Fairytales and Make-believe, or Spinning Stories about Poros and Penia in Plato's Symposium: A Literary and Computational Analysis

FAIRYTALES AND MAKE-BELIEVE, OR SPINNING STORIESABOUT POROS AND PENIA IN PLATO’S SYMPOSIUM :

A LITERARY AND COMPUTATIONAL ANALYSIS

M. Johnson and H. Tarrant

introduction

This paper is a two-fold study of the muthos of Poros and Penia asnarrated by Diotima to Socrates at Symposium 203b1–204a6. The first partemploys several features of traditional literary analysis while the second partemploys computation stylistics through a study of the most routine elements ofvocabulary. Both approaches have been utilised in order to examine the genreof the passage and to present a combined interpretation, privileging a readingof it as an example of an inspired voice that employs the seemingly simplenarrative structure of folk- or fairytale to convey a particularly significant andcomplex meditation on the nature of Eros/eros. This combined approach notonly suggests an underlying importance of the narrative that modern readers (oreven ancient readers who despised fairytale) might miss, but also demonstratesthat what may be “regarded” or “sensed” as a piece of narrative belonging toa particular genre—in this instance, fairytale—can be studied with the aid ofquantitative data that complements the qualitative approach of traditional literaryanalysis.

In particular, the computational approach tends to underline the relevanceof a female speaker, since there is something characteristically female aboutthe mix of basic vocabulary that is employed; it also confirms that this mixshares some of the expected features of myths in Plato. It is not unnatural tosuppose, therefore, that Socrates was supposed to be attending to Diotima, thesymposiasts to Socrates, and the Platonic audience to Plato, in much the sameway as a young person might ordinarily be expected to listen to an older femalestory-teller: trusting1 in the experience2 and goodwill of the narrator, and willing

1 The vocabulary of trust/belief is often in evidence when myths are told in Plato: Grg. 524a8,526d4, 527e6, Meno 81e1, Phd. 108c8, e1, e4, Rep. 621c1, c3; one should compare in particularSocrates’ own statement of his overall reaction to Diotima at Symp. 212b1–4. As will be seen below,this does not imply that the female myth-teller was not likely to be ridiculed by adult males who sawthemselves as having passed beyond the stage where benefit could be derived from such sources; itis clear from Rep. 350d8–e4 that a response of polite non-resistance was expected for an old wives’tale, but if this response came from someone like Thrasymachus it would be a condescending one.

2 On the seniority of the Platonic myth-teller, evident at Prot. 320c, see Most 2012: 16–19,where this is the second of eight regular features of Platonic myths discussed; the possible exceptionof Aristophanes in the Symposium is mentioned (216–217), but, quite apart from his expertise incomic muthoi, Aristophanes is certainly older than the host character Agathon. Tarrant (2012: 51)conceives of this seniority in terms other than mere years, so that Socrates may sometimes earn “bydebate the right to be taken more seriously.”

PHOENIX, VOL. 68 (2014) 3–4.

291

292 PHOENIX

to suspend disbelief in any supernatural or otherwise improbable features of thestory in the expectation of receiving a meaningful and perhaps important lesson.Ultimately we shall be left in no doubt that Socrates does, by the time of theputative gathering in 416 b.c., believe that he has learned such a lesson (212b),but the insights he acquired were no more immediate than those of his ownaudience. Like the lessons that we learn from our grandmothers, the benefitdoes not come from an immediate critical response.

i. the poros and penia MUTHOS

In the second book of the Republic, Plato—or, rather Plato’s Socrates—is suspicious about particular types of stories (māyoi). In his dialogue withAdeimantus, he stresses the need to be wary of stories; for while they containtruth as well as falsehood, they are often told randomly or unthinkingly andtherefore should not only be treated with caution, but should be subject tocensorship (\pistatht�ow) in the ideal state (377b–c). A list of accepted storiesshould be established, from which nurses and mothers could draw, in order forchildren to be instructed in tales designed for the improvement of their souls.Accordingly, Socrates specifies that stories presenting the gods or heroes in anegative light are to be suppressed (377e). The latter are particularly dangerousfor children, as the young are not able to discern the potential allegory or¿p—noia (literally, a hidden sense) therein (378d).

The word Socrates consistently uses for stories is muthoi, a term pregnantwith many meanings dependent on context. In the Republic, the context istwofold: in the first part of his speech on narratives and the young, Socratesidentifies mothers and nurses as the purveyors of muthoi (377c); and from thescant information on the tellers of tales to children in antiquity, mothers andnurses appear to feature prominently as sources of undesirable tales, as Plato alsonotes in the words of the Athenian in the Laws (887c–d).3 The second use ofthe term muthos in the Republic is to designate worthy tales, tales suitable forchildren, because of their soul-improving qualities. Such tales should presentthe gods in a favourable and strictly philosophically correct light in accordancewith Socrates’ world view.

In several Platonic works, women are associated by at least one of thosepresent with the telling of undesirable muthoi: at Republic 350e, Thrasymachusrefers to old women (gr‰ew) telling tales (māyoi);4 at Theaetetus 176b, Socrateshimself uses the phrase “old-wives’ chatter” (gra™n ¹ylow) and makes it clearthat it is a figure of speech (the context is that Socrates has nothing positive tosay about pursuing virtue simply to enjoy a good reputation—that to him is as

3 Graverini (2006: 90) regards the passage in a positive light. Cf. Graverini 2006: 90 on Timaeus

26b–c.4 The tone is dismissive and patronising; Socrates invites interruptions to his speech, to which

he claims he will nod politely as one does to old women telling tales.

POROS AND PENIA IN PLATO’S SYMPOSIUM 293

useful as gra™n ¹ylow);5 at Gorgias 527a, after Socrates has narrated a myth toCallicles, the phrase “tale of an old woman” (māyow gra—w) is cited as a typeof speech that this latter would despise. The context for this last example isSocrates’ explanation of his tale to Callicles, which he describes as m‡la kal—wl—gow (a very beautiful account), in order to distinguish it from a māyow gra—w.These instances make it clear that the proverbial phrase places an emphasis onthe gender of the teller, colouring the word muthos according to the sex of thenarrator and thereby emphasising the role of the social subgroup in the ancientGreek conceptual framework of narrative.6

The story of Poros and Penia is initially told to a presumably young Socratesby Diotima and as such Plato introduces what has become an important consid-eration for modern scholars of the mythic voice: the issue of gender. Diotima isa woman. At Symposium 201d, Socrates reports that Diotima came from Man-tinea (a Peloponnesian town which allied itself with Sparta during the Pelopon-nesian War) and was an expert on Eros/eros. Of course we are aware of thepossibility of the punning involved in her title: “Zeus-Honour from Seer-Land,”but rather than exploring the possibilities of a living, breathing woman, it is moreimportant to acknowledge the very title—pun or otherwise—that Plato assignsto her. As “Zeus-Honour from Seer-Land,” Diotima is established as a seer orprophet, with the characterisation of her as a mustagvg—w suggested by Socrates’explanation that she delayed the plague in Athens for ten years by prescribingthe appropriate animal sacrifices. As a seer, a mystical healer, and possibly an“itinerant charismatic,”7 Diotima speaks in many forms: Eleusinian language,according to Evans; mythic narrative, according to many Platonic scholars;8 Pla-tonic logos, according to Irigaray and as Socrates’/Plato’s intellectual mistress, inthe reading of Nussbaum.9 To this list of possible interpretations of Diotima’s“voice” one may add the voice of the folklorist whose story is reminiscent of themāyow gra—w.10 Anderson, in his Fairytale in the Ancient World, has suggested

5 The probability is that Socrates implies that this is the real old wives’ tale, as opposed to his ownview, which would be similarly despised by figures like Thrasymachus and Callicles; consequently,although the term is normally derogatory, its use here may not indicate that Socrates would normallybe dismissive.

