Plato's "Lysis"

Author(s): Robert G. Hoerber

Source: Phronesis, Vol. 4, No. 1 (1959), pp. 15-28
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4181644 .
Accessed: 18/07/2011 19:05

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=bap. .

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.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Phronesis.

http://www.jstor.org
 Plato's Lysis
ROBERTG. HOERBER

THE views of Platonic scholars in Germany during the nineteenth

century strike contemporary critics at times as amusing; and their
remarks regarding Plato's Lysis frequently are no exception. In the
judgment of Ast and Socher, for example, the Lysis (as well as the
Charmides) is spurious; for, they declare, Plato could not have composed
a treatise containing so much sophistry and eristic.1
Fortunately other scholars of the same era dissent, holding to the
genuineness of the Lysis; because the dialogue, however, contains in their
opinion adolescentiaevestigia, they assert that the date of composition is
very early - around the rule of the Thirty Tyrants, or several years before
the death of Socrates.2 In part some Platonic students no doubt were
influenced by Diogenes Laertius, who relates Socrates' supposed criticism
of the lysis ;3 but in general the scholars of the nineteenth century relied
heavily on subjective judgment, observing traces of youthfulness also in
the Protagoras, Phaedrus and Parmenides.4
Critics of the twentieth century fortunately have not followvedtheir pre-
decessors in regard to the Lysis. No contemporary Platonist to mny
knowledge rejects the authenticity of the dialogue; A. E. Taylor in fact
states: "The extensive use of the Lysis in these books [eight and nine of
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics] of itself disposes of the misguided attack
made on its authenticity by some nineteenth-century scholars."5 Nor
do all recent critics regard the Lysis as necessarily one of the earliest
dialogues. Raeder and Ritter, for examiple, place the Lysis imnmediately
before the Symposium, Phacdo, Republic and Phacdrus; 6 Grube renmarks:
"The Lysis is probably later than most of the early dialogues." 7
The position of the Lysis accor(ling to these scholars is all the inore
Cf. George Grote, Plato and the Other Companionsof Sokrates(London 1 8 7 5) I SX5, wlho
cites: Ast, Leben und Schr4iten Platon's (429-34) and Socher, lJcber Platon's Schrfien
('37-444).
Ibidem, with references to Herniann, Stallbaum, Steinhart and Schleiermacher.
Diogenes Laertius 3.3 . Herniann and Stallbaum in particular accept the anecdote.
Although Schleierinacher rejects the story, he places the Lysis secon(d, as an appendix to
the Phaedrus.Cf. Grote, op. cit. (above, note i ) I 196, 5 i 5
4 Such is the opinion of Ast, who considers Plato to have comnposed the Protagoias at
the age of twenty-two, and of Schleiermacher; cf. Grote, op. cit. (above, note x) I 197.
5 A. E. Taylor, Plato the Man and his Work(London 1949) 64.
6 Cf. the table in Sir David Ross, Plato's Theoryof Ideas (Oxford i953) 2nd. Ed. 2.
7 G. M. A. Grube, Plato's Thought(London 193
5) 2 i 6, n. 2.

I 5
noteworthy in view of the current influence of stylometry in judging
such questions; for at least one aspect of style indicates some lengthy
interval between the Lysis and Phaedrus- according to Ritter hiatus
occurs between o.6i and E.85 per page in the Sophist,Statesman,Philebus,
Timaeus, Critias and Laws; in the other dialogues hiatus varies from
4g.597 in the Lysisto 23.9 in the Phaedrus.1Apparently students of Plato
are becoming aware that the Lysiscontains much more positive content
than adolescentiaevestigia and thus nmeritsa place higher in the ladder of
Plato's so-called "development, " in spite of certain criteria of stylome-
trists. A remark of Shorey on Lysis2 I 7c-d may be recalled at this point:
"A subtle digression on the meaning of presenceeither illustrates the
unity of Plato's thought or indicates that the Lysis is 'late'." 2 As the
statement of Shorey implies, no dogmatic conclusion may be reached
concerning the date of the Lysis; the content, however, is sufficiently
important to merit a separate study, particularly since periodicals during
the past years have allotted only very occasional space to the dialogue.3
The content of the Lysis, in fact, should appear on the basis of further
study to be more positive and comprehensive than several commentators
admit. Some students accredit the treatise primarily with negative results,
or only vague positive contributions. R. S. Bluck sees in the Lysis(as in the
Lachesand Charmides)"an indirect reply to the charge of corruption of
the young by showing the true nature of Socrates' discussions. "4 Ac-
cording to F. M. Cornford the purpose of the Lysis (plus the Laches,
Charmidesand Euthyphro)is apologetic, demonstrating "how far Socrates
was from 'perverting the young men' . .. At least one positive result is
indicated - the central Socratic principle that virtue can be reduced to
wisdom or knowvledge, with its corollary that all virtues are one." 5 In the
opinion of Grote "no l)ositive result can be found in it [Lysis]... all
the hypotheses broached are successively negatived. What is kept before
the reader's mind, however, more than anything else, though not
embodied in any distinct formula, is - The Good and the Beautiful con-
sidered as objects of love or attachment."6 To R. B. Levinson "the little
1 R. Hackforth (Plato's Phaedrus [Cambridge 1952] 3) gives the figures stated above;
but H. Cherniss(AJP78 ['9571 230) gives o.44 per pagefor the Statesman.
2 Paul Shorey, WVhatPlato Said (Chicago 19 34) 11 7.
3 Cf. Classical Weeklyso (19S6-7) 182: "Platonic Scholarship, 1945-55" by T. G. Rosen-
meyer, who lists only three studies on the Lysis, including only one very minor note in
English, the other two being in Italian.
4 R. S. Bluck, Plato's LfI and Thought(London i949) 62.
5 CAH VIG3ov-2.
6 George Grote, op. cit. (above i 5, note 1) I S26.

