Plato's Prayer to Pan (Phaedrus 279 B8-C3) Author(s): T. G. Rosenmeyer Source: Hermes, Vol. 90, No. 1 (1962), pp.

34-44 Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4475193 . Accessed: 01/04/2011 07:56
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. 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 support@jstor.org.

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Hermes.

http://www.jstor.org

34

T. G. ROSENMEYER PLATO'S PRAYER TO PAN (Phaedrus 279B8-C3)

>>Dear Pan, and ye other gods who dwell in this place, grant that I may become beautiful (%aAod) within, and that such outward things as I have may the things within. May I count him rich who is be in agreement with (qg()Ata) wise; as for gold, may I have so much of it as no one but the reasonable man (O aCoxdcwv) should be able to bear and carry'.< The prayer is justly famous. It is somewhat surprising, therefore, that modern discussions of the Phaedrus devote practically no attention to it. There are some few general remarks about the appropriateness of the invocation, especially to the person and the purposes of Socrates2. But that is all. Nor are the ancient critics more illuminating. Hermeias (i. e., probably, Syrianus) attempts to explain some of the terms of the prayer, but his comments on this head are no more helpful than most of his notes. Here are some excerpts3: >Pan is the god who acts as custodian of the whole (to rav). 'Grant that I may become beautiful'. Why, was he not beautiful? We suggest that he prays to remain beautiful within. 'And that such outward things as I have. ..' He wishes all externals, both bodies and things, to be arranged in harmony with the soul, in order that the soul does not turn sluggish under their weight, or is corrupted by their deficiencies. 'Rich.' The rich man is he whose possessions make him self-sufficient; the wise man is he who is satisfied with what he has; hence (the wise man) is rich. 'As for gold, may I have so much of it. . .' Excessive wealth produces hubris and stifles intellectual effort#. Hermeias, it appears, experienced no difficulty in explaining the details of the prayer to his own satisfaction, in terms which can hardly be called remarkable or profound. The scarcity of other references seems to point in the same direction. That is a pity; for I should like to suggest that the prayer is not as innocuous as it looks. If neither ancients nor moderns seem much interested in it, the reason is perhaps that an appeal to the gods is better
1 In my translation I have tried to stay as close to the text as I could. There are many attractive renderings of the passage, but each of those I have seen strays from the text in one way or another, in sufficient measure to throw obstacles in the path of our inquiry. 2 HACKFORTH'S observation is a good specimen: *The closing prayer has no special connexion with the context of the dialogue, but is eminently characteristic of the real Socrates in its depreciation of external and bodily goods as compared with the goods of the spirit.# R. HACKFORTH, Plato's Phaedrus (Cambridge I952) I68-9. Cf. also H. LEISEGANG in his RE article, vol. XX, 2, 1950, coll. 2478-9; he suggests that the prayer once more draws together the motifs of Socrates' second speech. Only Paul FRIEDLANDER, Platon vol. 2 (Berlin 1930) 502-3 appears ready to explore some of the implications of the prayer. 3 P. COUVREUR, ed., Hermiae Alexandrini in Platonis Phaedrum Scholia (Paris I90I) 265-6.

Plato's Prayer to Pan (Phaedrus279 B8-C3)