6 Buxton (1994: 20–21) discusses the generally understudied field of female story-tellers inantiquity, noting the apparent discrepancy that exists between the potential educative value of theirrole (although, as we have seen, Socrates does not always adhere to this premise), and their socialopprobrium. Buxton’s summations of the lowly opinion of female story-tellers are certainly affirmedby the views of Socrates as expressed by Plato. Interestingly, however, Socrates himself is a spiritualmidwife, a teller of tales that are not always politically correct or philosophically nourishing, accordingto his own guidelines for acceptable myths.

7 Burkert 1987: 43.8 It may be worth noting that it is only the section discussed here, namely 203b–204a, which

Most (2012: 24) takes to conform to his eight criteria for the identification of Platonic myths.9 Evans 2006; Irigaray 1989; Nussbaum 1986: 177.

10 The significance of Diotima’s voice is perhaps best discussed by Halperin (1990). Halperinrightly addresses Plato’s inclusion of her as a woman per se, not as a woman in relation to men or as

294 PHOENIX

the possibility of this being the case: “her gender and occupation as a priestessof Mantinea might . . . point to a kind of inspired old wives’ tale.”11

In light of these various interpretations concerning the identity and role ofDiotima (social, philosophical, religious), it is appropriate to consider what mayhave been a tenet underpinning Plato’s text all along; namely, the tension be-tween a genuinely inspired utterance worthy of this woman’s implied status anda story reminiscent of an old woman’s nonsense. Accordingly, there may wellhave been a deliberate tactic of keeping the reader guessing about the real signif-icance and philosophical meaning of Diotima—the female sage and storytellerwho talks down to her pupil thus becomes as enigmatic as Socrates himself oftenproves to be.

Diotima is ventriloquised by Socrates, whose retelling of the tale ensuresthat he colonises it for himself, thereby providing a higher authority to theinherent logos of its hermeneutics and inspired reasoning. If this story is in-deed allied with fairytale, it may well put the lie to the idea that only true,traditional myth inspires, a concept that Socrates challenges in his reclaimingof the personal significance of Aesop12 prior to his death; it is not the greatmyths—the meta-narratives—that sustain him in his final days, but simple fa-bles, which Socrates calls muthoi (Phd. 60c–d).13 In line with Kurke’s studyof Aesop and Socrates, and by default, Aesop and Plato, the study of fairy-tales in the Socratic dialogues entails an acknowledgement of the ancient con-text of orality, as well as muthoi in all its manifestations, which means an ac-knowledgement of muthoi as “crucially embedded in significant social and cul-tural contexts;”14 “thus allusion or intertextuality is never simply a literary phe-nomenon, but entails or draws in cultural, political, even economic spheres.”15

As such, muthoi in the form of old wives’ tales may be regarded as havingoperated within a specific social environment, unrecorded (which makes themalmost impossible to work with in terms of intertextuality) and disliked in termsof socially-sanctioned, or community-oriented narratives, but nevertheless anembedded part of Greek society and culture, and thereby subject to use inmythopoeic endeavours such as the one recounted by Socrates and attributed toDiotima.

As the central characters of the tale Plato employs two personified forces ordaimones, Penia and Poros. As with many fairytales, particularly those most

a woman symbolic of sexuality, including heterosexuality, but as exclusively female and as exclusivelynarrator. Such an approach to Diotima is enhanced by an examination of the text, partly in compar-ison with other works by Plato in which Socrates makes use of female voices, in order to considerwith more confidence the likelihood of a female register in the Platonic texts (see below, 300–305).

11 Anderson 2000: 11.12 See Anderson 2006 on Aesop as the archetypal Trickster.13 See Kurke 2006.14 Kurke 2006: 19.15 Kurke 2006: 19.

POROS AND PENIA IN PLATO’S SYMPOSIUM 295

well-known in the West from the Germanic tradition, personified forces featureheavily as characters. It is therefore appropriate to survey pre-Platonic literaturewith a view to considering the means by which Penia is represented therein.16

As in Diotima’s story, poverty is a personified female force in the scant remainsof Greek literature that mention her;17 herein she is an outsider, a creature tobe pitied and shunned:

1.úrg‡leon Pen’a k‡kon Äsxeton, ú m�gand‡mnai l‰on &Amaxan’ai s�n údelf�ai

Poverty (Penia) is a grievous thing, an ungovernable evil, who with her sister Helplessness(Amakhania) lays low a great people. (Alcaeus fr. 364)

2.Gnvt} toi pen’h ge ka“ úllotr’h per \oāsa:oáte gˆr e�w úgor|n Árxetai oáte d’kaw:p‡nthi gˆr toálasson Áxei, p‡nthi d' \p’muktow,

p‡nthi d' \xyr| `m™w g’netai, Ánya per Ôi.

Penia is indeed well known, even though she belongs to someone else. She does not visitthe marketplace or the courts, since everywhere her status is inferior, everywhere she isscorned, and everywhere she is equally hated, regardless of where she is.

(Theognis fr. 1.267)

3.)A deil| pen’h, t’ m�neiw prolipoāsa paß Ällon

Ändß ��nai; m| ãn d|n o[k \y�lonta f’lei:úll' æyi ka“ d—mon Ällon \po’xeo, mhd� mey' =m�vna�e“ dust}nou toāde b’ou m�texe.

O wretched Penia, why do you delay to leave me and go to another man? Don’t beattached to me against my will, but go, visit another house, and don’t always share thismiserable life with me. (Theognis fr. 1.351)

4.)A deil| pen’h, t’ \mo”s' \pikeim�nh Åmoiws™ma kataisxœneiw ka“ n—on =m�teron;a�sxrˆ d� m' o[k \y�lonta b’hi ka“ pollˆ did‡skeiw

\sylˆ met' únyrQpvn ka“ k‡l' \pist‡menon.

Ah wretched Penia, why do you lie upon my shouldersand deform my body and mind? Forcibly and against my will

16 Poros does not feature.17 See also Thompson Z133.1 (Poverty personified as diseased beggar woman); Z134 (Fortune

and Poverty personified: Fortune a beautiful horsewoman, Poverty a wretched beggar).

296 PHOENIX

you teach me much that is shameful, although I know what isnoble and honourable among men. (Theognis fr. 1.649)

5.o[k Ásti pen’aw ´er˜n a�sx’sthw yeoā.