I6
Euthyphro,the short Lysisand Charmides,and the more extended Gorgias,
might fairly be described as attempts to present Socrates in action." 1
Shorey distinguishes between the dramatic and philosophic purpose of
the Lysis: "Its dramatic purpose, as we have seen, is probably to display
the difference between Socrates' treatment of the ingenuous boy Lysis
and his attitude toward a young eristic like Menexenus. It reads precisely
as if its philosophic purpose were to illustrate the mental confusion that
arises when necessary and relevant distinctions are overlooked or not
clearly brought out. If that is so, it may be compared, in this respect only,
with the second part of the Parmenides..." z While the comments cited
are true so far as they go, they do not penetrate the deeper philosophic
content of the Lysis.
A major stumbling block to the penetration of its deeper philosophic
content perhaps has been the failure to comprehend the unity of the
Lysis - that is, to observe the dramatic technique intertwined with,
and illustrating, the philosophic content. Several statements of scholars
reveal that frequently the interplay of the dramatic and philosophic has
not been observed - particularly when the dialogue is divided between a
simple discussion with Lysis and a subtle argument with self-assured
Menexenus; 3 when no relation can be observed between Socrates' first
discourse with Lysis and that withl Menexenus; 4 and when the debate on
the reciprocity of love is termed merely verbal.5 A closer study of the
interplay between the dramatic and philosophic should be helpful
in demonstrating the trend of thought in the Lysis and its positive
content.
The dialogue opens by mentioning three distinct places - the Academy,
the Lyceum and a recently-constructed palaestra located near the wall of
the city between the two groves. All three spots served as haunts for the
youth, the middle-aged and the old men. All three age-groups are
represented in the Lysis.At least Plato takes the trouble in the concluding
paragraphto refer to Socrates as a yspcovo6vnp(2 2 ,b); Lysis and Menexenus
are portrayed as in boyhood; and Hippothales and Ctesippus are mature
men. Any such locale as those mentioned mnightserve naturally as the scene
of a discussion on friendship, or rather on the circumstances under which
friendships develop; for these haunts were meeting places for males of all
I R. B. Levinson, In Defenceof Plato (Harvard University Press, Cambridge 1953) 61-2.
2 P. Shorey, op. cit. (above i 6, note 2)11 I 5.
3 P. Shorey, ibid. i i 4.
4 B. Jowett, The Woiks of Plato (New York: Tudor Publishing Co., no date) IV
4S.
5 George Grote, op. cit. (above i 5, note i) I 519.