35

spoken, or listened to, than subjected to irreverent analysis. But I confess that I am puzzled by many things. Why the address to Pan? Why the insistence on a proper relation between the things inside and the things outside? What is the force of the word I have translated as 'in agreement with'? What is meant by the bearing and carrying of the wealth which is the property of the wise or the charge of the reasonable man? As for the things outside, surely Socrates cannot here be referring to physical looks? A personal hope based on the archaic equation of intrinsic worth and physical beauty is out of place or at least unrealistic when Socrates is the speaker2. But let me begin with the first question: why Pan? We do not have Proclus' commentary on Cratylus 408B-D where, it is just possible, a disquisition on Pan might have given us some important clues. Hermeias' explanation is clearly unsatisfactory, though the Stoic tradition of Pan symbolizing and administering rd rndvis prominent enough among the neo-Platonists3. The only other interpretation of the name which gained currency among the theologians is the one featured in the Orphic Hymn to Apollo (Hymn 34, 24-27) where Apollo Paian is identified with Pan. Then there is the rather more whimsical speculation, cited in the scholia to Theocritus (4-5 DUEBNER), according to which Pan is Penelope's son by all the suitors. But none of this can be expected to throw light on the role of Pan in the prayer of the Phaedrus. Since in antiquity Pan was, apparently, rather less talked about than some of the other divinities, let us take a jump forward and look at what FICINO has to say about him. Usually FIcINO explains Pan along the conventional
'Both p(A tog and xaio'g serve to connect the prayer with the tradition of Alcaeus and Theognis and the tyrannicides, with the spirit of the symposium and the zate'ae. For other passages of the Phaedrus which point in the same direction, see 234E 2, 243E 4, 257D 9, 264 A 8 etc. etc. Plato exploits the terminology of aristocratic companionship and conservative ideals. One example will indicate the sovereign liberty with which Plato transforms the old nexuses. In the prayer, 9$a)OEv at first glance seems to refer be'O'caExcw) to the type of external possessions celebrated as one of life's goods in the famous skolion ui a'ietocov, iysalvv&v Athenaeus I5, 694. That is, it seems to refer to wealth. The case appears to be clinched as we continue reading: rAovvtrov be voy Hot4ut . .. However, as the argument of the paper will suggest, Ta 9wo)ev and nAofrog are, within the context of the prayer, radical opposites. In the end social exclusiveness is replaced by intellectual fellowship. 2 L. ROBIN, in his Bud6 edition of the Phaedrus p. 96 note i, refers to Symp. 2I5 AB, 2I6Cff., where a distinction is made between Socrates' satyr looks and his inner 2igEf. beauty. Hellenistic sculptors managed to subject Socrates to a beauty treatment; cf. the head in the Terme Museum, reproduced by K. SCHEFOLD, Die Bildnisse der antiken Dichter, Redner und Denker (Basel I?943) 83. But would Socrates have approved? 3 Cf. 0. KERN, Die Religion der Griechen vol. III (Berlin 1938) I27ff. The Stoic doctrine actually derives, like so much else, from Plato; cf. below, p. 37 note 3 and text. 3*

36

T. G. ROSENMEYER

Stoic lines, as the god of to ndvl. But at one point we read the following2: Socratemafflaverunt: Dionysius (sic) praestitit mentis excussum, Musae poesim, Pan facundiam, Nymphae varietatem. That is, among the gods who inspired Socrates, Dionysus furnished the spiritual excitement, the Muses furnished the poetry, the Nymphs the variety, and Pan-eloquence. If I am not mistaken, FICINo does not duplicate this remarkable statement elsewhere. In his chapter entitled: Quomododii quatuor modis multiplicentur3 he does not even mention Pan, which is only to be expected since the gods discussed are the supercoelestes. Where did FICINO find Pan associated with eloquence? One passage that comes to mind is the story about Plato as a baby4. When Plato was born his parents took him to Mount Hymettus, wishing to sacrifice on his behalf to the local divinities, Pan, the Nymphs, and Apollo Nomios. And as he was lying there bees filled his mouth with honey, to bring to pass the saying (Iliad A, 249): From his lips the streams of words ran sweeter than honey. This is what Olympiodorus tells us. In the precinct of Pan, Plato was equipped with eloquence. Between this tale about Plato, and FICINO's remark about Socrates, what are the connecting links? Apparently none. On the coins that show Pan, as Professor Frank BROMMER kindly informs me, the legend facundia or a related motto never appears. Perhaps one of the emblem books of the Renaissance could give us some further information, but my inquiries on this score have been abortive. ALCIATI regards Pan as an emblem of lust combined with wisdom (under the heading: Natura; Vis Naturae). If for lust we substitute the combination of 8'"COw and cro(pta brings us pretty close to nst&oa, which, 'Qcog, I should think, is a relevant Greek term. But there is no outright avowal of the connection between Pan and eloquence. Nor is the concept of Pan as the god of terror panicus helpful. Works in the pastoral tradition feature a Pan who uses his gift of terror to achieve persuasion, erotic or otherwise. But in spite of the spark of illumination heralded in Plato's Seventh Epistle (344B) we should not, I dare say, look for a Platonic rapprochement between eloquence proper and the non-rational, even in the
Marsili FICINI Operum Tomus Secundus (Basel I576) 1386 (ch. 53 of notes on the translation): Quid vero sit Pan, caeterique hoc in loco dii, breviter audi. Certum est et hunc et illos esse locales sub luna deos, sed Pan nominatur, velut omne, quoniam in ordine localium gradum tenet amplissimum. .. Sicubi vero summum Deum Pan Platonica ratione, hic, sed alia sum locutus. 2 Ibid. 1384 (ch. 39 of notes on the translation). The statement is modelled on Phaedrus 265B 2-5. 3 Ibid. 1370-2. 4 Olympiodorus, In Alcibiadem I, 2, 24ff. WESTERINK; Prolegomena 2 P. 197, 35ff. HERMANN, which is based on Olympiodorus, omits the name of Pan, presumably because his role in the tale was not understood.
I