There is no shrine to Penia, the ugliest of divinities . . .(Eur. Archelaos fr. 248)18

In addition to these fragments, there is a reference to her at Hdt. 8.111.3:when Themistocles arrived at Andros, he announced that he and his fellowAthenians had come with two gods, Peitho (Persuasion) and Anangke (Force),to which the Andrians replied that their only gods were Penia and Amakhania.19

From these references, fragmentary though most of them are, the impressionof Penia is not flattering. Sommerstein states of her that “[s]he has no cult,no presence in art and no authentic mythology, though she can figure in ge-nealogies devised ad hoc for allegorical purposes.”20 This essentially liminal cul-tural position of Penia in relation to Greek religion and mythology makes hera suitable candidate for inclusion in folktales and the ad hoc narratives to whichSommerstein refers.

There is also Aristophanes’ Wealth (388 b.c.), coming perhaps just slightlybefore the Symposium (no earlier than 385 b.c.).21 Therein, Penia has a starringrole22 as a frightening economic rationalist, a pallid creature with all the hall-marks of the Erinyes “from the tragic stage” and masking a “manic look” (Wealth423–424).23 The adjective used to describe Penia is ½xr‡ (422), “the bloodlessskin colour of corpses (Philostr. Imag. ii 10.3), of sleepers (Plut. fr. 178 Sand-bach, Loeb xv 320, in a comparison of sleep to death), and of underworld shades(Lucian Menip. 21).”24 Interestingly, Anderson touches on the significance ofOld Comedy, “close to the grass-roots of Athenian society,”25 as a potentiallyfertile ground for fairytales, and in view of this statement, it is significant thatone of the storytellers of the Symposium is, in fact, Aristophanes—the master ofOld Comedy, whose speech has been identified by Anderson (2000: 11) as one“with some fairytale association.”26

19 For a variant, see Plut. Them. 21, where the Greek deities were Peitho and Bia (Strength) andthe Andrian deities were Penia and Aporia (Desperation).

20 Sommerstein (2001: 169) cites Plato’s Symposium.21 At 193a Aristophanes is usually taken to be referring to the splitting up of Mantinea by the

Spartans.22 Interestingly, there is not one mention of Poros in extant Aristophanic comedy; in The Birds,

the cosmology has Eros emerge from the cosmic egg laid in the lap of Erebus without mention ofeither Metis or Poros.

23 Winkler 1980: 162.24 Winkler 1980: 162.25 Anderson 2000: 10.26 Of additional interest and applicability to this current line of enquiry is the work of Sifakis,

who, in his analysis of the comic functions of Aristophanes’ characters based on the theories of the

POROS AND PENIA IN PLATO’S SYMPOSIUM 297

In terms of the function of Penia in the Symposium we must, therefore,consider the role of the story that features her within the framework of potentialsocial reception as well as the social positioning of the protagonists themselves.In stories defined as mormolœkeia (literally, hobgoblin or monster), childrenwere subject to tales featuring, as Golden describes them: “female bogies likeEmpousa, Gello, Gorgo, Lamia, Mormo (or Mormolyke).” Golden suggeststhat such fearsome creatures, beings from the world of folklore and fable, maywell have been an inspiration for Aeschylus’ vampiric Erinyes: beings designedto reawaken such childhood fears in an adult audience.27

Indeed, Aristophanes’ portrayal of Penia seems to draw on this tradition;as previously mentioned, Penia enters the stage in Wealth in the guise of anold woman who screeches at Blepsidemus and Chremylus (415–416, 418–421).Chremylus asks: “S� d' eå t’w; &Vxrˆ m�n gˆr eåna’ moi doke”w” (“Who areyou? You indeed look very pale to me!,” 422) and Blepsidemus answers: “*Isvw&Erinœw \stin \k trag~d’aw: / bl�pei g� toi manik—n ti ka“ trag~dik—n”(“Maybe she’s some Fury out of a tragedy; indeed she has that insane tragiclook to her!,” 423–424). The connection between Penia and the Erinyes is onethat may have been established in Greek popular culture prior to Aristophanes’Wealth and the Symposium. Indeed, in Wealth, Penia acts like the Erinyes; shethreatens the protagonists with vengeance and when she reveals her identity itis in the context of the punishment of those who seek to drive her out: “$H sfWpo}sv t}meron doānai d’khn / úny' @n \m� zhte”ton \ny�nd' úfan’sai.” (“[Iam] one who will see that you receive justice, this very day, for your attempt tomake me disappear from these parts,” 433–434). In this respect, Blepsidemusand Chremylus, representatives of the common man, could not be blamed formisidentifying her.

In the Symposium, Penia is stripped bare of her comedic grotesqueness; sheis simply Penia, unadorned, undescribed, who turns up to a party to which shewas not invited, and begs. As an immortal without a cult, without ritual, andin a liminal position among a divine hierarchy (accentuated by the fact that shewas not invited to the celebrations in honour of Aphrodite’s birth but stands

Russian folklorist and formalist Vladimir Propp (1984), identifies folktale elements in Old Comedy.Propp’s theory argues that fairytales can be codified based on the actions performed by the maincharacters in each narrative. Plot elements or functions according to this system are to be found ina uniform sequence and, based on the study of 100 tales, Propp devised thirty-one generic functionson which all fairytale plots are based. Sifakis (1992: 129–132) lists eight themes of folktale as Proppcodifies them, and applies these to the comedies of Aristophanes. What is most important for sucha study of Aristophanic comedy is the acknowledgment that it was designed not only for the socialelite’s edification and catharsis but for the common man as well, and as such, it treads a fine linebetween high culture and, toppling very much over the line, low culture. It is in this sense that itmay be seen as embracing and retelling the low culture tales of the folk (in addition to inventingnew stories that may well have closer ties to folktale than myth) and is why, one would posit, it hasbeen analysed by Sifakis in terms of Propp’s definitional cataloguing of folklore.

27 Golden 1993: 6; cf. Brown 1983: 26.

298 PHOENIX

symbolically “at the gate”), Penia is represented by Socrates as a being with adecidedly mortal quality. She represents the Greek peasant who, as was thecustom, came to beg at the end of banquets. As the expediency-driven peasant,Penia devises a plan to better herself: the rape of Poros for the conceptionof a child. The conceptual alignment of poverty and peasantry should not beunderestimated in this tale: as the beggar, the non-Olympian, the rejected,Penia is symbolic of all that is despised in the ancient Greek world; outside ofmyth owing to her lowly daimonic status, she literally and figuratively belongsto the world of the common folk and the tellers of their tales. In this sense,Poros is her perfect match. Drunk on nectar and passed out on Zeus’ lawn, hebecomes the ideal target of Penia’s trap.

The meaning of Poros’ name, “Resource” (which fits well in the narrativecontext, as Dover has suggested),28 may also at first offer a further tantalisinglink with the genre of folktale; namely an interpretation of Poros as a Trick-ster. But here we must be cautious. On the Trickster in the folktale or fairy-tale genre, Jurich provides a succinct summation: “In folklore the trickster ismore typically identified as a male character” with principal qualities including“cunning, intelligence, and adaptability, and in using, among other strategies,methods that rely on secrecy and psychological awareness.”29 But, of course,Diotima does not cast him as such in this story; the only connection betweenPoros and the Trickster is his name and the genetic imprint he (and, by default,his mother, Metis)30 gives to Eros, namely, an alert mind and an expedientnature (203d4–8).31 When it comes to narrative “function,” Poros is singularlylacking as a Trickster in any active sense.

