Plutarch's "Erotikos": The Drag Down Pulled Up

Author(s): FREDERICK E. BRENK

Source: Illinois Classical Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2, PLUTARCH (FALL/1988), pp. 457-471
Published by: University of Illinois Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23064254
Accessed: 20-04-2019 06:56 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23064254?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

University of Illinois Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Illinois Classical Studies

This content downloaded from 129.125.19.61 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:56:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
17

Plutarch's Erotikos: The Drag Down Pulled Up

FREDERICK E. BRENK, S.J.

Plutarch's dialogue on love, or Love, the Erotikos—better known to most

readers as the Amatorius—in spite of its obvious Platonic inspiration
advocates heterosexual married love as the ideal.1 But focus on this aspect
seems to have obscured the real novelty of the essay. At least, this study
will try to demonstrate that Plutarch's originality consists not so much in
the aspect of reciprocal egalitarian love, as the incorporation of this type of
love into the Platonic goal of the vision of the Beautiful, and a new concept
of what the Form of the Beautiful is.
In the course of the Erotikos Plutarch cites Euripides' Hippolytos (193—
95) as a starting point for an understanding of the true nature of love:

SucepcoTEi; Sfj <paiv6(o.e0' ovtei;

XO\)8' Oil TOVTO OTV^Pei KOTO yhv,
8i' a7teipoat>vT]v aXkov Pioxov . . .
Ill-starred lovers we seem to be
Of this, whatever gleams upon the earth.
Through inexperience of another life .. ?

Plutarch's context is lethe (forgetfulness), which cancels the vision of the

Beautiful once seen in another world.3 The words are of Phaidra's nurse in a
powerful Greek drama centered on resistance to Eros. In Euripides' play,
apparently a classic revision of an earlier Hippolytos, Phaidra dies nobly to

1 Text of R. Flaceliere, in R. Flaceliere and M. Cuvigny, Plutarque. Oeuvres Morales X

(Paris 1980). A. Barigazzi is preparing an edition with translation and commentary—cf. I.
Gallo, "Una nuova iniziativa scientifica ed editoriale: il Corpus Plutarchi Moralium," in F. E.
Brerik and I. Gallo, eds., Miscellanea Plutarchea (Ferrara 1986) 143-45; "Note critiche ed
esegetiche iM'Eroticos di Plutarco," Prometheus 12 (1986) 97-122; idem 245-66. J. Irigoin's
study of the manuscript tradition has now appeared in R. Flaceliere, J. Irigoin, J. Sirinelli, A.
Philippon, Plutarque. Oeuvres Morales 1.1 (Paris 1987) ccxxvii—cccxxiv; and that of M.
Manfredini, "Sulla tradizione manoscritta dei 'Moralia' 70-77," in A. Garzya, G. Giangrande, M.
Manfredini (I. Gallo, ed.), Sulla tradizione manoscritta dei "Moralia" di Plutarco (Salerno 1988)
123-38.
2764E. Flaceliere, 149; Y. Vemiere, Symboles et mythes dans la pensee de Plutarque (Paris
1977) 208-13. Euripides' text (anapests of nurse): J. Diggle, Euripidis Fabulae I (Oxford 1984)
215, with Plutarch's better reading (195 otjieipocrovTiv VA et Plut. 764: -vav).
3 Treated by H. Martin, "Plutarch, Plato, and Eros," CB 60 (1984) 82-88; 86.

This content downloaded from 129.125.19.61 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:56:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
458 Illinois Classical Studies, XIII.2

save her aidos (shame, respect, chastity—linked with fidelity to her marriage
vows) rather than surrender to an Eros steeped in the perverted bestiality of
her maternal inheritance and dragging her soul downward. She commits
suicide rather than attempt to seduce Hippolytos. The quotation, then, is
not haphazard. Rather it points to the contrast between the drag down,
symbolized by Phaidra's sexual drive, and the pull up—in Platonic
philosophy the positive evaluation of Eros which leads to the Beautiful in
Itself.4 The dramatist who offered to the world Phaidra, also created Medeia,
Helena, Kanake, Stheneboia, Laodameia, and many other women whose
relationship to life centered around a destructive Eros.
There can be no doubt that Euripides enormously influenced subsequent
Hellenistic literature. The negative treatment of Eros is exemplified in
Hellenistic literature by Apollonios of Rhodes' Argonautika, dealing with
the destructive love of Medeia for Iason. Undoubtedly he drew on Euripi
des' brilliant exposition of the power of love. But in the Hippolytos the
two major characters, though doomed to die, wrench a moral victory from
Aphrodite.5 Medeia submits. Apollonios' shadow fell upon the Dido of
Vergil's Aeneid. Her passion for Aeneas causes her suicide, and eternal
enmity between Carthaginians and Romans. Ovid's generally positive
attitude toward amor is also influenced by Euripides and Hellenistic writing.
However, his is a poetic development paralleling Plutarch's literary
philosophical exposition. Still, the Erotikos is remarkable for its clarity in
extolling heterosexual married love, and for its striking frame—the love of
Ismenodora for Bacchon. The essay seems, then, at first sight an
intellectual milestone.
Literature on the Erotikos concentrates on the positive evaluation of
eros, heterosexual reciprocity, and the equal status of the partners. Three
distinct approaches to the Erotikos can be noted: the anti-Epicurean, the
Platonic and the "unitary"—the integration of the sexual and non-sexual
aspects of love. The first characterizes to a large extent Robert Flaceliere,
whose interest in the Greek concept of eros can be detected in an article on
the anti-Epicurean thrust of the Erotikos, his book L'Amour en Grece, and
his separate edition of the Erotikos—later incorporated into the Bude
Plutarque.6 The outstanding love for his own wife seems reflected in his

4 See the excellent treatments of C. P. Segal, "The Tragedy of the Hippolytos-. The Waters of
Ocean and the Untouched Meadow," HSCP 70 (1965) 117-69 and J. M. Bremer, "The Meadow
of Love and Two Passages in Euripides' Hippolytus," Mnemosyne 28 (1975) 268-80; also F. E.
Brenk, "Phaidra's Risky Horsemanship: Euripides' Hippolytos 232-38," Mnemosyne 39 (1986)
385-87.
5 The theme is elaborated in G. Paduano, Studi su Apollonio Rodio (Rome 1972), esp. 120
23.
6 L'Amour en Grece (Paris 1971) 163-88—noting Aristotelian, Stoic, and Epicurean influence
on Plutarch; "Les epicuriens et l'amour," REG 67 (1954) 69-81; Plutarque. Dialogue sur
VAmour (Eroticos) (Paris 1953), reworked for Plutarque. Oeuvres Morales X (Paris 1980), esp.
20-31. R. Laurenti, Aristotele, I frammenti dei dialog hi (Naples 1987), has recently edited the