Plato's Prayer to Pan (Phaedrus279 B8-C3)

37

comment Phaedrus. On the whole, then, it is better to believe that FICINO'S is not part of a continuous tradition, but based on the Phaedrus itself, in combination with the Cratylus. In the Phaedrus (263D 5-6) Socrates acknowledges Pan as the inspirer of his speech: the Nymphs, daughters of Achelous and Pan, son of Hermes have turned out to be -reXvmtxeeot... itOg Adyovs, more skilled in the use of words, than Lysias the son of Cephalus. Pan, along with the Nymphs, is the real Aoyonolosof the dialogue. He is, in terms of the who leads the speakers'. And this fits in with what we find Phaedo, the Ao'yog if he is the or Ao'yov in the Cratylus (408D 2): Pan is either Ao'yog d'&AZoqg, with the name Hermes is connected Earlier (408AB) son of Hermes. e'iQetv. The whole argument is characteristically opaque: Hermes invented speech, or is concerned with speech; Pan is the son of Hermes; hence Pan is speech or the brother of speech 2. But beneath the veneer of mythological mockery there are some substantial is two-fold, avowals. Pan, we learn, is two-fold-smooth and rough-as Ao'yog true and false (408 C 3). Even the Stoics are anticipated (C 2): )You know orriv and continually vaults and winds around it 3. signifies rt that the Aoyog to grasp the heterogeneities of experience is conThe capacity of the Aoyog fidently -overconfidently? -asserted. Now no one will doubt that the Phaedrus also is very much concerned with the whole complex of questions relating to )o'yog: dialogue versus oratory, the written versus the spoken speech, the
1 More precisely, Pan is the Aoyoroio'o of the section of the dialogue beginning with Socrates' second oration. Prior to this the Muses (237A 7) and the Nymphs (238D i; 24I E 4), the promoters of discourse which is inspired (and hence neither controlled nor demonstrable) rather than philosophical, are in command (cf. also 235 C 6ff.). But contrast Plato's frequent identification of the qu)A6'ao9q2o and the Movactxo, most emphatic perhaps at 248D 3. Note also the distinction of the Muses into several types, one of which (i.e., Calliope and Urania) pretty much coincides with the authority prompting philosophical discourse (259C 6-D 7). But these subtle compromises and conflations are less significant than the crude fact that when Pan makes his first appearance in the dialogue, 263 D 2-6, he is openly connected with odelEeaOat, i. e., with discursive logic and definition. Equally strikingly, when the divinities of the place are introduced early in the dialogue, 230B 7, Pan is not among them. Plato proceeds as if the natural movement of the discussion toward clarification and classification gradually uncovered the presence of Pan. This is not generally recognized by those who fix the locale of the Phaedrus by identifying a sanctuary of Pan or by citing the discovery of a relief of Pan; cf. G. RODENWALDT, Pan am Ilissos, Athen. Mitteilungen 37, I9I2, I4I-I50. Even if there was a sanctuary of Achelous, the Nymphs, (Hermes) and Pan as is suggested by the Berlin 'launderers' relief' (cf. J. E. HARRISON, Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens, London I890, 227), the fact remains that Pan enters the stage only as we approach the second half of the dialogue. The launderers' relief, containing IG II. 3, 1327, dates from the middle of the fourth century, or a little later. Could the worthy launderers have read Plato's Phaedrus? 2 Cf. also L. ROBIN, Bud6 edition of Phaedrus, Notice p. LVI. 3 Cf. also Prolegomena I5 P. 209, 3ff. HERMANN: Plato uses dialogue because of its variety, which mirrors the variety of the cosmos.