28 Dover 1980: 141. Dover’s choice of course looks forward to the characteristics the son (Eros)inherits from his father—hence, Resource.

29 Jurich 1998: xviii, n. 1. The presence of the Trickster in such stories as the Odysseus Cyclehas been utilised by scholars to identify tales such as the encounters with Polyphemus and the trapof Hephaestus as more folkloric than traditionally mythic. Of course, Tricksters appear in mythand in Greek myth the most consistent Trickster is Hermes, although he is also a familiar figure infolktale, regularly helping the hero in his hour of need. Hermes also features in tales identified asType 332A: Godfather Death folktales in which “a mortal is summoned to the underworld in somesort of mistake, and becomes a revenant on being sent back to tell the tale” (Anderson 2000: 115).In Lucian’s Philopseudes, for example, “a man has been summoned by Hermes as guide of the dead;when he gets to Hades, he finds that it is not himself but his next-door neighbour who has beencalled. He himself is taken back to the land of the living; then he hears the sound of mourning forthe blacksmith next door” (Anderson 2000: 116). See also Anderson for the appearance of Hermesin Type 500: Rumpelstiltskin at Lucian’s Fugitivi. The role of Hermes in folktale is, however, bestillustrated by Callimachus (Hymn to Artemis 3.66–71).

30 It is significant that Poros’ mother’s name alone is mentioned in the story, and it seems to beso in order to further characterise Eros as the offspring of not only Poros, but (through Poros) ofMetis, or Planning.

31 Plato may well have recorded the story thus because he was familiar with the traditional roleof Poros in Greek thought that marked a very clear divide between the representation of himand, say, a figure such as Penia. While Penia clearly moves into a folkloric arena in some of thenarratives featuring her, Poros seems to have been kept as a more stable figure, essentially remaining

POROS AND PENIA IN PLATO’S SYMPOSIUM 299

Penia, however, offers a closer identification with the Trickster in Diotima’stale, devising her plan to rape Poros in order to beget a child by him so as torelieve her own impoverishment (here, as in Theognis fr. 1.649, she takes herman “forcibly” and is a figure of foreboding and unrelenting need). On thefemale Trickster, Jurich writes: “While her existence in mythology is, perhaps,not widespread, her presence in folk narrative is significant. She plays dominantand varied roles in folktales.”32 In this sense, then, Penia’s link to the Trickster—and Poros’ disassociation from the same—may well be the result of Penia’s closerties to the world of old wives’ tales, as much as Poros’ resolute connections tocosmological mythologies and philosophies.

As opposed to myth, which offers the audience a more complex ethical spec-trum, folktale is usually characterised by its simple play upon opposites: quiteregularly, upon good and bad. This dichotomy is also evident in Diotima’s tale inwhich the language of the parentage of Eros “relies heavily upon the oppositions(good/bad, immortal/mortal) that she has previously made.”33 This simplicity ofthe folktale narrative voice is useful and appropriate in conveying the principaltenets of Diotima’s philosophy concerning the nature of Eros. The simplicityof the story enables the communication of complex ideas that are unpacked inSocrates’ subsequent logos in order to be transformed into inspiration. This typeof tale-telling is not standard or traditional, but a hybrid form, a “countercharm”(to quote Socrates himself in Rep. 608a) to the conventions of Greek culture,specifically myth as expressed in poetry and especially epic poetry.

The story of Poros and Penia, as strange and seemingly out-of-place as it is,and indeed standing as something discrete in the computational analysis (as thenext discussion demonstrates), represents a different register in the context ofthe Symposium overall. This distinct nature of the tale, as has been argued thusfar, seems likely to point to its origins in the genre of folktale. Additionally,however, it may well be that its proximity to the mantic, oracular voice of oneunder divine influence, Diotima, is another factor in its very separateness.

ii. computational stylistics and the poros and penia story

It has recently been demonstrated that myth-like diction in Plato may usuallybe diagnosed by a few simple tests on the most basic vocabulary,34 making itlikely that fairytale could be recognised by broadly similar methods, displayingsome similarities and some differences. A passage in which Socrates or another

a primordial deity, “a cosmogonic power . . . since the age of Alcman” (Detienne and Vernant 1978:222). If we assume Diotima via Socrates via Plato is indeed the “real” source of the storytellinghere, we can further extend our belief to suggest that as such she would have been familiar withthe origins of Poros. On the mythical tradition concerning Poros (and Metis), see Detienne andVernant 1978: 144–162.

32 Jurich 1998: xviii, n. 133 This clear-cut presentation of opposites is examined by Evans (2006: 12).34 See Tarrant, Benitez, and Roberts 2011.

300 PHOENIX

speaker breaks into the register of myth is usually identifiable by an increase inthe use of the definite article and of common prepositions, and a correspondingdecrease of negatives and of a range of other “function-words,” that is to say ofthose common words for which a writer of Socratic dialogues is always likelyto find a use (as opposed to those that belong only where certain topics arediscussed). In general, cluster analysis based on a range of ninety-seven function-words,35 which will in most circumstances reliably separate off the major myths,particularly in the dialogues considered to be “middle” or “late,” tends to yieldambiguous results concerning the Diotima episode of the Symposium. After thespeech of Aristophanes, which clearly employs some kind of myth, it is thelikeliest “speech” to be grouped in the same cluster as myths. Since the materialis by no means homogeneous, when we consider the Poros/Penia story, wherethere is question and answer and some seemingly inspired discourse involvingboth description and narrative, the ambiguity is not very surprising. Moreover, itis not unusual for it to be grouped by the computer with other material in whichSocrates makes use of female voices. Its exceptional proximity to both blocks ofthe Menexenus,36 in which Socrates attributes his long \pit‡fiow l—gow (“funeraloration”) to Aspasia, was first observed when examining a range of Platonicmaterial, some of which was suspected of employing a protreptic voice or register.Also close were the central section of the Alcibiades 1 (119a8–124b6), consideredto be “protreptic” by Olympiodorus (in Alc. 11 and 142) and regularly yieldingresults quite different from its elenctic frame,37 in which Socrates temporarilytries to sound like a Spartan or Persian queen,38 and Xenophon’s Myth of theChoice of Heracles, which closes the first chapter of Memorabilia 2 and usestwo female figures to present Heracles with contrasting options.

Consider the following cluster analysis (Chart 1), which employs Ward’smethod39 to analyse over ninety common function-words across a range of So-

35 The ninety-seven words included all “function-words” found in the commonest 200 wordsin a cross-section of Platonic materials, except for those whose rates would differ sharply betweennarrated and dramatic dialogues (verbs of speaking, the vocative ã, and first- and second-personpronouns). As in Plato’s Cratylus all inflections of a single lexical entry (unless derived from differentstems; cf. Crat. 396a) counted as the same word, including adverbial forms predictably derivedfrom adjectives. Words included, for instance, fifteen prepositions, eight negatives, article, somedemonstratives, common particles, conjunctions, adverbs, relatives, question words, and indefinites.No nouns were included, and only a very few adjectives, present because of their common adverbialforms. Only a very few verbs, for example, “to be” and “to become,” met our criteria.

