R. G. Bury, The Symposium of Plato

Πόρος. We find in Alcman fr. 16 (with the Schol. ὅτι τὸν Πόρον εἴρηκε τὸν αὐτὸν τῷ ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἡσιόδου μεμυθευμένῳ Χάει) a precedent for this personification of Πόρος. Πενία is personified by Aristophanes in the Plutus, passim. For Μῆτις, see Hes. Theog. 886 Ζεὺς δὲ θεῶν βασιλεὺς πρώτην ἄλοχον θέτο Μῆτιν, | πλεῖστα θεῶν τε ἰδυῖαν ἰδὲ θνητῶν ἀνθρώπων: (μῆτις is, in Epic, the especial attribute of Zeus, as μητιέτα): Μῆτις was also an Orphic alias of Eros. For nectar as the primeval substitute for wine, cp. Hom. Il. V. 341, etc., also Phaedrus 247 E τοὺς ἵππους...νέκταρ ἐπότισε. The celestial δεῖπνον was, it appears, followed by a συμπόσιον. Spenser, H. to Love, speaks of the god as “Begot of Plentie and of Penury.” See further Introd. § IV. C 2.

εἰς τὸν τοῦ Διὸς κῆπον. Cp. Soph. fr. (Ion) 297 N. ἐν Διὸς κήποις ἀροῦσθαι μόνον εὐδαίμονας ὄλβους. It is interesting to notice that Origen (Contra Cels. IV. 39) identifies the “garden of Zeus” with Paradise, Poros with Adam, Penia with the Serpent. With the intoxication and its results we might compare the O. T. stories of Noah and his sons and of Lot and his daughters. For the neo-Platonic interpretation of the myth, see Plotinus Enn. III. 5. 2, 292 F ff., 298 F: cp. also Introd. § IV. C 2. A similar Orphic legend is mentioned by Porphyry de antr. nymph. 16 (Orphica p. 180) παρὰ δὲ τῷ Ὀρφεῖ ὁ Κρόνος μέλιτι ὑπὸ Διὸς ἐνεδρεύεται: πλησθεὶς γὰρ μέλιτος μεθύει καὶ σκοτοῦται ὡς ὑπὸ οἴνου καὶ ὑπνοῖ, ὡς παρὰ Πλάτωνι ὁ Πόρος τοῦ νέκταρος πλησθείς, οὔπω γὰρ οἶνος ἦν. Another classical example is the trick played by Lady Macbeth on Duncan's “spongy officers” (“his two chamberlains Will I with wine and wassail so convince” etc.).

βεβαρημένος. A later form for the Epic βεβαρηώς (Od. III. 139): cp. Theocr. XVII. 61 βεβαρημένα ὠδίνεσσιν.

παιδίον ποιήσασθαι ἐκ κτλ. So Andoc. IV. 22 υἱὸν ἐξ αὐτῆς πεποίηται: and παῖδας ποιεῖσθαι in Crito 45 D, Laws 674 B, 783 D, as equiv. to the cpd. παιδοποιεῖσθαι (Rep. 449 D, Laws 784 A, B, E). These parallels are sufficient to defend the text (see crit. n.), without resorting to Rettig's absurd notion that παιδίον π. is “verecundior” than the cpd.