This content downloaded from 129.125.19.61 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:56:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Frederick E. Brenk, S.J. 459

ardor for certain ideas found in Plutarch.7 Recently Adelmo Barigazzi has
deepened the anti-Epicurean dimension of Flaceli6re's work.8
Next, there is the Platonic approach, followed to some extent by
Flaceli6re and elaborated recently by Hubert Martin.9 Finally, Michel
Foucault's chapter on Plutarch in his L'histoire de la sexuality focuses on
the "unitary aspect" of Plutarch's Eros.10
Flacelfere and Barigazzi note Epikouros' negative attitude toward eros in
the following texts:

epao0r|aeo0ai xov aotpov ox> 8okeI a-uxoiq.

The Epicureans hold that the sophos should not fall in love.

o\)8e GeoitEfiTtTov elvai tov eparca, . . .

Nor does eros have a divine origin,...

kcu (i-qv xai Ya|ir|aeiv Kai xekvojioitioeiv xov aotpov,

'EitiKovpoi; ev Aiaitopicu<; Kai ev xaii; IlEpi (p-uatcoi;.
In his Problems and On Nature Epikouros says that the sage (sophos) should
<not> marry or beget children.
(DL 10. 118; 119 = 1118. 8-10; 119. 12).11

Barigazzi admirably illuminates the long philosophical tradition before

and after Epikouros in opposition to the fundamentals of the Epicurean
position—revealing Plutarch as much less an innovator than usually

fragments of Aristotle's Erolikos. A. Lesky, Vom Eros der Hellenen (Gottingen 1976) 146-50,
suggests strong Stoic influence on Plutarch. C. W. Chilton, "Did Epicurus Approve of
Marriage? A Study of Diogenes Laertius X, 119," Phronesis 5 (1960) 71-74, argues
convincingly that Epikouros recommended against marriage. Recent bibliography on Greek eros
can be found in A. Carson, Eros the Bittersweet (Princeton 1986).
7 See P. Demargne, "Notice sur la vie et les travaux de Robert Flaceliere," CRAl (1984, 3)
3-12.
8 Plutarco contro Epicuro (Florence 1978); "II tema dell'amore: Plutarco contro Epicuro," I.
Gallo, ed., Temi e aspetti dello stoicismo e dell'epicureismo in Plutarco. {Quaderni del Giornale
Filologico Ferrarese 9 [Ferrara 1988]) 89-108.
9 Martin above, note 3. For recent discussion and bibliography on Plato, see K. J. Dover,
Plato. Symposium (Cambridge 1980), esp. 1-5, 13-14; D. Wender, "Plato: Misogynist,
Paedophile, and Feminist," in J. Peradotto and J. P. Sullivan, eds., Women in the Ancient
World (Albany 1984) 213-29; C. J. Rowe, Plato (Brighton 1984) 171-73; D. M. Halperin,
"Plato and Erotic Reciprocity," ClAnt 5 (1986) 60-80. The fundamental study is F. W.
Comford, "The Doctrine of Eros in Plato's Symposium," in W. K. C. Guthrie, ed., F. M.
Comford, The Unwritten Philosophy and Other Essays (Cambridge 1950) 119-31—reprint in G.
Vlastos, ed., Plato. A Collection of Critical Essays II (South Bend, Indiana 1971) 119-31.
l0Histoire de la sexualiteJU. Le souci de soi (Paris 1984) 224—42, esp. 241-42; reviewed
critically by A. Cameron, "Redrawing the Map: Early Christian Territory after Foucault," JRS
76 (1986) 265-71; and very severely by M. R. Lefkowitz,"Sex and Civilization," Partisan
Review 52 (1985) 460-66, who questions his methodology and use of evidence.
11 Second numbering that of G. Arrighetti, Epicuro, Opere (Torino 1960) 27. Arrighetti in
the last passage prints the mss.' nr)v, where a negative is required; see Chilton (73) who would
read in place of rai )i.f|v rai either ovSc or ou8e (iT)v.

This content downloaded from 129.125.19.61 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:56:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
460 Illinois Classical Studies, XIII.2

imagined.12 Martin detects two distinct Platonic strands: the first (758D
59B) treating love as a madness (mania—not psychic disorder but divine
inspiration), the second (764E-66B) extolling Eros as the divine guide to
recollection of the Form of the Beautiful (to kalon).
Foucault's treatment of the unitary aspect of Plutarch's Erotikos is more
theoretical and speculative. Greeks before Plutarch conceived Eros in terms
of antitheses: noble-vulgar, eros-philia, active-passive. Altruistic and
elevating love or friendship is contrasted with lustful satisfaction. Active or
passive defines the relationship to the other partner. However, in the
excellent unitary view of Plutarch—according to Foucault—the partners,
considered as spouses, are joined as active subjects rather than as objects of
love: "Better to love than be loved." Moreover, their sexuality contributes
to, rather than distracts from, the higher aspects of love. The principle of
reciprocity thus becomes the principle of fidelity: love frustrates the
cloying and deforming effects of cohabitation and sexual routine. The
opposition between philia and aphrodisia collapses, since, united with grace
(charis), both elements contribute to the desired goal. Pederasty, in contrast,
which is frustrated in its attempt at perfect integration, is exposed as a
horrible failure. Plutarch's stand, then, is both traditional and
revolutionary—traditional in its eulogy of Eros, so fundamental to Greek
religion and culture, revolutionary in shattering the barrier between "vulgar"
love oriented toward sexual pleasure and "spiritual" love meant for the
tendance of souls. Plutarch's Eros is monistic, based on reciprocity and
charis.13
Before beginning his discourse, Plutarch prayed to the god of love.
With a devout prayer let us, too, return to the shrine of Eros, confident that,
though the threshold is worn, its mysteries have not been totally divulged.
Fundamental to a proper evaluation of the essay is a thorough study of the
massive and complex influences of women and sexuality in the early
Empire.14 Such a vast subject, even if containable in a few pages, requires