36 A block size of 2,000 words has been set, so that any file containing more than 3,999 wordswould be separated into one or more blocks of 2,000 words, plus a remaining block of 2,000+ words.

37 See Tarrant and Roberts 2012: 229–233.38 The most striking indication that Socrates here mimics female speech with the reference

to Alcibiades as “the son of Deinomache” (123c6); the use of the mother’s name alone is possiblyunparalleled in the Platonic Corpus, though Socrates does refer to himself as “the son of Sophroniscusand Phainarete” at Alc. 1.131e3–4, only just after addressing Alcibiades by the patronymic (e2) asalso at the opening of the dialogue.

39 Data have been standardised, and the diagram is drawn according to squared Euclidean dis-tance. Ward’s (1963) method is particularly useful for sorting data-sets into distinct families, and

POROS AND PENIA IN PLATO’S SYMPOSIUM 301

cratic material, including some Platonic dubia and spuria. In a sense the dendro-gram may be read rather like a family-tree. However, the horizontal lines indi-cate the distance (as calculated by Ward’s method) separating individual blocksof text, or families of such blocks (clusters). Hence the blocks that are joinedto one another by the lowest horizontal lines display the greatest similarity ac-cording to the criteria employed. One must consider not only which blocks arebeing linked, and at what stage, but also how remote the linkage is.

The part of the analysis that interests us is the major left-hand cluster, whichis as a whole quite remote from the majority of blocks. The Diotima material(SympDi) is found to have a particularly high level of similarity with bothblocks of the Menexenus, the only other prolonged passage in which Socratesadopts a female voice. Since this similarity is detected in spite of the factthat Diotima employs a range of communicative strategies quite different fromAspasia’s epideictic rhetoric, it tends to confirm that the content of the Diotimaepisode has indeed been tailored to suit a female communicator, as argued in theprevious section. The next closest block of text is that part of the Alcibiades 1 inwhich Socrates for a while imagined the words of foreign queens (=Alc1Protr),and the remainder of the cluster consists of all three blocks of myth includedin the analysis, from Protagoras and Phaedrus, and the spurious Axiochus thatemploys themes reminiscent of Platonic myths.

However, while the Diotima episode does have demonstrable affinities withthe Menexenus, analyses will not always be so decisive. Would the inclusion ofother parts of the Symposium in the analysis result in one or more of these partsresembling the Diotima episode somewhat more closely? Could there perhapsbe a “sympotic voice” or something similar? Furthermore, the passages that em-ployed female voices were linked in that left-hand cluster with myths. Can thefemale voice be adequately distinguished from myth (loosely defined), especiallygiven that Diotima tells a story? Finally, given that the part of Xenophon’sMemorabilia 2 that included the Choice of Heracles myth is also a myth em-ploying female voices, how would that fare in the analysis?

In response to these questions analysis was undertaken including all partsof the Symposium, and sometimes including Xenophon’s Symposium and Mem-orabilia 2 as well. Material outside the speeches was labelled “SympIntr” and“SympFrame,” separate files were created for each speech and named with ref-erence to the speaker (“SympPhdr,” etc.), and two passages from the Diotimaepisode were treated separately, the Poros and Penia story and the final “Ladderof Love” passage (209e5–212a7). The remainder of the Diotima episode wasnamed “SympDiB.” That part of Memorabilia 2.1 before the Myth of the Choiceof Heracles was labelled “XMem2A,” the myth itself became “XMem2B,” andthe remaining chapters “XMem2C.” We now had seven files that made at leastpartial use of one or more women’s voices, two from the Menexenus as be-

is widely used in literary studies; it has been used in relation to Plato since Brandwood 1990. OnCluster Analysis and dendrograms in general, see Everitt et al. 2011, especially 88–92.

302 PHOENIX

Chart 1: Dendrogram of selected Socratic texts

POROS AND PENIA IN PLATO’S SYMPOSIUM 303

fore, three from the Diotima episode, and one each from Memorabilia 2 andthe Alcibiades 1. Applying simple T-tests to each of one hundred variables (allfunction-words) we were able to isolate sixteen words that seemed to offer somehope of discriminating not only between regular Socratic dialectic and the femalevoice but also between other myth or monologue and the female voice.40 Thefiles were then subject to cluster analysis based only on the sixteen remainingvariables, which placed all seven blocks with female speech and all five otherblocks that were easily treated as myth in a cluster of eighteen blocks to theright (Chart 2). Of the remaining six blocks, three are the speeches of Phae-drus, Pausanias, and Eryximachus, one the discussion that precedes the “Choiceof Heracles” in Xenophon, and the remaining two are the introductory blocksof narrated dialogues.

It will be observed that on the far right is a sub-cluster of four myth-blocks,including the story of Poros and Penia; note that the story would appear at firstsight to occur in credible company, in spite of the fact that the block is worryinglysmall, as we shall shortly see. These myths are very loosely attached to Phaedrus’speech which, though not myth, employs mainly mythical material. The thirteenremaining blocks are divided between a moderately coherent group of ten, and afurther group of three in which the speeches of Eryximachus and Aristophanesare joined by the myth from the Phaedo. Six of the seven blocks employingfemale voices fall into the group of ten, with the “Ladder of Love” passage,Diotima’s most sustained passage of monologue, being grouped closest to thesecond block of Menexenus, while the “protreptic” of the Alcibiades 1 is groupedclosest to its first block. It could perhaps be argued that all ten blocks have asignificant protreptic element,41 making the further observation that imaginaryfemale speakers are especially favoured for the delivery of messages that involvean exhortation to noble pursuits. Most of them also have an important narrativeelement. However, what is more striking is that all files employing female voicesare placed here, other than the Poros and Penia story, while that file has beenplaced in a small group of myth-like episodes.

While this result was welcome, one must warn that the analysis of the briefPoros and Penia episode as a separate component is rather a hazardous under-taking. The shorter the passage, the more likely it becomes that random factorsare at work or that special linguistic characteristics will skew results, making it

40 These were (in order of decreasing statistical significance) úllˆ, per“, ºsper, pr™tow, e{,

o[de“w, o¹tvw, Ðtan, \n, \k, ºste, ©n, `, parˆ, Ära, Ðstiw (all cases and genders of declinablewords). This list includes words that seemed significantly more frequent or significantly less frequentin women’s speech than in myth.

41 This is obvious in the case of Socrates’ address to Aristippus (XMem2A), while the firstblock of Euthydemus (approximately the first six Stephanus pages) sees Socrates exhorting Crito,Cleinias, and the sophists themselves to philosophic activities of some sort, the first of Charmides

sees Charmides encouraged to take the philosophical cure, and the speech of Pausanias may beviewed as an attempt to exhort Agathon to continue to pursue a virtue-seeking erotic relationshipwith him.

