(C) The Interludes.
The
first Interlude, worthy of the name, occurs between the
second and third encomia (185 C—E), and it is noticeable, first, for the
reference to the “isology” of the rhetorical sophists; secondly,
for the device by which the natural order of speakers is changed (Eryximachus taking
the place of Aristophanes); and thirdly, for the alleged cause which renders such a
change necessary, namely the hiccough (
λύγξ) of
Aristophanes. As regards the significance of this last matter considerable diversity
of opinion exists among the commentators. Of the ancients, Olympiodorus (
vit. Plat. 3) supposed that Plato here
ἐκωμῴδησε Ἀριστοφάνη when he
εἰσάγει
αὐτὸν μεταξὺ λυγγὶ περιπεσόντα καὶ μὴ δυνάμενον πληρῶσαι τὸν
ὕμνον: and similarly Athenaeus (187 C) writes
τὸν
μὲν ὑπὸ τῆς λυγγὸς ὀχλούμενον...κωμῳδεῖν ἤθελε καὶ
διασύρειν: and Aristides (
or. 46, II. p. 287),
ἀλλ᾽ οἶμαι λύζειν αὐτὸν ἔδει, ἵνα εἰς ἀπληστίαν
σκωφθῇ. Of the moderns, some have followed the ancients in supposing
that the incident is meant to satirize Aristophanes and his intemperate habits (so
Stallbaum, Rückert, Steinhart); while some (Stephens, Sydenham, Wolf,
Schwegler) take the object of the ridicule to be not so much the habits of the poet
as his speech with its “indelicate ingredients.” On the other
hand, Schleiermacher held the view that Eryximachus with his
“physiological and medical notion of love” is here being
satirized; while Ast—whose view is shared in the main by Hommel, van
Prinsterer and Rettig—argued that the real object of the ridicule is
Pausanias, by whose speech Aristophanes implies that he has been “fed
up” to the point of loathing. This view Rettig thinks is supported by the
phrase
Παυσανίου παυσαμένου, which he takes to
indicate Apollodorus' ridicule,—by the allusion made by Aristophanes to
Pausanias' speech in
189 C,—and by his
mention of Pausanias again in
193 B; and he
construes the hint of another possible cause (
ἢ ὑπό τινος ἄλλου,
185 C) as
“affording the key to the hidden meaning of the word
πλησμονή.” This view, however, is open to the objections
(urged by Rückert against Ast) that, first, it makes Aristophanes guilty of
excessive rudeness in feigning a hiccough to show his disgust (“aliud est
in convivio iocari, aliud in scena,”
e.g. Nub. 906
ff.,
Ach. 585 ff., the places cited by Rettig); and that, further,
there is no plain sign that the hiccough was feigned, but on the contrary the whole
incident is stated by Aristodemus as matter-of-fact. It seems safe, therefore, to
conclude that the most obvious view— that of the ancients—is
nearest to the truth. The incident shows up Aristophanes in a ludicrous light, and
at the same time it gives further occasion to Eryximachus to air his medical lore;
so that we can read in it the intention of satirizing gently both these personages.
But to construe it as aimed at Pausanias is far-fetched and improbable: he is
already disposed of in the satirical reference to sophistical
“isology”; and to discover a fresh allusion to him in the
“other cause” of the hiccough is to discover a mare's nest,
for—as the Scholiast
ad loc. informs
us—other physical causes of this symptom were as a matter of fact
recognized by the medical profession, and it is only polite on the part of
Aristodemus to leave the matter open.
The
second Interlude (189 A—C) and the
third (193 D—194 E) call for no special remark.
The
fourth Interlude (198 A—199 C), which follows
on the speech of Agathon, is linked to the third both by a remark which Socrates
addresses to Eryximachus, and also, at the close, by his appeal to Phaedrus (cp.
199 B with
194
D). Here, in even a greater degree than in the previous Interludes, Socrates
is the central figure of interest, and this position he continues to hold throughout
the rest of the dialogue. This Interlude, indeed, may be regarded as one of the
cardinal points of the structure, in which the First Act, as we may term it, passes
on into the Second; and in the Second Act we reach at length the theoretical climax,
in the doctrine of Socrates-Diotima. To this climax the present Interlude, wherein
is laid before us Socrates' confession of rhetorical faith, serves as prologue.
The
fifth Interlude (212 C—215 A) is by far the
longest and, as regards the action of the piece, the most important. For it
introduces a new actor, and he a protagonist, in the person of Alcibiades. The
contrast is striking between the prophetess in her soaring flights to the heavenly
places of the spirit and the tipsy reveller with his lewd train who takes her place
in claiming the attention of the audience. The comic relief which, in
the earlier scenes, had been supplied by Aristophanes, as
γελωτοποιός, is now supplied by Alcibiades. We should notice also how
a link with the Second Act is furnished here, at the commencement of the Third Act,
by the mention of an attempt by Aristophanes to reply to an observation made by
Socrates in the course of his speech. But apart from this, the rest of the speakers
and banqueters are left out of account except only Agathon, Socrates and
Eryximachus. The action of the last of these here is parallel to his action at the
commencement of the First Act where he had taken the lead in fixing the rules for
the conduct of the symposium. As regards Agathon and Socrates, the most important
incident in this Interlude is the decision concerning their contest in
σοφία which is pronounced by Alcibiades, when, acting the
not inappropriate part of Dionysus, he awards the crown to Socrates,—an
incident to the significance of which we have already (§ ii. B, C) drawn
attention.
Of the
Epilogue or concluding scene (222 C—end) it is
unnecessary to say much. The persons that figure most largely in it are the three
central characters, Alcibiades, Agathon and Socrates; while towards the close the
rest of the characters receive, as it were, a farewell notice. When the curtain
finally falls, it falls significantly on the solitary figure of Socrates, the
incarnation of the Eros-daemon, behind whom in his shadow stands the form of his
erastes, the “shadow”-biographer Aristodemus.