12See F. Lasserre, "'Epornxoi Xoyoi," MH 1 (1944) 169-78, esp. 177. D. Babut, "Les
Stoi'ciens et l'amour," REG 76 (1963) 55-63, esp. 62, and C. E. Manning, "Seneca and the
Stoics on the Equality of the Sexes," Mnemosyne 26 (1973) 170-77, show that the Stoics by no
means believed in equality. Flaceliere, "Caton d'Utique et les femmes," in A. Balland et al.,
eds.,L'ltalie preromaine et la Rome republicaine (Paris 1976) 293-302, notes how the Stoic
Cato "lent out" his wife Marcia to a childless friend (296).
Prof. Whittaker, whose Bude Didaskalikos should appear soon, suggests a Middle Platonic
comparison with Alkinoos, Didaskalikos XXXII. 7-XXXIII. 4 (187-88); cf. G. Invemizzi, 11
Didaskalikos di Albino e il medioplatonismo II (Rome 1976) 205-07; Apuleius, De Platone et
Eius Dogmate II. 13-14 (238—40); J. Beaujeu, Apulee. Opuscules philosophiques (Paris 1972)
91-92, and M. Giusta, I dossografi di etica (Torino 1974-1975) II, 194-99. Whittaker sees a
general absence of emphasis, or no mention at all, of heterosexual or conjugal love in other
Middle Platonists or in the Neoplatonists.
13 Foucault, 224-42, esp. 241-42.
14 R. Macmullen, "Women's Power in the Principate," Klio 68 (1986) 434-43, esp. 437,
notes high local offices held by Greek women. For treatment of the subject and bibliography,

This content downloaded from 129.125.19.61 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:56:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Frederick E. Brenk, S J. 461

great specialized competence, and risks betrayal in male hands.15 But two
elements can be explored here. The first is the importance of the literary
"frame" of Ismenodora's "rape" of Bacchon. The second is a clue dropped by
Plutarch toward the end of the dialogue that "Egyptian mythology" is the
key to the correct Platonic interpretation of Eros.
A brief resume of the dialogue is in order. The Erotikos begins with an
event which startles the dialogi personae and is intended to shock the reader.
The beginning is typical of the more baroque style of Plutarch with its
contrasts, movement, and theatricality differentiating it from the mostly
static settings of Plato's dialogues on love, the Phaidros and Symposion.16
In Ovid's story of Procris and Cephalus, the aged Cephalus recounts to two
youths how he loved his beautiful young wife but tragically slew her while
hunting, mistakenly thinking her some beast. The time-frame emphasizes
the contrast between youth and age, erotic passion and mature wisdom—a
mood suggesting reflection and universalizing on a momentary experience of
mutual happiness in the bloom of life.17
In the dialogue recounted by Plutarch's son, the author himself, now in
advanced age, is, unusually, the principal character. He has brought his
young bride to the festival of Eros, the Erotideia, at Thespiai, a town not far
from his home, to offer prayers and sacrifice to the god—an event
occasioned by her parents' bitter rift. The rrtise en scene, however, is the

much of it mentioning Plutarch's Erotikos in passing, see, for example, E. Cantarella (trans., M.
Fant), Pandora's Daughters. The Role and Status of Women in Greek and Roman Antiquity
(Baltimore 1987); and reviews of recent literature: M. B. Skinner, "Des bonnes dames et
mechantes," CJ 83 (1987) 69-74 and G. Casadio, "La donna nel mondo antico ..StudPat 34
(1987)73-90.
15 For Plutarch's feminism see P. A. Stadter, Plutarch's Historical Methods. An Analysis of
the Mulierum Virtutes (Cambridge, Mass. 1965), esp. 1—12; R. Flaceliere, "Caton d'Utique et
les femmes;" H. Martin, "Amatorius (Moralia 748E-71E)," in H. D. Betz, ed., Plutarch's Ethical
Writings and Early Christian Literature (Leiden 1978) 442-537; K. O'Brien Wicker, "Mulierum
Virtutes (Moralia 242E-63C)," in Betz, 106-34; idem, "First Century Marriage Ethics: A
Comparative Study of the Household Codes and Plutarch's Conjugal Precepts," in J. W.
Flanagan and A. W. Robinson. No Famine in tbe Land (Missoula, Montana 1975) 141-53; L.
Goessler, Plutarchs Gedanken iiber die Ehe (Zurich 1962), esp. 15-43; M. Pinnoy, "Plutarchus'
Consolatio ad Uxorem," Kleio 9 (1979) 65-86; W. L. Odom, A Study of Plutarch. The
Position of Greek Women in the First Century after Christ (unpubl. diss. Virginia 1961); V.
Longoni (introd., D. Del Como), Plutarco. Sull'amore (Milano 1986); A. Borghini, "Per una
semiologia del comportamento: strutture di scambio amoroso (Plut. Erot. 766C-D)," in Scritti
in Ricordo di G. Buratti (Pisa 1981) 11-39; F. Le Corsu, Plutarque et les femmes dans les "Vies
Paralleled' (Paris 1981).
16 The Erotikos, like Petronius' Banquet in the Satyricon, seems influenced by Xenophon's
Symposion. On Xenophon, see Foucault, II, 116, 167, 248, 256; Goessler, 22. Xenophon, 8.
3, praises conjugal love. Kallimachos' Epigram 1 advises a youth not to marry above his status.
17 Beautifully interpreted by C. Segal, "Ovid's Cephalus and Procris: Myth and Tragedy," GB
7 (1978) 175-205, esp. 177,183. For a less idealistic interpretation see F. E. Brenk, "Tumulo
Solacia or Foedera Lecti: The Myth of Cephalus and Procris in Ovid's Metamorphoses,"
AugAge 2 (1982/1983) 9-22.