304 PHOENIX

Chart 2: Cluster analysis of Symposium and selected texts

POROS AND PENIA IN PLATO’S SYMPOSIUM 305

essential to work over the passage in an attempt to discern why the computershould place it here. This monologue of Diotima lasts only about one Stephanuspage (203b1–204a7), but the actual narrative of Poros and Penia lasts only fromb2 to c4; it is followed by a detailed description of the character of Eros that isthe natural result of the unlikely parentage (c5–e5); there follows a rather morerevelatory coda about the relation between desire and a perceived lack (204a1–7),which has a particular focus on the need for knowledge. None of this resemblesthe voice of the schoolmistress that follows at 204b1–c6, and the three sectionsare prompted to diminishing degrees by Socrates’ question about the parentageof Eros. The narrative section seems simple and prosaic, the others increasinglymore rhetorical or even poetic. This three-section division seems to have a par-allel in the long speech of Protagoras in the dialogue named after him, where thefirst part is a comparatively straightforward narrative (320c–323a), the second isdescription of how present practices are explained by the narrative (323a–324c)though it still counts as “myth” (324d6–7), and the third is a “logos” that is par-tially prepared for by what preceded (324d–328c). In this case too, the eleganceand sophistication of Protagoras’ language becomes more evident as we movefrom section to section.42

Now let us look at how the passage measures up using our criteria for theidentification of myth. According to our figures there are 101 words in thenarrative section, with the article occurring twenty times. This is a very highrate indeed even for myth, which, though normally around 3% higher thannormal diction (7–10%), still only reaches 14% over any sustained passage; insection two there are just twelve cases in 148 words, a normal rate; then insection three there are only three cases in fifty-eight words, a low rate. Thereare seven prepositions in the narrative, seven in the next section, and none inthe third. The only negative in the narrative section comes in the phrase “forwine did not yet exist,” which has a close parallel in the myth of the Protagoras:“mortal races did not exist” (320c8–d1). The second section had four negatives,the third eleven in a mere fifty-seven words. As for those other function-wordsthat we regularly monitor, sections 2 and 3 together achieve roughly the expectedrate of around 35% of the total word–count, but section 1 achieves a rate of

42 Here we should draw attention to features that make the initial narrative similar in kind tothe tale of Poros and Penia, even though the storytellers are very different. This story too functionsas the launching pad of the philosophy that finally emerges. It initially employs a pair of oppositefigures, personified forms of opposite human qualities, one good and one bad. Their contrastprovides the impetus for the story. One of those figures is traditionally a trickster, Prometheus, andis very good at providing for human needs. As a result of their contrasting endeavours individualhumans lead a life of crisis and resolution, of need and of provision. But the intervention of Zeusfinally brings about the kind of mutually cooperative life that can bring about the end of that cycle.Zeus’ role seems to take a story that had begun rather like a fairytale, and elevate it to a level ofmyth proper, and so to provide a better foundation for the dream of the ultra-civilised patriarchalsociety.

306 PHOENIX

only 26%, a very low rate.43 Thus the narrative section differs radically in theways that we would expect of myth-like passages, only more emphatically so,leading one to ponder whether we have something even more story-like andwith even fewer pretensions to literal truth. A further point for considerationis that there are twelve proper names in the 101 words of section one, all ofthem assuming the familiarity of the audience, and speaking about the actors inthis drama rather as if they were the family next door. If the listener reflectson this, it soon becomes obvious that the more familiar power—Eros—is beingexplained in terms of beings like Penia, Poros, and Metis, which are likely to beless familiar, but it would be outside the conventions of this kind of storytellingfor Socrates to ask questions about the identity of these additional beings.44 Byway of contrast, sections 2 and 3 together employ only four proper names—Eros(the explanandum) twice, and Penia and Poros once each at the very beginning.If one considers these details, it should be obvious that the passage undergoesa rapid metamorphosis, from what is almost too extreme for myth to whatis virtually anti-myth; what starts like a simple fairytale is transformed intocomplex philosophy, and what begins as the voice of a trusted mother-figure istransformed into one that seems to make additional claims to wisdom.

At first sight this metamorphosis would seem to call into question the validityof subjecting the overall passage, as a single file, to analyses that compare itwith other relevant discourse. However, the expectation would be that any suchmetamorphosis would dilute its special characteristics, and make them harder todetect. Therefore it becomes all the more remarkable that the results do clearlyindicate its affinities with myth, and also demonstrate that it is an exceptionalpassage within the corpus. In this regard one might care to consider an analysisthat compares sections of the Symposium and sections of the Phaedrus. Thepassages compared are as follows:

(a) The various speeches of the Symposium: SympPhdr = 178a6–180b8,SympEryx = 185c3–189c1, SympAr = 189c2–193d5, SympAg = 194e4–197e5,SympDi = 201d1–212a7, SympAlc = 215a5–222b7, but note that in this testSympPau = 180c1–189c1, running on until the end of Eryximachus’ speech.45

(b) Sections of the Phaedrus, with the files PhaedrusS1–2 being the speech ofLysias and the first speech of Socrates, PhdrMyth being the Palinode (244a3–256e2), PhaedrusA being what precedes the speech of Lysias, PhaedrusB–C

43 This difference was achieved even when the monitored prepositions varied little: 14% in section1 and 15% in sections 2– 3, meaning that other function-words amounted to 12% in section 1 butnearly 21% in sections 2–3.

44 Most (2012: 16, 24) regards monologic discourse as being a characteristic of myth, seeingStatesman 268e–274e as the sole exception, though it becomes more monological, and is entirely sofrom 272b8. We further discuss the suspension of questioning below, 309.

45 While this was due to an oversight, it means simply that the second block of SympPau gaveresults for a combination of speakers, and that the first block is therefore the most accurate reflectionof Pausanias’ style; the error had been corrected in the cluster analysis given in Chart 2.

POROS AND PENIA IN PLATO’S SYMPOSIUM 307

Table 1: First factor results, factor analysis of Symposium and Phaedrus

Block name 70-word test 69-word test

PhaedrusD (2) 1.70 1.67PhaedrusD (1) 1.38 1.40PhaedrusC 1.34 1.32PhaedrusB 1.25 1.18PhaedrusA 1.19 1.24PhaedrusD (3) 0.92 0.81PhaedrusD (4) 0.77 0.76PhaedrusD (5) 0.65 0.63SympPhdr 0.54 0.64SympAlc 0.46 0.38PhaedrusS1 0.11 0.23SympAr -0.22 -0.07SympPau (1) -0.24 -0.21SympAg (1) -0.25 -0.39PhaedrusExtr -0.25 -0.15PhaedrusS2 -0.36 -0.40SympDi (2) -0.38 -0.40SympDi (1) -0.46 -0.46SympPau (2) -0.51 -0.44SympExtr2 -0.76 -1.12PhdrMyth (2) -0.93 -0.83SympEryx -1.08 -0.96PhdrMyth (1) -1.25 -1.22PhdrMyth (3) -1.38 -1.32SympExtr1 -2.24 -2.30

being what intervenes between the speeches, and Phaedrus D being all thatfollows the Palinode.