38

T. G. ROSENMEYER

its flexibility in response to other speech stimuli, its variable versatility of Ao'yog, capacity for self-correction, the uneasy terms of its compact with truth; in short, everything that in the Cratylus is meant by the xvxklv and nowi1V of the Ao'yog. If, then, Pan, is the addressee of the final invocation, is there a chance that the prayer might have something to do with these major concerns of the dialogue as a whole? But let us return to the analysis of the specific difficulties of the prayer, and direct our attention to the notion of ;rAoftog. About the identification of wealth with aoq4ta there should be no difficulty'. Possible objections to the equation are demolished in the Eryxias (394A 5ff.) and elsewhere. We may take it for granted, then, that the wise is rich, that in the natural order of things he has a treasure, and that the prayer is designed only to transform a plausible hope into conviction2. But what is meant by the phrase ,uTwsf eQev I have so much of it as no one but the reasonable man p,qs ayetv, >>may should be able to bear and carry?<( The phrase has the ring of a riddle. AST'S Lexicon is not helpful; if I understand his entry he seems to suggest that in this passage the meaning of the two verbs is )>to carry along<: Let me have only so much gold as a awCFe?Cev can carry with him. That is not very enlightening3. In another context, Laws IO,884, 885 A (where a'yetv precedes peestv) AST proposes that the meaning is #snatch away<, i. e., *appropriate<.Perhaps it was Plato's intention that the riddle should upon first reading be construed as a paradox: may I have so much gold as only a modest and ungreedy man could steal. But it is important to remember that the wealth about which Plato is talking is not a material substance which can be transported bodily or snatched. Another passage in the Laws (8I7A 5-7) is more relevant4. The Athenian pictures the tragic poets as arriving in the city and asking the citizens: ))Shall we come to your city... at T')vnoh2cnv 9 ewoitv Te xat ayajysv, or what is your pleasure?# Here the two verbs are obviously not used in the sense of >snatch
' The identification cancels the distinction made by Phaedrus, 228A 3-4. Actually Phaedrus turns out to have been doubly wrong, in as much as the oration whose recollection he prizes has no share in wisdom. 2 The phrase nAov'atov 66 voylRotyt r6v aoqo'v is related to what follows as a premise is related to its conclusion. In the present case both premise and conclusion are put in the form of a wish or hope. But in spite of the optative mood the premise approximates closely to an axiom, a %otvovd$tov'juevov. 3 Emendation misses the point; HILDEBRANDT'S otov for 6'aov serves only to introduce a qualitative element which clashes with the quantitative implications of the verbs: K. HILDEBRANDT, tr. and introd., Platons Phaidros (Kiel 1953) 222. 4 The relevance of the passage is denied by W. H. THOMPSON, ed., The Phaedrus of Plato (London i868) 148 note ad loc. THOMPSON'S comments on the prayer, and his reference to Plutarch, De frat. amore 486E where aiyetv at' qpestv is used in the sense of #administer(t, do not seem to me helpful.

Plato's Prayer to Pan (Phaedrus279 B8-C3)