This content downloaded from 129.125.19.61 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:56:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
462 Illinois Classical Studies, XIII.2

nearby shrine of the Muses on Mount Helicon, where Plutarch and his
friends have retired for more tranquillity.18 For a clamorous event had
broken the traditional somnolence of Thespiai. Bacchon, the town's
celebrated love (eromenos), had been contemplating marriage with a young
and wealthy widow, Ismenodora. But being a minor he had asked for more
experienced advice. The two referees, though, deadlocked, have entrusted the
decision to Plutarch and his friends. A debate now ensues over the
superiority of homosexual or heterosexual love—for boys or women—with
each side denigrating the other, and over the relative merits of marrying
above one's status. At that moment a friend gallops up to relate that not
only has Ismenodora kidnapped the apparently willing Bacchon from the
palaistra but her female friends have already dressed him in a wedding gown
(himatiori) (754E-55A).19
The second important consideration is the assertion—in regard to the
Platonic doctrine of love—that "dim, faint effluvia of the truth" are scattered
about in Egyptian mythology (762A). This is not an isolated cadence, for
at 764A Soklaros asks Plutarch to return to the Egyptian material:
But as for your hint that Egyptian myth is in accord with the Platonic
doctrine of Eros, you can no longer keep from revealing and explaining
your meaning. We would love to hear even only a small bit of matters so
great.

Plutarch at this point, as in his essay On Isis and Osiris, alludes to one
Egyptian myth identifying Eros with the sun and another identifying
Aphrodite with the moon. He continues with his own explanation of the
philosophical distinction between the sun, which belongs to the visible
(horaton) and Eros, part of the intelligible sphere (noeton).
The matter is dropped there, but it suggests Plutarch's reinterpretation
of the Eros of Plato's "middle" period (Symposion, Phaidros, Politeia
[Republic], and Phaidon).20 Moreover, Plutarch seems to "sign" his work.
He apparently is referring here to the final speech of On the E at Delphi—
which explains the distinction between the visible sun and the true Apollon

18 The feminism of Plutarch's dialogues is limited: women—even his wife and Ismenodora—
should be heard (about) but not seen (or talk).
19 Goessler (27) discusses the dramatic techniques here.
20 See J. Dillon, The Middle Platonists (London 1977) 184-230, esp. 201; "The Academy in
the Middle Platonic Period," Dionysius 3 (1979) 63-78, esp. 65-68; "Plutarch and Second
Century Platonism," in A. H. Armstrong, ed.. Classical Mediterranean Spirituality (London
1986) 214-29, esp. 223-25; J. Glucker, Antiochus and the Late Academy (Gottingen 1978) 96
97,207-71; P. L. Donini, Le scuole, I'anima, I'impero: la filosofia antica da Antioco a Plotino
(Torino 1982) 117-21, and "Plutarco, Ammonio e l'Academia," in Miscellanea plutarchea, 97
110; J. Barthelmess, "Recent Work on the Moralia," idem 61-81, esp. 72-74; C. Froidefond,
"Plutarque et le platonisme," ANRW II. 36. 1 (1987) 185-233; J. Whittaker, "Platonic
Philosophy in the Early Centuries of the Empire," idem 81-123, esp. 117-21; F. E. Brenk, "An
Imperial Heritage: The Religious Spirit of Plutarch of Chaironeia," idem 248-349, esp. 262-75
("Indices," ANRW n. 36. 2 [1987] 1300-22).

This content downloaded from 129.125.19.61 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:56:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Frederick E. Brenk, SJ. 463

Helios, the one and unchangeable God, whose image is the sun. He also
seems to publicize a future Isis and Osiris, his treatise on Egyptian Isis
religion. The vocabulary of the Erotikos and the tentative manner of
broaching the subject appear to exclude an already issued Peri Isidos kai
Osiridos.
The reference reinforces the chronological relationship between the
Erotikos and the Peri Isidos—dialogues most likely belonging to Plutarch's
latest period of literary activity.21 We are only beginning to understand the
status of women in the Early Empire. But Plutarch, with some
ambivalence, certainly succumbed to the epoch's fascination for Isis. In his
essay on the Isiac religion he transformed die central myth, the goddess Isis'
search for the dead Osiris and resuscitation of her husband's body, into a
Platonic allegory of the soul's ascent toward the Form of the Beautiful. But
in his desire to metamorphosize the myth into a Middle Platonic allegory
with Osiris symbolizing the Form of the Beautiful and Isis as his lover, he
redirected the main thrust of Isis religion, which is centered on the power
and omnipotence of Isis.
In the light of On Isis and Osiris some of the more radical
developments of the Erotikos receive sharper contours. Plutarch's most
spectacular achievement—contrasting with Plato's Symposion and
Phaidros—might appear to be the eulogy of heterosexual married love and,
in particular, the element of reciprocity between male and female. But such a
view was actually current in philosophical circles long before Plutarch.
Such love was a popular theme in Roman literature—though often
patronizing, humorous, or pathetic—for example, in Ovid. Plutarch's
greatest achievement, then, was not the glorification of heterosexual—and
especially married—love over homosexual or pederastic love but rather the
introduction of heterosexual love into the Platonist's study—namely the
ascent of the soul to the Beautiful in Itself, and a new anthropomorphic
conception of the Beautiful as the final goal (telos) of the soul. Thus the
calling card of the Middle Platonists, "assimilation to God" (6|khcogi<; Gem)
acquires a very literal meaning.22

21 See Flaceliere, 7-11; C. P. Jones, "Towards a Chronology of Plutarch's Works," JRS 56

(1966) 61-74 (66), and Plutarch and Rome (Oxford 1971) 34. Froidefond, 211-12, accepts
Flaceliere's arguments. On Peri Isidos see G. W. Bowersock, "Some Persons in Plutarch's
Moralia," CQ 15 (1965) 267-70; discussion in F. E. Brenk, In Mist Apparelled. Religious
Themes in Plutarch's Moralia and Lives (Leiden 1977) 5-6.
The Markos Antonios, one of the last, or the last, Lives of Plutarch, also uses the Isis
motif. See Brenk, "Imperial Heritage," 319—citing F. Le Corsu, "Cleopatre-Isis," Bull. Soc.
Frang. d'fcgyptolog. 82 (1978) 22-23, and Isis. Son mythe et ses mysteres (Paris 1977) 86-91,
Plutarque et lesfemmes dans les "Vies Paralleles" (Paris 1981) 220-23. The matter is treated in
C. B. R. Pelling's commentary, Plutarch, Life of Antony (Cambridge 1988) 251-52,319.
22 Froidefond treats Plutarch's daimon (with the rejection of Plato's Eros-daimon), the twist on
onoioxji? 0eS, and the close relationship between the Erotikos and Peri Isidos (206-12). See
also, D. Babut, "Sur quelques enigmes du 'Phedre,'" BAGB (1987,3) 260-84; 277.