(c) Three targeted short passages: the Myth of the Cicadas from Phaedrus(PhaedrusExtr = 259b5–d8); the Poros and Penia episode (SympExtr1 = 203b1–204a6) and the Ascent to the Beautiful (SympExtr2 = 209e5–212b7).

Block size was set at 1,250, resulting in no block exceeding 2,499 words, andthen only the final block of any given file. The basic vocabulary of these blocks,based on a selection of seventy function-words, was then subjected to multi-variate analysis, using factor analysis. The expectation, based on past experienceof such analysis when applied to a combination of mythical and non-mythicalmaterial, was that the deepest or most significant myth passages would easily beseparated from dialectical material on either the first or the second factor. In

308 PHOENIX

practice the desired separation occurred on factor 1. Results for factor 1, firstfor all seventy words and then for sixty-nine words (article excluded)46 are givenin Table 1 (above).

One may easily see that on the seventy-word test all the conversational ma-terial in the Phaedrus was given higher plus values than any of the speeches ormyths, but there were three speeches too that were given plus values, those ofPhaedrus and Alcibiades in the Symposium, and that of Lysias in the Phaedrus.All employ a simple communicative style. Then, very close together, come thespeeches of Pausanias, Aristophanes, and Agathon from the Symposium alongwith the Myth of the Cicadas in Phaedrus. All of these varied episodes, perhaps,combine entertainment with a partly serious message. There follows Socrates’entertaining and semi-serious speech on the non-gratification of the lover fromthe Phaedrus; both blocks from the varied and theoretically important Diotimaepisode of the Symposium; the block that combines material from Pausanias’ andEryximachus’ speeches; the Ladder of Love passage, registering more stronglywhen the article is excluded; the three parts of the highly important Palinodespeech, together with the speech of Eryximachus, which, while less entertaining,does include material of cosmic significance;47 and finally, out on its own, thetale of Poros and Penia. This lends credibility to the notion that the passagebelongs to a significantly different register (or combination of registers) fromother material in the Symposium: a register more extreme than, but related to,the somewhat poetic mythical diction of the majority of the Palinode.

Interpretation of this material is far from straightforward, but since the au-thorship and dates of particular passages cannot be responsible, one should lookfor an explanation in terms of types of diction or registers. One must note thatboth myths and speeches of certain other kinds appear to be contrasted withdialectic. If we were explaining the negative values on factor 1 purely in terms ofmyth then it would be hard to give any reason why Aristophanes’ story shouldnot be closer to the negative extreme than Pausanias’ contribution, whereas if itwere merely monologue as opposed to dialogue that was at issue then the Dio-tima material, which is mostly conversational, would be closer to the dialecticalmaterial. Expertise seems to be associated with the contributions of Diotimaand Eryximachus, but one should hardly regard the Socrates of the latter part ofthe Phaedrus as a complete novice in the matters discussed. It is perhaps morenatural to see insightful or inspired discourse as yielding negative values, sinceSocrates in the Phaedrus actually draws attention to his sources of inspirationfor both his first speech and his palinode.48

46 Since the article can constitute over 10% of total vocabulary in these analyses, we routinelyanalysed blocks both with and without it; normally results prove to be broadly in agreement, as here.

47 That “myth” of some kind is the appropriate diction for accounts of the physical world, inwhich the craft of medicine is firmly grounded, is of course argued at Timaeus 30b.

48 The nymphs of the place in the first (238c–d, 241e), and Stesichorus and the poets in thesecond (244a, 247c, 257a).

POROS AND PENIA IN PLATO’S SYMPOSIUM 309

If this is so, then the story of Poros and Penia acts rather like the inspiredlaunching pad for Diotima’s teaching.49 It is the only passage until one getsto 207c where Socrates is prepared to suspend his child-like questioning forvery long, and to listen attentively to his female mentor. It is in fact most un-like dialectic insofar as it encourages the hearer to absorb the message passively,without even a nod or shake of the head, so that none of the highly questionabledetails of the narrative should arouse suspicion, while the more important mes-sage, which is supposed to be established by that narrative, should be allowedto sink in without any resistance. The folktale opening lulls Socrates into afeeling of security and familiarity with what is being said, whereas Eryximachus’expertise, already demonstrated in his dealing with Aristophanes’ hiccough, hadensured that feeling of security and familiarity in a rather different way. Dio-tima herself again wins Socrates’ trust (212b2) in the “Ladder of Love” passage(SympExtr2), but that trust now arises not from the employment of myth orfolktale, but from the fact that she was now speaking “like the perfect experts”(ºsper o´ t�leoi sofista’, 208c1). However one should read this, it is note-worthy that the contributions of Diotima and Eryximachus are never criticisedin the remainder of the dialogue,50 unlike those of Phaedrus (180c), Pausanias(185e–186a), Aristophanes (205d–e; cf. 212c), and Agathon (199b–201c).

As for the story of Poros and Penia, not only is it not questioned in theremainder of the dialogue, it seems close to being acted out when Alcibiadesappears. One might first think that the story is recalled by the drunkenness ofAlcibiades (212e), and his claim that Socrates is trying to ambush him (213b–c),corresponding to the nectar-drunk Poros and Penia the plotter. But Plato isseldom simple. In Alcibiades’ narrative, he seems to be the needy one, and,like Penia, he takes over the scheming role that properly belongs to the lover(217c–d),51 going on to tell of his unsuccessful attempt to be impregnated bySocrates (as Poros) at 219b–d. For Socrates, although unattractive physically,is rich in internal beauty (216e–217a, 222a), and Alcibiades attributes to him asystematic deceitfulness towards younger men (222b). Just as, between 213b8and 217c8, the role of Socrates as needy lover is transformed into that of the coybeloved, so too it soon becomes evident that he is quite as capable of acting outthe role of Poros as that of Penia. This comes as no surprise, for if Socrates istruly the embodiment of Eros, as is often presumed, then he must incorporatewithin his being the maternal and the paternal features of Eros. It is in fact arequirement that he should be able to play the roles of both Penia and Poros.

49 Most (2012: 18; cf. 23) notes that Platonic myths other than those that conclude a discussiontend to open “a section of logical analysis whose beginning is explicitly signalled.” Besides the Dio-tima episode, he sees this structure operating in Meno 79e–86c, Prt. 320c–323a, Symp. 189c–193d,Phdr. 274b–279c, and Plt. 269e–274e.

50 Eryximachus is in fact praised by Socrates at 194a1.51 Note the use of the verb of plotting at 217c8 and d3, recalling 203b7, its only other use in

Symposium.