39

The notion intended is that of doing buaway# or even simply #carry<(. siness, of give and take, of setting up and taking down, of some kind of comare not synopound or commutative activity. The verbs cp1estvand a&yetv nyms, nor do they reinforce each other, but signify an operational tension'. They are thus particularly appropriate to the concept of a wealth which functions properly only if it is constantly negotiated and exchanged and circulated, the concept of a store of knowledge generated and communicated by friendly traffic and barter. But if that is so, and the prayer is directed at the negotiability of knowledge, then the specific problems with which the Phaedrus concerns itself begin to assert themselves also in the address to Pan. But first we must explore some further difficulties. We may take it for granted that xaAo'g,in this context, coincides with ao(po'g. But why does Plato say in the first place? What is the advantage of #beautiful# rather than ))wise<( appealing to Pan on the plane of beauty rather than intelligence? And furthermore, if the ev6otkv refers to the soul, or only to the soul, why does Plato not come right out and say Tvv pvXilv,particularly since in the rest of the dialogue, whenever the discussion touches upon the life of the soul, he shows no trace of bashfulness? I should think it is obvious that Plato, of all philowhen he means #soul#. sophers, says >)soul'# The contrast between E`cowev and gv6o6evis paralleled on two other occasions in the dialogue2. (I) 245 E: #Every body which has its motion from outside is soulless; but that which has its motion from within itself is animated((. In the world of concrete experience, gv6otev is ranged on the side of that which is more valuable, and 9$coSVv on the side of that which is less valuable. But it is also important to recognize that the things which have their source of motion '$cofEv constitute between them the necessary order of the physical universe. Without them the souls could not be effective. (2) 275 A, the story of Thamus and Theuth: the invention of the alphabet and the use of it )>will occasion forgetfulness in the souls of those who have learnt its use, for they will neglect the resources of their memory, and fall back on a trust in the external mechanism of writing, instead of trying to remember on their own strength, from within themselves.(( In the world of thought, as in the world of material motion, 5C(Osev points to the inferior, gv6okev to the superior. But
' E. B. ENGLAND, ed., The Laws of Plato (London 1921) cites Laws 8I7A and Phaedrus 279C as evidence for Plato's use of a familiar phrase in an unordinary sense. It should be added that when the combined meaning of the two verbs is Ato carry off booty4, aiyEtv normally but not always precedes Q'e8tv. Cf. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae vol. I coll. 56I ff.; also vol. VIII col. 7I7. -Plato's insight that there is a traffic which consolidates the gold controverts the teaching of Heraclitus, as typified by B go D.-K., that gold and goods are constantly interchanged. Cf. also Epistle 2, 314A 5-7. 2 I omit minor parallels, such as 247 B 7, wo no(Ev0scrat., where the distinction made between outside and inside the ov'eavo'g has little to contribute to our problem.

40

T. G. ROSENMEYER

precisely as in the previous context, the external, i. e., here, the use of the alphabet, cannot be eliminated. The Egyptian savant may contemplate a primitive paradise in which no letters are needed. But Plato knows better; he knows that communication in a large and complex society is impossible without literacy 1. Thamus, and Socrates, may get along without written accounts; but the fraction of humanity which benefits from their abstinence is pitifully small. More generally speaking the distinction between g'VoOsv and 9a$)n#ev is of course that between )>athome# and )>abroad<(2. The walls of the house are the most natural limit between `v6otev and 9aon)ev. The limit becomes especially important where a distinction is made between the insiders and the outsiders (the in-group and the out-group, to use the modern jargon). The Pythagoreans used to say that not everything should be communicated to all (Diog. Laert. 8, I5, citing Aristoxenus). So they handed down an oral tradition which was kept hidden from all outsiders. What happened to the terms esoteric and exoteric in connection with the Aristotelian writings is one of the disputed chapters of modern scholarship3. The traditional explanation which goes back to Plutarch and Aulus Gellius, and which is supposed to derive from Andronicus, fixes on the Pythagorean distinction between oral and written composition. Plutarch (Vita Alex. 7) records how Alexander hears about his teacher having published material concerning the deeper matters, and complains in a letter to Aristotle that now things in which he was instructed would be available to all. The contrast is between that which is listened to and that which is published. And again, the house of learning constitutes the limit. Ultimately, of course, both the so-called esoteric and the so-called exoteric material was written down, and the terms came to be identified with two different groups of writings. But to begin with the distinction is between oral communication and writing, or perhaps between two types of oral communication: the easy and leisurely association of like-minded souls within the house, in the relationship between teacher and students, sustaining conversation and argument; and the polished fixing or mirroringof this activity in works of art to
But note that Thamus' advocacy of illiteracy is aimed chiefly against education through handbooks (275 C 5) rather than against the recording of a living discussion. 2 One stray example: Euripides, Electra 73-5, Electra speaking to her farmer husband: 6' &atg0 OXeX; J xe&( 4tev aTc eQya Tav 6o'jotg Ot 6'
S$6VTQ8n1d,F1V. 1

#You have enough to do outside the house; I'll make things easier for you within.* 3 Cf. the latest analysis by W. WIELAND, in Hermes 86, 1958, 323ff.: the exoteric writings are those of Aristotle's works, perhaps inspired by a controversy with Isocrates, in which he employs rhetorical types of argument. Contrast F. DIRLMEIER, in his Aristoteles, Nikom. Ethik (Darmstadt 1956) 274-5, who maintains that by I4WTretxoI AoyoLAristotle means works produced outside of the Peripatos.