This content downloaded from 129.125.19.61 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:56:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
464 Illinois Classical Studies, XIII.2

Plutarch's allegorization of the Isis myth combines—or confuses—the

fundamentals of Platonism. Such confusion has enormous consequences for
the conception of three fundamentals of Middle Platonism: matter, God
(Demiourgos or Nous), and the model (paradeigma or Form).23 In Plutarch's
allegorical interpretation of the Isis myth, reflected in the Erotikos, these
elements become terribly confused. Platonic matter (receptacle, potency,
etc.) refuses to sit quietly at home while the Form of the Beautiful delights
in its (his, His) new-found mind (logos, or nous). A corrollary—not fully
developed by Plutarch but with a great future—is the divine love for the
soul, a love going far beyond the mere paternal or providential love of gods
or God in Greek religion or philosophy. The Form of the Beautiful, once
only an object, rejoices not only in its new-found mind but also in its
power to return or initiate love. But Osiris, who is identified with the
Form, also has nous and is responsible for the creation of the world. Thus,
Osiris is assimilated somewhat to the Demiourgos. Isis, who is matter,
also has nous and as the object of Osiris' love assumes something of the
function of the Form.
The Platonic ascent toward the Form of the Beautiful as a passive
intellectual object has been transformed by Plutarch into the reciprocal love
of the soul and its telos, conceived of as both the Form of the Beautiful and
a divine person. First, speaking of Eros as the soul's guide to the Beautiful
he compares the god to the sun—in Plato and in Plutarch an image of the
Form of the Beautiful. In the ever fluid and slippery allegorical
interpretations of Peri Isidos, Osiris, too, like Eros, is the guide to the
telos, or vision, and is compared to the sun. This Platonic aspect of the
allegorical interpretation of the myth is also traditional.
Once the inner dynamic of the Isis religion enters, the goddess becomes
a very active element, analogous to the supreme divinity of the aretalogies.
Even in Plutarch's minimalizing account, she is the driving force which
discovers and reanimates Osiris' dismembered body, in love overcoming all
obstacles, even the death of the beloved. The terminology for the divine
union is that of Plato's homosexual or pederastic lovers. But we should not
forget that even Plato treated Alkestis, who died for her husband, Admetos,
as a supreme example of dedicated love, nor that her love, like that of Isis,
overcame death (nor, perhaps, that it was Euripides who immortalized her).
Isis, like the pederast, must be the active element; for the quest for the
beloved precedes that for the Beautiful. Osiris corresponds first to the
beloved boy, then to the Form of the Beautiful in the Platonic works. For
the strikingly erotic union of the soul with the Form, Plato again was
Plutarch's inspiration, but, as so often, the pupil outstripped the master.

23 Elaborated by S. M. Chiodi, "Tematica ierogamica nel De hide," Miscellanea plutarchea,

121-26, and "Demiurgia e ierogamia nel de Iside plutarcheo. Un'esegesi platonica del mito
egiziano," SMSR 52 (1986) 33-51. See also Brenk, "Imperial Heritage," 301-03; Froidefond,
224-25, 231.

This content downloaded from 129.125.19.61 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:56:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Frederick E. Brenk, S.J. 465

Subtle, perhaps unconscious, transformations occur in the elaboration

of the philosophical myth as Plutarch replaces Plato's primarily homosexual
model with a heterosexual one. Osiris (Form of the Beautiful) must
according to the myth also be an active element, the eternal lover of Isis
(receptacle, chora, matter, potency, etc.). Isis' ardent lover Osiris thus
replaces the inanimate object—the passive, though divine and intelligible
but not rational, Platonic Form. Reciprocity is extolled. Plutarch has not
only betrayed Plato by creating a different function for the Form but has
planted a time-bomb in Platonism, the acceptance by future Platonists of an
equivalence between God and the Form.
We can begin to discern the creeping metamorphosis of Platonic
terminology. "Lovely" (erasmion, Erotikos 765D, F) reflects erasmiotaton
used in Phaidros (250E) for the Form of the Beautiful, but "beloved"
(agapetos, 765D) is an intruder. Also somewhat unusual is "dear" (philion,
765D). Combined, we find this remarkable description of the soul's reaction
to the Beautiful: ". . . courting ... the truly lovable and blessed and
beloved of all and dear" (to Epaop-iov aA-riGax; kou naK&piov ical cpiXiov
obtaoi Kai ayajrriTov, 765D), echoed at 765F: "produces a refraction of
memory from that appearing beautiful here, toward the divine and lovable
and in all truth blessed and marvelous Beauty" (... to Getov kou £pao|iiov
Kai jiaicapiov an; aA.T|0co<; ekeivo Kai 9au|idoiov KaXov).24 In the
Phaidros we find "the desire and mystery of true lovers" (7ipo0a)|iia fiev oJv
Tcov aq dXriGroi; epcovTtov Kai te^etti, 253C) but this is applied to
human love.25 We do find, though, in relationship to "the divine Beautiful
in itself, unique in form" (croio to Geiov KaXov |o.ovoei5e^) the ambiguous
word "consorting with" (ouveivai, ouvovToq ocutcd, Symposion 21 ID,
212A), and following upon a pederastic context "yearn for Being" (opeyriTai
Tot> ovToq, Phaidon 65C), "love the truth [the true] (epav te tou dltiGotx;,
Philebos 58D).26 Makarion, which has divine, eschatological, and erotic
connotations in Plutarch, in Plato is applied to the vision rather than to the
Form itself: "the blessed vision ("beatific vision") and sight" (|iaKapiav
o\|/w te Kal 0Eav, Phaidros 250B), "of mysteries most blessed,. . . happy,
straightforward appearances" (teA-etcov . . . (iaKapicordTriv . .. anka . . .

