Erōs and Anterōs in the Phaedrus: Rivalry, Reciprocity, or Reflection?
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The very unique appearance of anterōs in the Phaedrus (255e1) has for a long time puzzled many readers and commentators, both ancient and modern, of Plato’s sublime dialogue. Some have translated it by “counter-love,” strengthening the theme of rivalry; others prefer “love-in-return” and its cognates, focusing on its reciprocal dynamics; still others understand it as “reflected love,” highlighting its qualification as an “image of love” (εἴδωλον ἔρωτος). The aim of this paper is to propose a comprehensive understanding of anterōs, encompassing these three lines of interpretation and translation, both by giving maximum coherence to the difficult passage in which it appears and by replacing it in the movement of the whole dialogue. To do so, we first analyse the complex entwining of the similes in which anterōs seems to have a pivotal role: erōs being successively described as himeros within a physiological simile, as anterōs within an optical one, and as soul’s struggle within the psychic simile of the winged chariot (255b7-256a6). Then we conceptualise this correction of the successive similes in view of the eschatological passage about the three different kinds of lives immediately following: paiderastic erōs, by desiring a physical and asymmetric contact with the beloved, can only trigger rivalry; whereas honour-loving erōs, by desiring something beyond the beloved, can foster emulation and reciprocity; but only philosophical erōs, by reflecting intelligible beauty to the beloved, can truly guide to its recollection (256a7-b7). Finally, we see in this passage a kind of nub of the analogical unity of the dialogue, between the erotic brothers and the discursive ones: anterōs being qualified by Socrates as an eidōlon of erōs just as written logos will be qualified by Phaedrus as an eidōlon of spoken logos (276a9). Thus, the very ambiguity of anterōs is not only due to the polysemy of the prefix anti- but also to its qualification as an eidōlon of erōs. We think that it is only by acknowledging this profound complexity of the text that we both recognise the merit of Plato’s comprehensive theory of love and the unity of surely his most beautiful dialogue.
Abstract
The very unique appearance of anterōs in the Phaedrus (255e1) has for a long time puzzled many readers and commentators, both ancient and modern, of Plato’s sublime dialogue. Some have translated it by “counter-love,” strengthening the theme of rivalry; others prefer “love-in-return” and its cognates, focusing on its reciprocal dynamics; still others understand it as “reflected love,” highlighting its qualification as an “image of love” (εἴδωλον ἔρωτος). The aim of this paper is to propose a comprehensive understanding of anterōs, encompassing these three lines of interpretation and translation, both by giving maximum coherence to the difficult passage in which it appears and by replacing it in the movement of the whole dialogue. To do so, we first analyse the complex entwining of the similes in which anterōs seems to have a pivotal role: erōs being successively described as himeros within a physiological simile, as anterōs within an optical one, and as soul’s struggle within the psychic simile of the winged chariot (255b7-256a6). Then we conceptualise this correction of the successive similes in view of the eschatological passage about the three different kinds of lives immediately following: paiderastic erōs, by desiring a physical and asymmetric contact with the beloved, can only trigger rivalry; whereas honour-loving erōs, by desiring something beyond the beloved, can foster emulation and reciprocity; but only philosophical erōs, by reflecting intelligible beauty to the beloved, can truly guide to its recollection (256a7-b7). Finally, we see in this passage a kind of nub of the analogical unity of the dialogue, between the erotic brothers and the discursive ones: anterōs being qualified by Socrates as an eidōlon of erōs just as written logos will be qualified by Phaedrus as an eidōlon of spoken logos (276a9). Thus, the very ambiguity of anterōs is not only due to the polysemy of the prefix anti- but also to its qualification as an eidōlon of erōs. We think that it is only by acknowledging this profound complexity of the text that we both recognise the merit of Plato’s comprehensive theory of love and the unity of surely his most beautiful dialogue.