Plato's Prayer to Pan (Phaedrus279 B8-C3)

4I

be read to outsiders. It is, in other words, a Platonic or Academic distinction. For contrary to the Pythagorean taboo, and contrary also to the preferences of some of his later successors, Plato could never have brooked the idea of not communicating the philosopher's advances to outsiders. Note his condemnation of precisely this sort of secretiveness in the Sophists, Theaet. I52C1. The ancient commentators recognized this. Cf. Olympiodorus, Vita Plat. ch. 6 HERMANN: Plato gave up the Socratic type of association; but he also gave up the sejvodg oJyxog of the Pythagoreans, the policy of keeping his doors locked and the policy of av&dog Ea, and showed himself more sociable toward
all2.

To us, and equally to his contemporaries and followers, Plato is nothing if not a great writer. The view that the recommendations of the Phaedrus are against writing is no longer widely held3. The organistic rules given in the second half of the dialogue cannot possibly apply to oral discourse4. The structure of the written and recited work can be parallel to the thought structure which emerges from oral discourse, or which is implicit in it. At Phaedrus 276A-E a distinction is made between speech which is written in the soul, and writing which is its external e't'6c)Aov5. Writing, a written thing, is not as intrinsically valuable as the thought, particularly the dialectical thought, which underlies it 6. But writing is not for that reason to be condemned out of hand. If it is a worthy and responsible mirror of the structure of true thought and philosophy, it is to be recommended, and in fact indispensible. On this score Plato differs from Isocrates and Alcidamas. Isocrates also prefers the spoken to the written (or. 5, 25-27; also Letter to Dionysius 2-3), but his criterion is not that of truth but that of effectiveness, =Et0. For Plato, theoretically, the written can be as true as the spoken 7, but it can make
1 For this interpretation of the Theaetetus passage, see K. F. HERMANN, Gesammelte Abhandlungen und Beitrage (G6ttingen I849) 290 note 23. Epistle 7, 340-344 does not provide evidence to the contrary. Epistle 2, 3I2D and 3I4C expose the Pythagoreanizing imitator. 2 Contrary to Socrates who preferred to stay within the walls of his theater of action. By inducing Socrates for once to leave his closed circle and to venture out into a larger arena, Plato serves notice that the Socrates of the Phaedrus is a new Socrates, Platonized. 3 See Socrates' specific profession, 258D I-5: oVX aiuXQov avxo ye To yQa%9etv 2Ayovs . . . 2AA''X,IVO ... To w)7 xaA6g A2y8LVT8 xac yeq'etv 'AA'ata%X65g T8 xat mam6og. 4 It is significant that many of Aristotle's remarks in the Poetics are based on material in the Phaedrus. Cf. GUDEMAN'S Index, also F. PFISTER, )>DerBegriff des Sch6nen und das Ebenmass#, Wiirzb. Jahrb. I, I946, 34I-58. 6 This distinction follows on the heels of the distinction between QCt)#evand gv6ot8. in connexion with the issue of literacy, 275 A. 6 This is an old notion of Plato's; cf. Protagoras 329 A 2ff.: books cannot answer back or ask questions, and orators are like them. 7 For Plato's emphasis on dA?i7eta, note that in the great myth of the vision of the soul, comes to be representative of the realm of ideas as a whole, 248 B 6. d2A1tfeta

42

T. G. ROSENMEYER

that claim only to the extent that it is based on the spoken. In any case Isocrates' oral communication is represented largely by speeches; conversation plays no meaningful part in it'. After this excursion into the well-worn topic of exoteric and esoteric, let me sum up my argument, with due allowance for the uses of g$enOeV and 'V5oioev in the dialogue and for the natural meaning of those terms in Greek. I suggest that Plato is, in the invocation to Pan, dealing with the issue of communication. There is a body of knowledge, or at the least a technique of acquiring information, which is restricted to the soul of the wise man, and/or to the house in which the wise man teaches, namely the Academy. Within its proper habitat, Plato prays for constant development and perfection. But there is no reason why this knowledge or this technique ought not to be exported beyond the confines of the individual soul, or of the teacher's house. This must be done through writing as well as public speaking. But care must be taken that the writing and the mass communication remain in tune with and faithful to the knowledge and the convictions which are the original fruit of the philosophic discussion in the Academy2. Conversely, a knowledge which cannot be communicated broadly is not worth having, as we learn also in the Cave episode of the Republic. The prayer to Pan deals with the problem of publication in general rather than with the specific issue of Plato's use of the figure of Socrates. It is generally supposed that in the later dialogues Plato has some difficulty with the conversational form3, and it may be thought that the prayer is an attempt on Plato's part to vindicate his retention of that form. I prefer to think, however, that the prayer has nothing to do with any such formal crisis; that, in fact, we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude that the crisis ever occurred to Plato; but that the Phaedrus mirrors the varied mode of discussion conducted in the Academy (or, for that matter, in any gathering of intellectuals) at any time during Plato's career. The prayer applies to all the various phases of the dialogue form. And that means that any attempt to date the Phaedrus on the basis of the introduction of speeches is bound to fail.
1 Phaedrus' qualms about logography, 257C 6 (cf. also 278C 7), may well be representative of Isocrates' views about writing. Cf. also E. MIKKOLA, Isokrates, Helsinki I954, I87ff-, I9Iff. 2 No such summary or approximate reproduction as Phaedrus proposes to give of the speech of Lysias, 228D I-4, will do. As for my blithe assumption that the compositional and dictional pattern, and the themes discussed, reflect what went on in the Academy, I hasten to admit that H. CHERNISS'S scepticism concerning the program of the Academy cannot be controverted: The Riddle of the Academy (Berkeley 1945) ch. 3. By the same token, however, if there is any possibility of throwing light on the workings of the Academy, the illumination will have to come from the dialogues, and especially from the Phaedrus. 3 See W. JAEGER, Aristotle (Oxford I948) 26. Cf. however the suggestions of P. MERLAN,

JHS

8, 1947, 409-IO.

Plato's Prayer to Pan (Phaedrus279 B8-C3)

43

But is it not fanciful to detect in the term $co#ev - 'V60oev a reference, at least in part, to the Academy? To this one answer must be that it has always been recognized that the relation between Socrates and Phaedrus differs from the relations of other men with Socrates 1. Phaedrus clearly is a committed disciple rather than a friend or partner. But what is more, he is a disciple who has gotten something also from the competition, and who now comes home for a reorientation session. The spirit, and the forms also, are institutional rather than personal. The trees and the brook are symbols of the grove of Academus as the agora or the palaestra or even a private home could never be. And we should not forget the slip of the pen-or is it a slip? -where Plato has Socrates refer to himself and his associates as *followers of Zeus< (250B 7). This is the sort of hint which tells us how far the historical Socrates is from Plato's mind, and how the experience of the Academy colors the language as well as the issues of the work2. - gvtoOevrelation refers to an In any case, no matter whether the 'kCoAev individual soul or to a group of souls3, the prayer has nothing to do with the historical Socrates or the values for which he stood. It is Plato's own, appealing for help in his special task of disseminating in written form a philosophy which is to be worthy of the intellectual climate of his group, a climate which is of course a function of his own philosophic intentions. The prayer is thus a fitting pendant to that other invocation in the Phaedrus, the address to Eros (257AB), in which Eros is asked to be of help in the personal association which generates philosophy. Just as Eros presides over the more intimate oral AO6yog, so Pan presides over the larger Ao'yog, the external communication of ideas born within the charmed circle of enlightened souls. Read in this fashion, the prayer
1 That the prayer to Pan has some connection with the function of the Academy was seen by E. BICKEL, WPlatonischesGebetsleben*, Arch. f. Gesch. d. Philos. I4, I908, 535-54. BICKEL also cites earlier attempts to interpret the prayer. He himself undertakes to see in the prayer a reaction against what he calls the *Gebetsphilosophie der griechischen Aufklarung4. For the rest, his interpretation is the conventional one. 2 HILDEBRANDT op. cit. (above, p. 38 note 3) 54 suggests that at 250 B 7 Plato is thinking of himself and Dion. HACKFORTH op. cit. (above, p. 34 note 2) 93 note says: >Plato alludes to himself rather than to Socrates*. But the plurals at 25o B-C appear to point to a group experience rather than an individual commitment. It is true that the tradition (reliably?) connects the Academy with the worship of the Muses rather than of Zeus. But there is no clash between an official, ceremonial cult of the Muses on the one hand, and a spiritual allegiance to Zeus, such as is expected of the philosophic nature at 252 B. 3 The intricate reciprocity operating between the individual soul and the group in the increasing realization of knowledge and happiness, is most clearly portrayed in the key passage 276E 4-277 A 4. Though ostensibly the passage describes a process involving only two characters, the dialectician and the receptive soul upon which he operates, the operation is seen as one which is automatically transferable to any other qualified set of two characters. What is more, there is an implication that the fruitful and responsible career of the Ao'yot implanted in a receptive soul will be of help also to the planter himself: 276E 7 ... Aoyovg o' 'avTotg Tr6 re qv9evT'ravT flo?poetv ixavoi...

44

T. G. ROSENMEYER, Plato's Prayer to Pan (Phaedrus279 B8-C3)

to Pan furnishes a needed corrective to certain mistaken inferences which could be and have been drawn from Plato's discussion of written Ao'yog (277E-278A and elsewhere). Plato's proper conviction, as also confessed in the last message to Lysias (278BC), is that writing can be consonant with oral truth; that the outward things may be in agreement with the beautiful treasure within; and that even a modest treasure deserves to be spread and negotiated among all reasonable men, provided only that it does not come under the con1. trol of those, like Dionysius, who lack the requisite ccoTeqoavv In actual fact, the genuine treasure must always be beyond our grasp. Plato's cardinal and lasting conviction that no man is roCpo'o (278D 3-6) compels us to regard the equation of wisdom and riches as tantamount to the confession that only the god is rich. But though the philosopher is not rich, he has some modest means to show for his efforts. It is this limited quantity of gold which Plato wants to be distributed in an appropriate fashion. The use of the adjective xalo'g-where one might expect aopo'g or at least q 'aoq?og-servesnotice that the prayer, like the dialogue of which it is the conclusion, emphasizes the aesthetic aspect of the Ao'yog, and that means, among other things, its communicability and persuasiveness2. If they had no beauty, the products of the philosophic mind would remain hoards, buried in the house of leaming, instead of being converted into the living currency of significant thought3. University of Washington T. G. ROSENMEYER

1 Cf. 275sE I -3 where this provision is formulated as a fear that writings may fall into unqualified hands. Cf. also 276D 4 where the ao$p_ovesg are referred to as na'vres oi Tav?oTv 1XVo0 ,ETlO'VTeg. They are the ones who know what to do with a written record, who treat it as a means of communication rather than as a treasure in its own right. 2 Cf. 258D Ts xa' Is yeapev; The question introduces 7: T'r o'v o TQo'n0 TOV xaAcog the second part of the dialogue. Cf. also 259E I-6, where xaAog Ao'yog is said to be the function of 6tdavotaei6via to' dkq&%g. For the erotic overtones of the language, cf. above, P. 35 note i. In the Phaedrus ,dLaAogas an object of erotic and hetaeric desire is transmuted into an object of cosmic vision which is then, 252 E I f., transformed into educational energy. See also 255 C 6. As in the Republic and elsewhere, Plato teaches that friendship and companionship as such cannot supply educational values; the philosopher's vision must be interposed. Erotic xa'AAogand philosophical cadAAog, generating and in turn availing themselves of rhetorical and literary xa'AAog,transform the receptive soul. A beautiful thing stimulates the recollection of beauty; hence, if the )o.yog is beautiful, we draw closer to the realm, or at least one realm, of ideal knowledge. The rightful xaAAo; is thus something entirely different from the rhetorical 6o0'a with which it is contrasted 259E 4-260A 3. It is the task of the aco$pewv to distinguish the two.-For the function of beauty in communicating philosophic truth, cf. also the neo-Kantian remarks of G.A.LEvi, II bello nel Fedro platonico, Humanitas 7 (Brescia I952) 479-85. I owe this reference to Professor H. CHERNISS' Plato Bibliography in Lustrum 4, 1959, 135. 3 I am greatly indebted to Professors W. S. HECKSCHER, F. BROMMER, P. 0. KRISTELLER, A. D. NOCK, and L. G. WESTERINK who graciously answered my letters of inquiry concerning the use of Pan as a symbol of eloquence in the post-classical periods.