24 See Martin, "Amatorius," 521. 765D is paralleled in Symposion 204C, where to

epaoxov = to t£ ovxi koXov Kai aPpov Kai xeXeov Kai (laKapiaxov; cf. Alkinoos,
Didaskalikos XXVII. 2 (180. 6-8) (perhaps influenced by Plato, Timaios 87C). See Whittaker,
"Platonic Philosophy," 92, and "Proclus and the Middle Platonists," in J. Pepin, ed., Proclus.
Lecteur et interprete des Anciens (Paris 1987) 287-89. This was a key text in Middle
Platonism, with a notable parallel in Alkinoos X (165. 27) and Plutarch, Peri Isidos 374D: xovi
Ttpcoxtoi; epaaxot) Kai ecperov Kai xeXeiou Kai a-uxapKovx; (8 jrpcoxax; V: 7tp<oxou O
[hiatus] epaxou Markl. at cf. Platonis loc. cit. / ecpetoii] acpexov m).
25 253C 3 xeXexfi corr. Par. 1808: xeA.euxf| BT. OCT texts and apparatus used for the
Platonic quotations. On TsXexri over TeXeuxri, see C. J. Rowe, Plato: Phaedrus (Warminster
1986) 187; Brenk, JHS 107 (1987) 206.
26 So A. J. Festugiere, Contemplation et vie contemplative selon Platon (Paris 1950) 352
53—with some exaggeration.

This content downloaded from 129.125.19.61 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:56:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
466 Illinois Classical Studies, XIII.2

leal euScujiova (pac^ata, Phaidros 250B-C), and at 256A-B the better

life in this world is called "most blessed and harmonious" (natcdpiov p.ev
Kal 6|iovot|ti.k6v).27
Since Plato was more concerned with presenting an intellectual vision
of the Form, he continually stresses direct vision, sight, an intellectual
knowledge or grasp when he comes to speak directly of the Form. The
erotic association of Isis with the Form of the Beautiful (Osiris) in the Peri
Isidos comes from Plato's description of the passion of homosexual love,
the prelude to real love—which in the Phaidros is reciprocal. At times this
vocabulary, when used for the Form, is startling—even though it is more
traditional than one might expect. For example we find "associating in
beautiful things" (toT<; KaXoii; 6(j.iAr|oa<;, Erotikos 766B) and "this goddess
also who participates always with the first god and is associated with Him
in the love of the fair and lovely things about him ... in love . . . consorts
with him . . . yearns for him . . . and being importunate over him . . .
(crovouoav epcori tcov Ttepi ekeivov dyaGcbv Kai yloX&n . . . epav . . .
(Tvvoioav . . . tioGeIv . . . yXixo|jivT|v ekeivov, Peri Isidos 374F-75A),
"loving always and pursuing and consorting in love with" (epcooav del
Kal SicoKo-ucav Kai ouvovcav, 383A) for Isis' love of the Beautiful
(kallos) as a model for the soul's intellectual vision.28
As elsewhere in Plutarch we find him somewhat reluctant to directly
identify God with the Form of the Beautiful. Here, for Isis' love of Osiris
he employs the phrase "the beautiful and fair things about him" (crovouaav
epcori tSv 7tepi ekeivov ayaGSv Kal KaXSv, 374F-75A), where in the
Greek of his period, for example, "those about Epikouros" can simply mean
"Epikouros." Similarly the conduct of Osiris, who is equivalent to the
supreme God and the Form of the Beautiful, is described in ambiguous
language: "... of which end (telos) is the knowledge of the first and lord—
whom the goddess encourages us to seek—beside her and with her living and
consorting" (. . . rcap' au-ufi Kal |i£x' a-uT^ ovxa Kal cuvovxa, 352A).
Makarion also takes on an erotic context. The soul's desire for the
Platonic Form at Erotikos 765F is for "the divine and lovable and dear and

27 See C. Riedweg, Mysterienterminologie bei Platon, Philon und Klemens von Alexandrien
(Berlin 1987), with reference to gold plates, epigraphy etc., esp. 334.
28 Text of Peri Isidos, J. G. Griffiths, Plutarch's De Iside el Osiride (Cambridge 1970); see in
particular, 71-74, 563-65; and J. Hani, La religion egyptienne dans la pensee de Plutarque
(Paris 1976)20-21.
Professor Donini believes the Erolikos presupposes, and was chronologically close to, ■
Plutarch's De Facie in Orbe Lunae—especially evident at Erolikos 764D. In his view, Plutarch
in De Facie 939E, 944E, and 945C already toys with sexual distinctions and erotic language for
the female moon and male sun (as the image of the Good [Politeia] and supreme God and Father
Begetter of the Kosmos [Timaios])- but he discovered in the Egyptian myth more fertile
possibilities for sexual and reciprocal symbolism.
Plutarch's allegorical interpretation was aided by virtually limiting himself to pre- or early
Hellenistic sources (Griffiths, 75-100, esp. 84-85), where Osiris has more importance than Isis.

This content downloaded from 129.125.19.61 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:56:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Frederick E. Brenk, S J. 467

beloved ... Beauty" (theion, erasmion, makarion ... kalon)29 The phrase
is not unlike that in Plutarch's treatise On the Face in the Moon, the final
part of which contains an eschatological myth. Here intellect sees an image
of the Form reflected in the sun. Intellect (nous) is separated from soul
(psyche) through love of "the desirable and beautiful and divine and blessed"
0epheton, kalon, theion, makarion, 944E) "for which all nature in one way
or another yearns" (opeyexai—another ambiguous term).30 Plato's
impersonal descriptions of the Form—"the really real" (to ontos on), "of
single form" (monoeides)—tend to disappear. Plutarch's hagnos (pure, holy,
inviolable) joins the Platonic hieros (holy) and katharos (pure) in the
context of the Beautiful: "the holy and sacred (hieros and hosios) Osiris,"
"the invisible and the unseen, the dispassionate and pure (hagnon) kingdom
of Osiris" (Peri Isidos 375E, 382-83A). In Plutarch's romantic context the
intellectual vision is not only, as in Plato, a mystery (telete) but also a
marriage made in heaven, a hieros gamos,31
The language in some respects echoes Philo, the Alexandrian
philosopher of the Julio-Claudian period, who also equates God with the
Form of the Beautiful. On the Cherubim speaks of God being the summit
and the goal (telos) of happiness (eudaimonia)—"blessed, incorruptible,
bestowing on all from the fountain of the beautiful (Beautiful? [kalon]); for
the things of this world would not be beautiful, if they were not
impressions from the archetype, in truth, the uncreated beautiful, blessed
(makarion), imperishable" (86). Or, "God himself becomes our
hierophantes causing us to see the hidden beauties (kalle), invisible to non
initiates . .. You souls, who have tasted the divine love(s) (theioi erotes),
hasten toward the vision, which draws all eyes to itself..(On Dreams I.
164, 165); ". . . he entered into the darkness where God was, that is, into
the unseen, invisible, incorporeal, and model essence (paradeigmatike ousia)
of all existent things . . . revealing Himself a work like a painting, all
beautiful and divine in form." (Moses I. 158). Some contemplate the
"Uncreated, Divine, the First Good, and Beautiful and Happy (eudaimon) and
Blessed (makarion),. . . that better than the Good and more beautiful than
the Beautiful, and more blessed than blessedness, more happy, moreover,
than happiness itself (. . . to Kpevcxov (iev ayaGoti, ica^A-iov 8e tcaXou,
Kai (iaKapiOTtiToq (iev (laKapicbxepov, Eu8aijj.ov(a<; 8e