참고문헌 (31)
- Belfiore, E. S., "Socrates’ Daimonic Art : Love for Wisdom in Four Platonic Dialogues" (2012), Cambridge University Press
- Bonazzi, M., "Platone: Fedro" (2011), Giulio Einaudi Editore
- Brisson, L., "L’unité du Phèdre de Platon. Rhétorique et philosophie dans le Phèdre", Understanding the Phaedrus, Proceedings of the II Symposium Platonicum, pp.61~76 (1992), Academia Verlag
- Brisson, L., "Platon: Phèdre" (2004), Flammarion
- Buffière, F., "Éros adolescent. La pédérastie dans la Grèce ancienne" (2007), Les Belles Lettres
- de Castro Caeiro, A., "In the Mirror of the Phaedrus", pp.245~256 (2013), Academia Verlag
- Chantraine, P., "Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque" (2009), Klincksieck
- Dorion, L.-A., "Platon: Lysis" (2004), Flammarion
- Dover, K. J., "Homosexualité Grecque, La pensée sauvage; 1978, Greek Homosexuality" (2004), Bloomsbury
- Dyson, M., "Zeus and Philosophy in the Myth of Plato’s Phaedrus", The Classical Quarterly, 32(2), pp.307~311 (1982)
- Ferrari, G. R. F., "Listening to the Cicadas : A Study of Plato’s Phaedrus" (1987), Cambridge Classical Studies
- Fraisse, J. -C., "Philia. La notion d’amitié dans la philosophie antique" (1974), Vrin
- Gonzalez, F. J., "Socrates on Loving One’s Own: A Traditional Conception of ΦΙΛΙΑ Radically Transformed", Classical Philology, 95(4), pp.379~398 (2000)
- Hackforth, R., "Plato’s Phaedrus: Translated with an Introduction and Commentary" (2001), Cambridge University Press
- Halperin, D. M., "Plato and Erotic Reciprocity", Classical Antiquity, 5(1), pp.60~80 (1986)
- Lebeck, A., "The Central Myth of Plato’s Phaedrus", GRBS, 13, pp.267~290 (1972)
- Longhi, V., "L’amour médecin de l’âme dans le Phèdre de Platon (250e1-252c3): rapprochements avec la Collection hippocratique", Études platoniciennes (2013)
- Macris, C., "At the Borders of the New Testament. Studies in Honour of Johan C. Thom", Brill
- Merker, A., "La vision chez Platon et Aristote" (2003), Academia Verlag
- Merrill, R. V., "Eros and Anteros", Speculum, 19(3), pp.265~284 (1944)
- Ponce, E., "Empédocle dans la palinodie du Phèdre", Les Études philosophiques, 194(4), pp.623~661 (2019)
- Price, A. W., "Love and Friendship in Plato and Aristotle" (1989), Clarendon
- Robin, L., "Platon: Phèdre" (1970), Les Belles Lettres
- Rowe, C., "Plato: Phaedrus" (2005), Penguin Books
- Scully, S., "Phaedrus: Translation with Notes, Glossary, Appendices, Interpretative Essay and Introduction" (2003), Hackett Publishing Company
- Sheffield, F. C. C., "Beyond Eros: Friendship in the Phaedrus", Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 111, pp.251~273 (2011)
- Sinaiko, H. L., "Love, Knowledge and Discourse in Plato: Dialogue and Dialectic in Phaedrus, Republic, Parmenides" (1965), The University of Chicago Press
- Stephenson, C. E., "Anteros : A Forgotten Myth" (2012), Routledge
- Therme, A.-L., "Est-ce par un tourbillon que l’Amour empédocléen joint?", Philosophie antique, 7, pp.91~119 (2007)
- Vlastos, G., "Platonic Studies", pp.3~34 (1973), Princeton University Press
- Vuilleumier, P., "Platon et le schème du miroir", Revue de Philosophie Ancienne, 16(2), pp.3~47 (1998)