310 PHOENIX

Now we see how necessary the register-shift into a different voice had been.The language of the tale of Penia and Poros has ensured that the reader noticesthat something important is being said and, because of the register chosen, sus-pends disbelief in the expectation of a meaning that will ultimately be revealed.As yet it is not a lesson so much as an encouragement to view things in certainterms. But it will colour our response to the further claims made by Diotima,and will be transformed into a lesson when we add the experiences of Socratesand Alcibiades to our own experience of human relationships.

conclusion

Both parts of our study give strong grounds for treating the story of the birthof Eros as something exceptional within Plato’s work as a whole and within theSymposium itself. That in turn suggests that it is also a very important passage,carefully composed so that we really notice its differences and anticipate thatit will become significant.52 The social dynamic of the symposium means thatthere is no great difference in status between its participants, and Socrates isnot in a position to employ directly any form of diction that would involvean assumption of seniority, particularly seniority over the host character withwhom he has been engaging. In delivering an educational tale, a myth-likelesson that is supposed to be absorbed by his hearers and assume relevance withtime, Socrates must instead contrive a situation in which he is the auditor andsomebody his senior is the educator. A female’s voice is chosen as being insome sense non- competitive, making statements outside the competitive worldof the Athenian male, a world that clearly persists even at a sympotic gatheringof this kind as the interaction of the speakers shows.53 Furthermore, this voiceis also that of a credible religious expert. It is therefore a voice that thosepresent are not inclined to resist, especially when presented by a skilled narratorwho somehow manages to capture some of the nuances of female speech (as issuggested by the computer analysis above).

What is told is not just a myth, for many of these have strong associationswith the polis, its rituals, and its ideals of masculine behaviour; rather, it issomething that uses language even stronger than myth, known to Plato as an“old woman’s tale.” To describe it as fairytale seems appropriate enough, but theprecise term chosen has minimal relevance for the interpretation of the story.Though no doubt charmed by the story, the gathering has no reason to believe itssurface meaning, even allowing for the impressive intellect that Diotima appears

52 There is evidence that ancient readers such as Proclus were well aware of Plato’s occasionalshift into different registers, and recognized their special roles in myth and in inspired speech; seeTarrant 2014.

53 The rivalries are in evidence at 180c, 185e–186a, 194a, 194e–195a, and finally at 212c4–6,where Aristophanes takes something Socrates had said as criticism of his own speech—but thisrivalry cannot of course be directed towards Diotima.

POROS AND PENIA IN PLATO’S SYMPOSIUM 311

to demonstrate. Instead, those present passively come to appreciate a frameworkin which all will more readily come to understand the complex mix of wealthand want that lie at the heart of human love, and indeed of all human striving.This mix has already been understood by Socrates himself from within himself,54

and Alcibiades also will struggle to articulate it as he reveals the complexities ofSocrates and the depth of his own reaction to him. Since the nature of a livingbeing is determined by its parentage, the human embodiment of Eros must alsobe the embodiment of Poros and Penia.

School of Humanities and Social ScienceThe University of NewcastleNew South Wales 2308Australia

[email protected] [email protected]

bibliography

Anderson, G. 2000. Fairytale in the Ancient World. London.—— 2006. Greek and Roman Folklore. London.Brandwood, L. 1990. Platonic Chronology. Cambridge.Brown, A. L. 1983. “The Erinyes in the Oresteia: Real Life, the Supernatural, and the

Stage,” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 103: 13–34.Burkert, W. 1987. Ancient Mystery Cults. Cambridge, MA.Buxton, R. 1994. Imaginary Greece: The Contexts of Mythology. Cambridge.Detienne, M. and J.-P. Vernant. 1978. Cunning Intelligence in Greek Culture and Society.

Trans. J. Lloyd. Chicago.Dover, K. ed. 1980. Plato: Symposium. Cambridge.Evans, N. 2006. “Diotima and Demeter as Mystagogues in Plato’s Symposium,” Hypatia

21.2: 1–27.Everitt, B. S., S. Landau, M. Leese, and D. Stahl. 2011. Cluster Analysis5. Chichester.Goldberg, C. 1984. “The Historic-Geographic Method: Past and Future,” Journal of

Folklore Research 21: 1–18.Goldberg, H. Motif-Index of Medieval Spanish Folk Narratives. Tempe, AZ.Golden, M. 1993. Children and Childhood in Classical Athens. Baltimore.Graverini, L. 2006. “An Old Wife’s Tale,” in W. H. Keulen, R. R. Nauta, and S. Panay-

otakis (eds.), Lectiones Scrupulosae: Essays on the Text and Interpretation of Apuleius’ Meta-morphoses in Honour of Maaike Zimmerman. Groningen. 86–110.

Halperin, D. M. 1990. “Why is Diotima a Woman?,” in One Hundred Years of Homosex-uality and Other Essays on Greek Love. New York.

Harder, A. 1985. Euripides’ Kresphontes and Archelaos: Introduction, Text, and Commen-tary. Leiden.

54 For myth’s true purpose as the encouragement of self -knowledge, see Tarrant 2012: 62–65on Phaedrus 229e–230a in particular; Hermeias (Commentary on Plato’s Phaedrus ad loc.) followsan established Neoplatonist line in recognising that Socrates’ rejection of physicalist allegorisinginterpretations in no way entails the rejection of the idea that the true meaning of myth is psychical.

312 PHOENIX

Irigaray, L. 1989. “Sorcerer Love: A Reading of Plato’s Symposium,” Hypatia 3.3: 32–44.Jurich, M. 1998. Scheherazade’s Sisters: Trickster, Heroines and Their Stories in World

Literature. Westport.Kurke, L. 2006. “Plato, Aesop, and the Beginnings of Mimetic Prose,” Representations

94: 6–52.Most, Glenn. 2012. “Plato’s Exoteric Myths,” in C. Collobert, P. Destree, and F. Gon-

zales (eds.), Plato and Myth. Leiden. 13–24.Nussbaum, M. 1986. The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and

Philosophy. Cambridge.Propp, Vladimir. 1984. Theory and History of Folklore. Tr. A. Y. Martin and R. P.

Martin. Minneapolis.Sifakis, G. M. 1992. “The Structure of Aristophanic Comedy,” The Journal of Hellenic

Studies 112: 123–142.Sommerstein, A. 2001. Wealth. Warminster.Tarrant, H. 2012. “Literal and Deeper Meanings in Platonic Myths,” in C. Collobert,

P. Destree, and F. Gonzales (eds.), Plato and Myth. Leiden. 47–65.—— 2014. “Neoplatonist Sensitivity to Socrates’ Change of Register,” in D. A. Layne

and H. Tarrant (eds.), The Neoplatonic Socrates. University Park. 143–166.Tarrant, H., E. Benitez, and T. Roberts. 2011. “The Mythical Voice in the Timaeus-

Critias Stylometric Indicators,” Ancient Philosophy 31: 95–120.Tarrant, H. and T. Roberts. 2012. “Report on the Working Vocabulary of the Doubtful

Dialogues,” in Alcibiades and the Socratic Lover-Educator. London. 223–236.Thompson, S. 1955–1958. Motif-Index of Folk-Literature: A Classification of Narrative

Elements in Folktales, Ballads, Myths, Fables, Medieval Romances, Exempla, Fabliaux,Jest-Books, and Local Legends. Rev. ed. Bloomington.

Ward, J. H., Jr. 1963. “Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function,”Journal of the American Statistical Association 48: 236–244.

Winkler, J. 1980. “Lollianos and the Desperadoes,” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 100:

155–181.