I 7
ages in their more jovial moments. But why does Plato take pains to
include three different spots? Also is it merely accidental that the dialogue
includes three distinct age-groups? In the Menexenus Plato makes no
particular point of Socrates' age; yet Menexenus, who is ready for a
public career, must be several years older in the Menexenus (234a-b)
than he is in the Lysis; and the AMenexenus pictures Aspasia as still active. If
Menexenus were old enough to begini a public career during the life of
Aspasia, it does not seem that Socrates' age would be noteworthy when
Menexenus was several years younger - unless Plato had an ulterior
motive or a dramatic purpose in mind.'
In the description of the people at the new palaestra, moreover, Plato
speaks of three separate groups - some were playing outside; others
were amnusingthemselves at "odd and even" in the interior; a third groul)
gathers around Socrates (2o6e-2o7a). Also in his first discussion with
Menexenus Socrates offers three possibilities in defining a friend - he
might be the lover; he might be the beloved; or both may be friends
mtutually (212b-2 3c). In the ensuing discussion on the conditions of
friendships, again Socrates discusses three choices - likes, unlikes or
neutral (2 I4a-2 i 8c). It should be noted, furthermore, that in the scene
outside the palaestra three personae take part in the discussion: Socrates,
Hippothales and Ctesippus (2o3a-2o6d); and inside the palaestra again
three personae carry on the discourse: Socrates, Lysis and Menexenus
(2o6e-223b).2 Several additional triads, finally, may be observed:
Hippothales' compositions in praise of Lysis include i) prose, 2) verse, 3)
song (204d); Lysis is regimented in his activities i) outdoors, 2) at
school, 3) inside the home (2o8a-e); Socrates distinguishes i) the truly
wise, 2) the philosophers, who seek wisdom, 3) the, ignorant, whlo
suppose themselves wise (2 I 8a-b). The reoccurrence of triads appears to
be more than accidental; Plato seems to be giving the reader dramatic
clues to the philosophic content of the dialogue.
Th-econstant use of triads calls attention to the complexity of the topic.

Of course Plato could be using the term ykpovckvnp very loosely, as if to a younger
boy any person over thirty seems 'aged;" but the evidence as a whole, which we shall
cite, appears to favor an ulterior motive.
2 It is true that Menexenus is called away for a tinme;but Menexenus' temporary absence

allows the reader to concentrate on the silent and "invisible" auditor. Hippothales,
whose amorous obsession has stimulated the more intimate discourse with Lysis, and
who should be learning a lesson from the discussion, as Plato distinctly reminds the
reader (2 ioe). Menexenus returns only after Socrates has reminded the reader of the
application to Hippothales. Thus again three characters occupy the attention of the
reader at one time.

I8
pLXLotis not a single or simple subject; it is an ambiguous term containing
several facets. The connotation of cpLo4, cpt),eZvand ypLX?Lc
is exceedingly
extensive in Greek. Wilamowitz and Taylor miss the point when they
claim that pL?LZv denotes affectionate love, but not sexual desire, and that
cpLc and Ep&; have little in common.' Grube, on the other hand, is
correct in referring to ypLX'cas the more general term, which "includes
the love of parents or that between two youths like Lysis and Menexenus
here. . . But it must also include the passionate love of Hippothales or else
the whole introduction is singularly irrelevant. "2 Plato employs the
verb 'p&v in the Lysis (2o4b 6-7, c2, 2 2 I b 7) and the nouns `poq (2 o4b 8)
and ep(XGrTq (2i2b 8, 222a 7); and in the Lawvs(837a8-9) he refers to
ep)4 as excessive yLov. In the Symposium,furthermore, as Grube also
points out, yLaX refes to the affection of the 73axcca for the lover, as if
it were the equivalent of xapycraOaL(I 8 2C- i 8 3c); and in the same dia-
logue (I 79c) pLXtx includes epw4. It is clear, then, that the topic of the
Lysis is complex, including several phases of cpL?O.
May we take a further step? Is the use of triads a dramatic clue to the
number of facets contained in the term cpyL?Lo?
The citation from Grube
points to three phases of friendship: I) passionate love of Hippothales; 2)
love between two youths as Lysis and Menexenus; 3) love of parents for
their offspring. Such a threefold division of friendship harmonizes with
the construction of the first portion of the dialogue. Plato, it seems, is
telling the reader dramatically that the term covers three broad areas of
human relationship. There is first the passionate feeling of ?pCOq,which is
based primarily on selfish desire and on personal emotional drive; its
area is basically physical and frequently the situation is one-sided.
Exhibit A is the almost pathetic situation of Hippothales, who has been
annoying his associates with "poetic" and "musical"expression of his love
for Lysis, who apparently has not reciprocated; therefore the thwarted
lover is extremely self-conscious and shy in the presence of his darling.
Another area of cpLXao, by way of extreme contrast, is the affection of
parents for children. which is the direct opposite of selfish, one-sided,
passionate emotion and physical attraction. While Socrates' dicourse
with Lysis in the absence of Menexenus (and the "invisible" presence of
Hippothales) would be exhibit A of this type of cptX[x,exhibits B and C
would be the affection between Socrates and his followers (Hippothales,

1 U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, Platon: Beilagen und Textkritik(Berlin 1919) 11 68;

68; A. E. Taylor, op. cit. (above ig, note 5) 6;-6.
2 G. M. A. Grube, op. cit. (above X note 7) 9 2.
5,

'9
Ctesippus, Lysis and Menexenus) and between Mikkos and his auditors.'
All these relationships rise far above the unbalanced tckOo4 of Hippothales;
they rather aim unselfishly and seriously at the moral and social develop-
ment and improvement of the recipients. Between these two extremes of
LXL'cxthere is a third general area of human relationship; namely, that
which occupies the more jovial moments of life, when people are relaxing
and seeking companionships which prove to be pleasant and entertaining.
Again Plato depicts dramatically several exhibits of this intermediate type
of ypt)La: the pleasurable associations at the Hermaea, including the
games within and without the palaestra; the fondness existing between
Lysis and Menexenus and again between Hippothales and Ctesippus.
The approach to the early portion of the Lysis, here outlined, not only
harmonizes with Plato's constant employment of triads in the dialogue;
it also makes irrelevant the observations of Shorey and Jowett, who
attenmptto compare and relate Socrates' first discourse with Lysis and the
discussion with Menexenus.2 The first dialogue between Socrates and
Lysis is not to be compared primarily with the following discourse
between Socrates and Menexenus; it rather serves as a contrast to the
preceding scene, which describes the passionate emotion of Hippothales.
Plato thus employs Socrates' first discussion with Lysis to contrast the
sensible ypLt?a of the parents for Lysis with the erotic cpy' of Hippothales
for Lysis. Menexenus, therefore, is excused dramatically from the scene,
in order that the reader may be more conscious of the presence of the
silent and "invisible" auditor Hippothales, for whose benefit Plato recalls
the ypLXlX of the parents for Lysis. The dividing point in the dialogue,
then, occurs before Socrates' discussion with Menexenus; and the dis-
course between Socrates and Menexenus introduces another portion of
the dialogue. Plato indicates a division after 2 I G, furthermore, by insert-
ing an interlude (2 I I) 3 in which Menexenus returns and Ctesippus inter-

1 That seems to be the dramatic purpose of mentioning Mikkos by name and of the
compliment he receives from Socrates (204a).
2 Cf. above 17, notes 3 and 4, page 17.
3 The change of scene to the interior of the palaestra (2o6e) does not represent a break
in the dialogue. Plato employs the entire passage (2o6e-207d4)to portray the inter-
mediate type of cpLX: between the youths at the more jovial moments of the Hermaea,
and particularly between Lysis and Menexenus. The portrayal of the intermediate type
of 9L?)LAserves as a link between the passionate cqtMaof Hippothales, described previous-
ly, and the subsequent account of the ?2Lx of the parents for Lysis. Plato of course
utilizes both passages (2o6e-207d4 and 2I1) to depict the character of the participants;
and later we shall observe the connection between Plato's portrayal of character and the
philosophic content of the dialogue.

2o
rupts, andby alteringslightlythe topic of discussionto the circumstances
under which (p0XLcdevelops (2 I 2a).
The second portion of the dialogue, continuing the dramaticuse of
triads, elaborates several philosophic problems which necessarily are
associatedwith a discussionof PL)XLx.The firstproblem is the question of
reciprocity. Mustfriendshipbe mutual?Insteadof broachingthe problem
in a simple way, Plato develops the question in the form of a triad. Is the
friend the lover? Is he the beloved? Or must the relation be mutual?
A simpler form of presentingthe problem would have been the query:
"Does friendship exist when only one person experiences pLXtLO,or
must the attractionbe reciprocated?"But such a query would onlit the
triad, which Plato has developedso carefullyin the dialogue. As Socrates
does not broachthe problemin a simnpleform, so he does not answer in a
simple way. In fact he gives no answer, but leaves the impression that
none of the three premises (lover, beloved, mutual) may be true. It is,
however, only an impression, unsubstantiated by a closer scrutiny of
the dialogue.
As Grote notes, Socrates gives valid reasons for rejecting the first two
choices (lover and beloved), but not for casting out the third possibility
(mutual).2 The main argument against reciprocity is a linguistic difficulty
in the Greek language, which calls a person who is fond of wine or fond
of wisdom ypLXoLvo4 or pr06ocpo.3 Of course there is no mutual affection
implied in such terms; but neither are such terms parallel to ?cLXtx among
human beings. As the first two choices (lover and beloved) fall flat
because of situations which are not reciprocal, so the reader may infer
that a (pLDOLVO4or a (pLX6ao?o4does not represent true ?pLLczbecause
the affection is not mutual. In addition to the "straw man" of linguistic
difficulty, Plato gives two more glaring clues that the third choice
(mutual) is ons characteristic of true friendship. Socrates states toward
the end of the dialogue that it is necessary for a genuine and unfeigned
lover to be loved by his darling; at this remark Hippothales "turned all
sorts of colors" (22 2a-b). Also in his final summary of the dialogue (222e)
Socrates states only two choices (lover, beloved) as having been disproved;
by omitting the third choice (mutual) Plato hints that the reader slhould
not take seriously the purely linguistic argument against reciprocity as a
condition of true friendship. But what about the erotic emiotion of
I Cf. A. E.
Taylor, op. cit. (above I E, note g) 67; R. Robinson, Plato's Earlicr Dialectic
(Oxford I9S3) 49.
2
George Grote, op. cit. (above iS, note i) I Sog.
' Cf. A. E. Taylor, op. cit. (above i E, note 5) 68.

2 I
Hippothales toward Lysis? The reader may form by now his own con-
clusions. Hippothales' passion, described so clearly in the opening scene,
represents only one phase of qptMac.That his epoq is not reciprocated indi-
cates that such feeling must be distinguished from the highest type of
ycp , which is necessarily mutual.
The second problem concerning the circumstances under which Loc
develops, also employing the dramatic use of triads, involves concepts
which proverbs, the poets and physical philosophers made popular in
Greece. The terminology of the proverbs, poets and physicists, however,
is based on a dichotomous division into "likes" and "unlikes," and this
dichotomy had permeated Greek thought contemporary with Plato.
According to popular proverbs "like" draws near to "like; " and those of
"like" age rejoice together.' Poets could be cited for both theories
("likes" and "unlikes"), as Plato exemplifies in the Lysis.2 Also the early
philosophers held each opinion. The attraction of "likes," according to
the Atomists, is a law of the physical universe; and in the realm of
psychology Empedocles and the Atomists taught that sensation is based
on the affinity of "likes." In the physical realm, on the other hand,
Empedocles believed the attraction of "unlikes" to be the basic law
of nature; and Anaxagoras considered "unlikes" to be productive of
sensation.3
In the Lysis Plato develops from the popular dichotomy of "likes" and
"unlikes" a threefold division: "likes," "unlikes" and "neutral." The
arguments of Socrates against each of the three theories are noteworthy.
The theory of friendship developing among "likes"he disregards primarily
on the basis of utilitv and a narroNvinterpretation of terminology. In-
dividuals who are completely alike (that is, in the sense of the sane)
are not mutually attracted because one person has no need of another who
is his perfect image; he would be self-sufficient without such an alter ego.
Also the theory of "likes" may imply that evil men can be friends of other
I Plato, Symposiumigsb; Phaedrus 240C; Republic 329a. The sentiment is expanded in
the Gorgias ( ioa-d) and by Aristophanes in the Symposium(I91 (1-193d). Cicero records
the same proverbial sentinient in Cato Moior (par 7).
2 Lysis 2 I4a exemplifies a line of poetry (almost identical with T. W. Allen's Oxford
text in Odyssey17.2 i 8) in favor of "likes; " Lysis2 1 Ec quotes Hesiod in favor of "unlikes. "
3 Heraclitus and contemporary medical theories sided with the theory of "unlikes," as
we observe in the speech of Eryximachus in the Symposium(i86b- 88 c). A popular
summary of the views of the early philosophers is given by M. E. J. Taylor, Greck
Philosophy: An Introduction (Oxford 1947) 37-SO; J. Burnet presenits an extended
treatment in Early GreckPhilosophers(New York 1957). Cf. A. E. Taylor's comments on
Sicilian medicine and Heraclitus, op. cit. (above 5, g note S) 69.

22
evil individuals. We should note that Socrates' arguments, although logi-
cal to Lysis and Menexenus, are not necessarily detrimental to the theory
of attraction among "likes." Should the term "like" be interpreted in the
sense of "similar" instead of "same," the entire argument would fail;
for similar individuals may have opportunities of mutual assistance. The
main point of Plato, however, seems to be that utility is not the essence
of true friendship, particularly of friendship based on similarity of char-
acter. Plato would agree with Cicero that many people look for utility
in friendship, but real friendship should rise above utility.' Also the term
"evil" should not be interpreted too narrowly. "There is some honor
even among thieves," a modern maxim claims; and Plato in the Republic
(35Ic-352C) points out that there must be some justice even among
unjust people, or their joint enterprises never could succeed.
Socrates' argument against the theory of "unlikes" also is based on a
narrow interpretation of terminology, and hence leads to absurdities.
So long as "unlike" is interpreted as "opposite" instead of "different" the
theory would lead to the absurd conclusion that the wicked are friends
to the good, the enemy is a friend to the friend, and so forth. Plato of
course is cautioning the reader that a proper definition of terms is
essential to any discussion of a topic such as friendship. But he appears
to be doing even more. Proverbs, poetic expressions and statemnentsof
philosophers are comprehended only when the readers and auditors
interpret the terminology correctly.2 The terms "like" and "unlike"
should not be understood in an unrealistic sense of "identical" and "di-
rect opposite;" these terms shlould imply merely "similar" and "differ-
ent." Also the frequent association of friendship with utility is not
correct - at least not in the case of the highest type of ytMLOc.
Socrates' development of the third theory elaborates on the last point.
He assumes that the neutral is the friend of the good because of evil
and for the sake of the good. But again the essence of such friendship is
utility; a sick person, for exanmple, is attracted to the assistance of a
medical man. In society there are abundant such "attractions" based on
utility; and people at times label the individuals involvedI as "friends."
These associations arise primarily among people who are "dissimilar" or
"different," and the common bond is utility. Such attractions, Plato seems
to be warning, are not of the highest type of (pyL%.They appear closer to
the selfish erotic passion of Hippothales for Lysis, and are not necessarily
1 79-80, 26-32, 46, 5i, 1 00.
Cicero, Laeliusparr.
2
Cf. the contemporary misuse of such proverbs as "An exception proves the rule;"
and "Feed a cold and starve a fever."

23
mutual. Also Socrates' argument against the third theory points to two
deficiencies in suchl associations:
i) they originate from some evil (e.g., illness);
2) they are merely means to a superior goal.
By contrast, the highest type of ycLXxcis mutual (2 2 2a) and is developed
among individuals who are "similar" (not necessarily "identical"). Plato
gives another clue that "like" should be so understood by introducing
the ternmolXeZov in the concluding paragraphs- a term which has been
rendere(d "akin" (Shorey, Grote, Grube) and "congenial" (Jowett).1
We nmayalso translate ocxeZovas "related," implying that the term
"like" should be interpreted in the sense of "similar" instead of "identi-
cal." The dialogue of course ends in the usual apparent dilemma, because
Lysis and Menexenus fail to distinguish between oexetov and the narrowv
use of "likes" in the preceding discussion. The reader, however,
perceiving the distinction, may take a clue to the proper interpretation
of "likes" in its broader meaning of "similar" of "related" in character.
Plato's portrayal of the personalities in the dialogue substantiates the
clue contained in the term ocxetov; for in depicting the characters of
the Lysis he adheres to the principle that those "related" in personality
are friends. Plato indicates attraction between Lysis and Hippothales,
between Lysis and Menexenus, and between Menexenus and Ctesippus.
In each case Plato portrays the pair as "related" in sonmeaspect of their
personality. Plato, for example, accentuates the modesty of both Lysis
and Hippothales. Plato reveals the modesty of Lysis in the renmarkof
Hippothales that if Lysis does not readily join the discourse of Socrates
and Hippothales (that is, if he is too modest), Menexenus will call hinm
(2o6d). Wlhile Socrates and Ctesippus are discoursing, furthermore, Lysis
constanitly turns around to look at them and, although eager to join them,
does so only after Menexenus has entered the court and hiasseated himself
beside the two older men (207a-b). Hippothales, on the other hand,
first reveals his nmodestyby blushing when Socrates asks him who is his
beloved (204b). He also indicates this characteristic when he denies
having conmposedprose, verse and song in praise of Lysis, and then, after
admnitting indirectly such compositions, has Ctesippus tell Socrates
abotuttheir content (20oa-b). His modesty again caused him to object to
Socrates' charge that by praising the family of Lysis he actually is praising
himiiself.Hippothales further indicates this feature of his clharacter by
hiding from Lysis during the discuission between Socrates and the youths
1Slhorey, op. cit. (above i6, note 2) iX 7; Grote, op. cit. (above g5, note i) I 4.;
Grube, op. cit. (above i 5, note 7) 99; Jowett, op. cit. (above 17, note 4) 47.

24
(207b, 2 ioe), by entering the palaestra after Socrates and Ctesippus
(2o6d-e), and near the and of the dialogue by turning all sorts of colors
(22 2b).
Lysis and Menexenus, also depicted as friends, have related personalities
in that both possess the spirit of youthful rivalry. Lysis exhibits youthful
rivalry when he requests Socrates to relate the previous discussion to
Menexenus on his return within the palaestra (2 1 i a-b), no doubt wish-
ing Socrates to point out also to Menexenus that, hindered in manv
respects by his parents and still in need of teachers, he too should not be
proud. Plato illustrates the spirit of rivalry in Lysis and Menexenus,
furthermore, by the statement of Menexenus that the questions, who is
the older, nobler and more handsome, are matters of dispute betwveen
them (207c).
Ctesippus is the teacher (21 Ic) and uncle (2o6d) of Menexenus. Plato
depicts them as friends who share a contentious nature. This aspect of
Ctesippus' personality Plato portrays through Ctesippus' ludicrous de-
scription of the extent to which Hippothales has deafened his hearers'
ears with the praise of Lysis in prose, verse and song (2o4c-d), and
through his humorous summary of the content of Hippothales' composit-
ions (2osc-d).' Also the hesitancy of Socrates to continue the discourse
with Menexenus in the presence of Ctesippus indicates that Ctesippus
is a person who might be aroused easily (2 IIC). The contentious nature
of Menexenus is clear from the quer) of Lysis (2 I ib): oux oiaOa 06tL
?pLatLXo4 TarLV;
The internal evidence of the Lysis, including the symbolic use of triads
and the depiction of charater,2 thus points to a contrast between a hiighest
type of pBt)L,which is nmutualand arises among "similar" or "related"
natures, and the lowest class of so-called y?ckLoc,which is utilitarian and
originates among "dissimilar" people - with an intermediate state of
(pL?XM, reserved for moments of enjoyment and jovial relaxation.
In addition to the internal evidence, moreover, the interpretation
outlined above harmonizes with the evidence external to the Lysis -
Plato's Phacdrus,Symposiumand Lawvsand Aristotle's NicomacheanEthics.
I Prof. T. S. Duncan has called our attention to the sinmilaritybetween the personality

of Ctesippus in the Lysisand Ctesippus in Homer's Odyssey(2 0. 2 8 7- 3 19).

z For similar dramatic techniques in Plato cf. R. Hornsby. "Significant Action in the
Symposium,"ClassicalJotrnal 52 (1956-7) 37-40; R. G. Hoerber, "More on 'Action' in
Plato's Symposium," ClassicalJournal 52 (1956-7) 220-1; W. C. Helmbold and W. B.
Holther, "The Unity of the Phacdrus," UJniversityof California Publications in Classical
Philology i4. (Berkeley 1952) 387-417; R. G. Hoerber, 'Plato's Euthyphro,"Phronesis3
(I 9 58) pp. 9 5-1 07..

25E
 Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics viewed friendship as a triad closely
parallel to the threefold division we have described: i) based on the
good; 2) based on pleasure; 3) based on utility.' The parallelism be-
tween Aristotle and the Lysis, as seen by a modern Platonist, is wvorthy
of citation: "The comnmon bond between the parties to associations
which are all correctly called 'friendships' may be different in different
cases. Or rather, the bond between the 'friends' nmayin ever) case be
association in the pursuit of some 'good,' but goods are of very different
levels of value, and 'friendships' may exhibit the same variety of levels.
Thus it may be that the full and perfect type of friendship can only be
based on common pursuit of the true supreme good, and in that case
friendship in the fullest sense will only be possible between 'the good.'
Yet there may be associations between men founded on the comnmon
pursuit of some good inferior to the lhighest (e.g. the conmmnon pursuit of
the 'business advantage' of both parties, or the common pursuit of anmuse-
ment or recreation). These would be 'friendships' but of a lower type,
and it may quite well be the case, e.g., that a good mzanand a bad one, or
even two bad men nmaybe associated in this inferior sort of 'friendship.'
Such, at least, are the lines on which Aristotle in the Ethics develops a
theory of friendship in which all the conflicting points of view of our
dialogue are taken up, and each is found to have its relative justification. "2
In the Symposium and the Phacdrus a threefold division of ykxtocis also
al)parent. Highest in the scale is the ctXLAo of philosophers, which
inspires them in their search for truth; such 2X'Lcc of course is nmutual
and develops among individuals sinmilarin character; Plato describes this
type in Diotinma's discourse in the Symposium and in Socrates' second
speech in the Phaedrus.Lowest in the scale is the erotic y6kL[oof passion;
it frequently is one-sided instead of mutual and may develop amlong
"unlikes;" it is depicted by Pausanias (as "Pandemian") in the Symposium
and by the speech accredited to Lysias and the first speech of Socrates in
the Phaedrus. Between these two extrenmesexists a ytXLoc to which Plato
merely alludes in both dialogues; Pausaniasin the Symposiumportrays it as
superior ("Uranian") to erotic passion, and in the concluding pages of
his secon(dspeech in the PhaedrusSocrates describes such 9p,XL'x as inferior
to that of philosophers, yet not without benefits.3
I NicomachcanEthics, books 8 and 9, especiall) i6 a 6-b 3 2.
2
A. E. Taylor, op. cit. (above z , note 5) 73-4.
3 Cf. Phaedrus 2S6a-e and Symposium 8o0- i85c for the allusions to the intermiiediate
type of friendship. In the words of G. M. A. Grube: "In both [Symposiumand Phacdrus]
we find the same three kinds of lovers" (op. cit. [above i 5, note 71 13).

26
 The parallelism, furthermore, between the interpretation of the Lysis,
outlined above, and Plato's last pronouncement on the subject of friend-
ship in the Laws constitutes a most weighty piece of evidence. There
(836b-842a) Plato distinguishes three types of yptL?X :I) the highest
develops among "likes" and is mutual; 2) the middle is a mixture of
types one and three; 3) the lowest exists among "unlikes," is based on
need or utility, and frequently is not mutual. The terminology and triad
of the Laws, so close to that of the Lysis, merits citation in part (836eg-
837b8):
A0. ... rrv -Trq (p)<LOC4
Ie XOaL?CTLOUp[Laq0'4X XCL TCOV XeyO[LeVCe)V ep(.YT(V
q9u66v L8ZZV &VMy%xaOV, 'CEL 'au3a 1aEaL
TL; 8TMvo'TMo&X 8vo y&p
ovTXMUoc, xocLC OCLpYov Tp(ToV(X)Xoe18o0, ?V 6VOO 7epLXcPOVTCtaCV
I , A ,
&7tQpav xx~ax6tzoov , mt
&7tEpyzc(renx. C .
KA. rIcoq;
AO. (D'LovpL?V 7OtU XCCXO05ov4LOLOV 01Olp XO& &pz'r7v xoXLiaov Lc
yptoV8 Cxu t
Xa'LO8'o ,6LVOV 'roU7CrE7tXOUT' o4, aVXVcoV OVTZ _VL OTV
81 eXXTEpOV yLyVYJTrL ccpo8pov, 9pOCzT COVOpL(XO4LeV.
KA. 'OpOCk.
AO. FLXkLLX
ToLvuv L V Q7t0 eVtVtL& 6Va XOayL XXi ro xOLVOV ou

;Our e
7,OXXM'YU; ?iV,
4%a a8' ex -riiv 04LOLV ftzpo6 Te XOCLXOLVY)]86X f3ou
.lzcXTn ae; ex TOUT(A)V Y'CVO[1eVj 7p(G)60V FLEV Xoc(XVuOCLFV OU pM8LOC,TL *COT
3OUtAOT C(V OCxT6 yVeGaOCLTOV TptTOV epcOzT tL, CtWv TOUTOV 7ZCtLTX EL4

ITOVOCVTLOV U7T oc(pQpoLV eiyXtoQ[LVOq W7rOpEL Tou tSeV XCXCU,OVtO6; t6 Wpaq

n
.,taO~ OC1)rD
M7r'rCOU,
Aa,
8~
al-l,inyOpe:-OOVO4.

The triad of CyLX'L,manifest in the Laws and Lysis and present also in the
Symposium and Phaedrus, may serve as a clue in determining the unity of
the Phaedrus. Platonists before the days of Hermeias and to the present
time have tackled the knotty problem of determining the primary theme
(or themes) of Plato's Phaedrus; love, rhetoric, the Good, tO 7rpiOTOV xoaOv
- individually and in various combinations - have received support from
some scholars.' Without being so rash as to pretend a final solution, we
may venture a suggestion concerning a possible clue. Both love and
rhetoric play prominent parts in the Phaedrus; but love, as we have
1 Cf. HermiaeAlexandriniin Platonis PhaedrumScholia, edited by P. Couvreur (Paris i 9).
go
Of modern authors L. Robin points out objections to regarding either love or rhetoric
as the prime theme; cf. L. Robin, Pheldre(Paris 193 3) chapter three of the Introduction.
Recent remarks on the problem are advanced by R. Hlackforth, Plato's Phacdrus(Cam-
bridge 1952) 8-12; W. C. Heimbold and W. B. Holther, op. cit. (above 2 , note 2)
387-417; and by G. E. Mueller, "Unity of the Phaedrus," Classical Bulletin 33 (1956-7)
50-3, 63-S, %vhoseems to miss the point.

27
observed, is an ambiguous term, comprising a threefold division of
yXca. The Phaedrus merely alludes to the middle type, but stresses the
two extremes; it contraststhe erotic passionof an epoxar (the speech
attributed to Lysiasand Socrates' first speeclh)to the highest type of
philosophicattraction(Socrates'second speech). Two modesof discourse
likewise, are described: current rhetoric and dialectic. The unity of the
dialogue may lie in the proper contrast and conmbination of these four
areas.Thatis, Plato maybe stressingdramaticallythe fact thatphilosophic
pLXLais impossible without true dialectic; while current rhetoric is
suitable to yp?Moof the lowest type, the passion of an rprr ,~who is led
by selfish motives without serious considerationfor ultimate truth. To
Plato, then, the dialogueforms a unity, just as the highest type of yCXLOX
and philosophic dialectic are one and the same pursuit; one cannot
exist without assumilng the other.
College, Fulton, Alissouri.
Westminster

28