29 Martin, "Amatorius," 492-94, 522. Whittaker, "Platonic Philosophy," 92, notes that—
influenced by Timaios 87C—the couplet theion and erasmion appears as well in Alkinoos,
Didaskalikos XXVII. 2 (180. 6-8) and may have been popular in Middle Platonism.
30 The term epheton is defined as Aristotelian in H. Cherniss and W. C. Helmbold, Plutarch's
Moralia XII (Cambridge, Mass. 1968) 213, note g. But Whittaker, seeing its roots rather in
Philebos 20D, observes that though Plutarch and Alkinoos—independently and alone among
Middle Platonists—used it, it did not resurface until the Neoplatonists ("Proclus," 287-88).
31 Y. Verniere, "Initiation et eschatologie chez Plutarque," in J. Ries, ed., Les rites
d'initiation (Louvain-La Neuve 1986) 335-52, esp. 338,346, 349, treats the mystery aspect.

This content downloaded from 129.125.19.61 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:56:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
468 Illinois Classical Studies, XIII.2

evSaiiioveo-cepov. . .) and of anything else besides the above—should it

exist—more perfect" (Embassy to Gaius 5)32
Plato's Timaios—on the nature of the universe—for which we have a
long Plutarchan commentary, is responsible for some of the changes. Both
extol logos and noeton. But though the Form of the Beautiful exists in the
noeton, neither Plato nor Plutarch in his commentary attribute logos to the
Form. Logos belongs par excellence to the Craftsman-Creator, the
Demiourgos. Plato's own thought on creation was obviously obscure. The
elusiveness of God in Plato elsewhere and the tendency of Platonic
philosophy after him suggest that his Demiourgos belongs to an
Einsteinian understanding of the intelligibility granted matter. The kosmos
itself contains a kind of intelligence or power of evolution and self
organization—albeit, a rationality (logos), unlike that of the Stoics,
physically separate from matter. But outstanding commentators on the
Timaios, both ancient and modern, have interpreted the Demiourgos not
merely as an allegorical representation of the intelligibility shaping matter
but as a non-anthropomorphic mind (nous) responsible for the evolution of
the cosmos.33 In any case the line between the complex of Ideas, the
intelligible universe (kosmos noetos), and nous had begun to wear thin by
Plutarch's day. His simplifying approach to Plato, combining elements
from disparate passages, though cautious in its terminology, radically
transforms the impersonal telos of Plato into an anthropomorphic, even
erotic God. The Isis myth may have led him whither he willed not, but the
pretext of an allegorical interpretation allowed him more freedom in
expressing his new concept of God than would a strictly philosophical
exposition. At least, in the allegorical interpretation he appears more radical
than elsewhere.
Heterosexual love, as in the old cosmogonic myths, begins the
universe. The love of Isis and Osiris—who apparently had studied
Plutarch's commentary on the Timaios—generates their child Horos, an
allegory for the kosmos. Divine love becomes the paradigm for human
love. Thus, human aphrodisia receive a new philosophical and religious
dimension. Human love becomes a reflection of the quasi-eternal divine

32Philo texts those of R. Amaldez et al., eds., Les oeuvres de Philon (Paris 1963-1972); see
XXXH, A. Pelletier, Legatio ad Caium (1972) 64, note 2, for parallels here. J. Dillon, "The
Transcendence of God in Philo: Some Possible Sources," Center for Hermeneutical Studies 16
(1975) 1-8, with responses by G. E. Caspaiy, 9-18, and D. Winston, 19-22, is an excellent
discussion of this knotty problem. Similar to Philo and Plutarch is Alkinoos (Albinos),
Didaskalikos X. 3 (164); see Invemizzi, 26, and Whittaker, "Platonic Philosopy," 102-10.
33 Discussion in Brenk, "Imperial Heritage," 262-75, esp. 263, 268-69; add J. B. Skemp,
"The Spirituality of Socrates and Plato," Classical Mediterranean Spirituality, 103-20 (116-19);
and R. D. Mohr, The Platonic Cosmology (Leiden 1985) 39-41. See also J. P. Hershbell,
"Plutarch's 'De animae procreatione in Timaeo': An Analysis of Structure and Content,"
ANRW II. 36. 1 (1987) 234—47, esp. 235-38. In Middle Platonism the Demiourgos moved
from supreme principle active in the world to a second God (Nous)—sometimes confused with
the world-soul; see Dillon, Middle Platonists, 7.

