Plato’s dedication to writing dialogues has always struck me as curious. He does not write as does Aristotle and is far from the form of writing that has become commonplace in academia today. Instead of merely putting forth his arguments he describes details that are often passed over as mere rhetorical devices. This is in my view a mistaken approach. Throughout his works we see emphasis on imagery, on myth, and on method of speech. It is not merely incidental that the characters in the symposium sit in a certain order or that Cephalus walks out of the scene at the beginning of the republic, every word of Plato is to be read with care. Much literature exists on this and following in this sprit I aim to interpret the beginning of the Phaedrus, which one might say is atopos, I focus here on analyzing the events that unfold prior to Phaedrus recounting the speech of Lysias to Socrates (Phaedrus 227-232).
Through the course of the Phaedrus, Plato teaches us that speech cannot be sufficient at attaining the truth but that it is philosophy which reserves this ability. This I believe is the same reason that the Good is related to us in the Republic via an allegory and it is for the same reason that the Phaedrus relates to us in myth. The beginning of this text I argue is a myth in itself, it is not related as are other myths but it is itself a myth. In this myth it becomes clear that Plato relates to us the entirety of the arguments that the remainder of the Phaedrus makes explicit.
The very beginning has already brought up the inquiry that is at stake: “Where have you been? And where are you going?” (227a) The question is not only about Phaedrus’s walk, but one that runs deeper – it anticipates the theme of the later palinode which asks where the soul has come from, and where it may be lead. This is discussed in detail by Pedro Mauricio Garcia Dotto who argues that “the opening lines encapsulate the major themes of the dialogue”. Where is it though that Phaedrus comes from? From Lysias, and Lydia’s is a writer of speeches. This is telling since Lydia’s stands for the written. Phaedrus who has come from him is charmed by his logos, he is under a spell – he possesses the logos, but the logos has not yet become his – it is at this time at most an image of what it is in itself. Socrates comment immediately proceeding the speech testifies to this – he says, “I followed your lead, and following you I shared your Bachhic frenzy.” (234d). Like Phaedrus who was a puppet for the speech of Lysias, Socrates too at this time is placed under the spell. He has heard the logos, but it is not his – he has not engaged in philosophy. The imagery is telling; Phaedrus hides the speech he has obtained under his cloak symbolizing his status as a mere puppet. The speech is not outside of him, he has learned it – memorized it, and yet it is not inside of him either – he has not understood it. To have understood would mean that he be capable of making it for himself, he has not been educated by the speech yet. It is like the book that he has hidden – this is the education of the rhetorician who speaks but does not know that of which he speaks.
Their walk symbolizes the movement of the soul. They have moved outside of the walls of the city, here Socrates leads Phaedrus away from his false education – from Lysias, as the self moving soul in the later dialogue is led by rhetoric.
It is also fascinating that the two cross the river. The river is the symbol of becoming. When they first cross the river it is welcoming, this is not always the case. The river must stand here for the sensible, the soul must step into the river in its journey – but it cannot be swept away by it. Consider the black horse in the later myth – it interacts with the sensible, the appetites and it must do so – for only in this does it identify the beloved. Likewise, the philosophical soul is not tasked with denying the sensible but is touching it appropriately. Notice here how Phaedrus is lucky that he is barefoot today but Socrates is always so. This highlights the difference between the philosophical soul, that of Socrates and the soul of Phaedrus which is only temporarily ready when it is being guided by Socrates.
The trees make evident all that we have been speaking of. To really impress that the myth that the opening serves we must demonstrate that it is eros which centrally factors the guiding of the soul – since this is what the remainder of the dialogue concerns. Notice now the setting, there is a plane tree and besides it is the chaste tree, suggesting that eros is to be purified, not merely indulged. The trees are alive as is eros and the journey of the soul. It must be approached dynamically – organically, through philosophy and not through writing which is static. The place itself emphasizes this, it is sacred,, Socrates says first that it belongs to the nymphs and that the cicadas are of the muses, this depicts the grasp that the muses have on the soul. Consider also that the dialogue comes to an end with a prayer to Pan, the god of Place.
This line of interpretation is reinforced when we are to consider the brief exchange concerning Boreas. Phaedrus inquires as to whether Socrates thinks the myth to be true, to which he responds telling us what the wise would say of it and then abandons that in the pursuit of finding out for himself. Uncovering merely the myth it seems is superficial if it does not engage the soul, which is how Phaedrus relates the speech of Lysias. Again here is found a deeper reading, Oreithyia symbolizes beauty and she is taken, violently, by Boreas – who represents the negative type of Eros – a distinction which is made explicit later in the dialogue. Socrates, the philosopher, internalizes the myth here he inquires, “I want to know not about this, but about myself: am I a monster more complicated and swollen with passion than the serpent Typho, or a creature of a gentler and simpler sort, to whom Nature has given a diviner and lowlier destiny?”
There is much more that can be said and much more that I have to say, but for now – this suffices.