Phaedrus, is superhuman, simply
amazing. I really believe that no one in your life-time has been responsible for the
production of more speeches than you, if we include besides those you deliver
yourself those you somehow compel other people to deliver. . . . And now it looks
as if you have given occasion for yet another discourse from me" (242a-b).
8. On this point Charles Griswold, Jr. notes that Phaedrus loves speeches for
their own sake. This is in interesting contrast to "the way Callicles or Lysias loves
themas a means of satisfying the desire for power or money" {Self-Knowledge in
Plato's Phaedrus, [New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1986J, 23). See pp. 18-33
where Griswold illustrates the appropriateness of Phaedrus as the interlocuter in a
dialogue concerned with self-ignorance and self-knowledge.