This content downloaded from 129.125.19.61 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:56:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Frederick E. Brenk, S J. 469

love which begot and continues to beget the world and all within. The
aphrodisia are not simply the Epicurean sensual motions constituting sexual
pleasure—so well described in the verses of Lucretius' De rerum natura—
motions deprived of mystery and religious significance. Rather, they hint at
the soul's eternal destiny. An image of the love which generated Plato's
most perfect kosmos, they aid in the philosophical ascent. In marriage,
though, as in Plato's myth of lovers, human love must deepen. With the
passage of time the more sexual or sensual aspects of love should cede to a
purer and more intellectual appreciation of the other's true beauty. Marriage,
then, initiates Platonic love—conceived, however, not as a movement
toward an impassive Form but for a responsive Lover.
Ring composition, appropriate to this Greek setting, will hopefully
swing us back where we began, to the tale of Ismenodora and Bacchon. In
her love for Bacchon, Ismenodora, like Isis, is the driving force. Her name,
though indicating force (is, menos), also suggests Isis. As beautiful and
lovable, the boy Bacchon represents the Form of the Beautiful, the destiny
of the true lover. His name—a form of Bacchos—suggests Dionysos, the
Greek name for Osiris. Passive in receiving her love, once she has taken
the initiative, he also actively returns it—becoming even more assimilated
to Osiris, the god of reciprocal love.34
A simultaneous plot, leaving the resolution in doubt until the last
minute, parallels the denouement of the philosophical inquiry. The literary
medium is that of On the Daimonion of Sokrates. The theme of this
dialogue is the nature of Sokrates' daimonion ("the divine," or
"supernatural"—not really "genius"), but through the dialogue the exciting
events of the Theban insurrection under Epaminondas against Spartan rule
are woven. The Ismenodora-Bacchon tale, commencing and finishing the
dialogue, is not extraneous. The Erotikos is played out against a backdrop
of the visible love of Ismenodora and Bacchon—the horaton, so to speak—
while the noeton, the invisible hierogamia with the now personal Beautiful,
embraces the logos of the participants. Such a hierogamia is the telos of
each true lover. The female's aggressivity in the quest for the Form of the
Beautiful (Bacchon, Osiris), then, is the underlying thread of the
"phainomenal" romances which close the work.
As in the entire Plutarchan corpus, divided between philosophy (Ethika)
and lives (Bioi), real events balance against theoretical speculation.
Plutarch's examples of heroic women are notable too in not being limited,
like those of Plato, to Athens or mythical Greece. Rather, geographically

34 Professor Barigazzi notes the real etymology of the heroine's name—"gift of Ismenos," (the
river of Thebes). Dionysiac associations may be intended; cf. Euripides, Bacchai 5: "I have
arrived at Dirke's streams and Ismenos' water." Naturally such connotations add to the mystical
eschatological orientation of the Erotikos, besides linking "Ismenodora" to "Bacchon." Plutarch
omits at this point the role of Bacchon as Eros-mystagogue, leading Ismenodora to the Idea
(Form) of the Beautiful.

This content downloaded from 129.125.19.61 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:56:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
470 Illinois Classical Studies, XIII.2

they reflect the universal breadth of the Graeco-Roman world. In tone, too,
they breathe a realism not so evident in the world of Plato's dialogues.
Camma, who avenges her husband by drinking a poisonous toast with his
murderer, is from Gaul. So is Empona, who ostensibly mourning her dead
husband, mates with him in his underground hiding place and bears him
sons.35 The quasifictional character, Semiramis—whose assassination of
Ninos is related earlier in the dialogue—is Assyrian.
With the exception of the Semiramis story, the tales of female virtue or
courage—of Camma and Empona and their husbands—are in fact traditional
depictions of womanly virtue. Still they underscore the courage and tenacity
of women dedicated to a beloved husband. Above all Ismenodora and
Semiramis, who assume male roles, symbolize the new erotic dialectic.36
One, in abducting Bacchon, assumes the role of Herakles—the epitome of
masculinity and philandering. Semiramis, only the maid and concubine of a
palace slave of Ninos, becomes through her intelligence a Klytaimestra, not
only contriving the execution of the king and ruling in his place but
winning Plutarch's approbation. The other accounts, though, besides being
illustrations of courage and nobility—demolishing the denigrations of
pederasts—contain primary Isiac themes: a wife's search and mourning for
her dead or assumed to be dead husband, the bearing of children to the
"defunct" (Empona); revenge for murder (Camma), and undying, married
love triumphing over death and the grave.
Essential to the dialogue is the counterpoint in themes of harmony and
disharmony—not surprising where the Muses and Eros invisibly preside.
The dialogue begins with the dissonance between the parents of Plutarch's
wife, the event bringing the young couple to Thespiai. There follows the
strange resonance between Ismenodora and Bacchon, the disharmonious
arguments deadlocking the referees, the choros of the friendly circle of
Plutarch, the discord of their arguments, the harmony of Ismenodora and
Bacchon, which turns abduction into marriage, the return to the disharmony
of the arguments of homo- and heteroadvocates, the accord of Ptolemaios
Philadelphos ("lover of his sister") and his concubine Belestiche, the sour
note in the love story of Ninos, assassinated by Semiramis, the wedding
preparations of Ismenodora and Bacchon soon to be celebrated in song,
followed by the Roman Galba's resignation to his wife's strident infidelity,
the sun's and moon's tuneful progression, and the harmonious finale, the
undying loves of Camma and Sinatus, of Empona and Sabinus.37

35 Recounted in Plutarch's Mulierum Virtules 257E-58C (Flaceliere, 152); see also Stadter,
Plutarch's Historical Methods, 103-06; on Empona, Flaceliere, 154-55.
36 Flaceliere, 138; A. M. G. Capomacchia, Semiramis. Una femminilita ribaltata (Rome
1986), esp. 24-26,29-31. The story appeared in a romance found in many versions. Other of
Plutarch's heroines here are Abrotonon (Habrotonon?) of Thrace, Bacchis of Miletos, and
Belestiche of Alexandria.
37 And the reconciliation of all the participants (Longoni, 159-60).

This content downloaded from 129.125.19.61 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:56:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Frederick E. Brenk, S J. 471

In conclusion, the philosophical originality of the Eroti

particularly in its egalitarian treatment of love and marri
evaluation of marriage, including sexuality, in the ascent t
and the identification of the Form with a loving God are
aspects. The powerful expression of the dialogue, howe
striking contrast with Plato's Symposion and Phaidros con
radical philosophical message.38

Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome

38 Thanks are due to Professors Christopher J. Rowe of Bristol and

Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland, for carefully going ov
making many helpful corrections and suggestions—the first especially i
and the second in the Middle Platonic parallels. The author is grateful al
Dillon of Trinity College, Dublin, Adelmo Barigazzi of the University
Luigi Donini of Torino, who also kindly looked over the text and suggested

This content downloaded from 129.125.19.61 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:56:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms