LOWENSTAM, STEVEN, Aristophanes' Hiccups , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:1 (1986:Spring) p.43 Aristophanes' Hiccups Steven Lowenstam S INCE ANTIQUITY Aristophanes' hiccups in Plato's Symposium have attracted attention.l Our earliest critics thought that the episode was intended to deride Aristophanes.2 Nineteenth-century schol ars concurred with this view or suggested, for various reasons, that Pausanias or Eryximachus was the object of ridicule.3 Although cer tain more recent critics still believe that the scene is merely "humor ous and dramatic" and consequently does not merit "a 'serious' explanation,"4 a greater awareness of the significance of dramatic action in Platonic dialogues generally has led to more careful consid eration of this passage. Subsequent reference is made to the following works by author's name alone: R. G. 1 BUR Y, The Symposium of Plato (Cambridge 1932); D. CLAY, "The Tragic and Comic Poet of the Symposium," Arion N.S. 2 (1975) 238-61; P. FRIEDLANDER, Plato, tr. H. Meyerhoff (New York 1958-69); G. GIERSE, "Zur Komposition des platonischen Symposion," Gymnasium 77 (1970) 518-20; w. K. C. GUTHRIE, History of Greek Philosophy IV (Cambridge 1975); E. HOFFMANN, "Uber Platons Symposion," Neue HeidelbJahrb N.F. 1941, 36-58 [reprinted separately, Heidelberg 1947]; A. HUG, Pla tons Symposion (Leipzig 1884); M. W. ISENBERG, The Order of the Discourses in Plato's Symposium (Chicago 1940); J. L. PENWILL, "Men in Love: Aspects of Plato's Sympo sium," Ramus 7 (1978) 143-75; G. K. PLOCHMANN, "Hiccups and Hangovers in the Symposium," Bucknell Review 11.3 (I 963) 1-18; S. R os EN, Plato's Symposium (New Haven 1968); A. E. TAYLOR, Plato: The Man and his Work (London 1926). There has been no adequate review of the literature since that of Bury (Guthrie 382 n.2, for instance, sends the reader to Rosen's scanty discussion of recent criticism [900). This lack and the need to clarify certain questions of methodology have prompted the somewhat full summary that follows. . 2 Olympiodorus (Vit.Plat.) obscurely observes that Aristophanes is mocked when the hiccups prevent him from completing the speech that he had begun. In a discussion of anachronism in Plato, Aristides (3.581 Behr) digresses to make the comment that the hiccups are introduced to ridicule the poet's (l7TATJUTIa. It is presumably to this passage that Wilamowitz (Platon I [Berlin 1920] 367 and n.2) is referring when he states that the ancient interpretation explained the hiccups as a result of the previous night's drinking; I take Aristides' Cl7TATJUTIa, like Plato's 1TATJUlLOvTJ" (185c6), to denote overeating, not overdrinking. Athenaeus 187c is more general in suggesting that Plato was striving for humor and ridicule, presumably of Aristophanes. He proceeds to speak of Plato's mockery of Agathon and Alcibiades. 3 Bury xxiif and Hug 70f review literature prior to the twentieth century; for the bib liography of the last thirty-five years, see Lustrum 4 (1959), 5 (1960), 20 (1977), and 25 (1983). Taylor 219. The first phrase is derived from Hug's note to 185c7: "Dieser Schlucken 4 des Aristophanes gehort zu den dramatischen und humoristischen Ziigen, mit welchen Platon seine Erzahlung belebt. ... " 43 LOWENSTAM, STEVEN, Aristophanes' Hiccups , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:1 (1986:Spring) p.43 44 ARISTOPHANES' HICCUPS George Plochmann was the first critic to present a comprehensive literary interpretation. He avers, in the first place, that, of course, the hiccups are a disharmony of the diaphragm, which in the Timaeus is listed as the point of separation between the respec tive seats of the appetitive and the ambitious parts of the soul. It is the maladjustment of bodily love and ambition that for Aristopha nes is the very point in question (10). This view has been justly questioned by Diskin Clay, who simply points out that "we do not know that Plato connected hiccoughs with the diaphragm" (259 n.8). Plochmann is more plausible, however, when he argues (0) that the speeches of Aristophanes and Eryxima chus are somehow transposed in their subject matter and treatment. Normally Aristophanes would be expected to talk about love in a very general way, making it a universal and perhaps blind passion; and Eryximachus would then talk about the phylogenesis of love, its possible mutations. Although Plochmann's reading may be too subtle and ingenious to account for the hiccups, it does suggest a useful method of approach ing the problem. For the aim of Aristophanes' seizure cannot be ascribed to Plato's desire merely to have Eryximachus speak before the comic poet: if an alteration of speaking order had been Plato's only aim, "he could have altered the table plan."5 Plochmann's interpretation is significant because it attempts to account for the way in which Plato has called attention to the change in the order of speeches. The actual hiccups, which the narrator of the Symposium had as cribed to 1rATJUf.,WIIT1t; ij V7rO TtIlOt; &u.ov 085c60, are interpreted by Plochmann as the result of "a surfeit of speeches" (8). Clay sug gests something similar when he notes that "as Eryximachus is deliv ering himself of his pompous and profound description of Eros, his unfortunate neighbor is hiccoughing, gasping, gargling, wheezing, snorting and sneezing" (241). This line of interpretation, which had already been suggested in less overdrawn fashion by Ast and others, has been properly questioned by RUchert and Bury, who argue that such rude antics seem out of place in so convivial a setting.6 But 6 Guthrie 382 n.2; cf. Plochmann 10 and Friedlander I 161. See Bury xxiii for discussion. Plochmann's presumably tongue-in-cheek conclusion 6 is that we require Socrates' philosophy to prevent the occurrence of hiccups. Oay speaks of the "rare comedy" (241) of the disturbances issuing from the comic poet but does not assert explicitly that its aim is ridicule of a previous speaker. LOWENSTAM, STEVEN, Aristophanes' Hiccups , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:1 (1986:Spring) p.43 STEVEN LOWENSTAM 45 while there can be no doubt that the scene is suffused with a wonder ful humor and jovial playfulness (e.g. 189 A l-c 1), it is unlikely that Plato is merely adding honey to the draught with such pleasantries (as suggested at Leg. 659E-660A): if the humor serves to draw attention to the incident, we cannot avoid pursuing the question why Plato created the episode itself. Hoffmann devised the fruitful method of comparing the initial speaking order with the actual sequence resulting from Aristophanes' disability. He suggests that there would have been a numerical pro gression in the topics of the original order: Phaedrus' single Eros, Pausanias' two Erotes, Aristophanes' three sexes, and Eryximachus' four areas of Medicine, Music, Astronomy, and Religion (the last three speeches, in Hoffmann's view, fall outside this scheme and are treated in a different way). He concludes that Plato rejected this order because his belief in numbers as symbols made it desirable that "Zwischen Einheit und ternarischer Ganzheit stehen Dualitat und quaternarische Proportionalitat (Aufteilung und harmonische Zusam menfUgung)" (44). This interpretation has never received acceptance: it has been questioned whether Eryximachus' four sciences are really comparable to three sexes and any number of Erotes, whether the doctor in fact discusses only four areas of knowledge, whether it is correct to exclude Agathon's speech from the order, and finally whether the number theory really functions in this dialogue at all.7 Gierse follows Hoffmann's method because, he asserts, all other critics have treated the hiccups in isolation without relating them to their most important consequence, the revised speaking order. Al though he ignores the contribution of Plochmann, Gierse correctly observes that any comprehensive interpretation must explain both the hiccups and the transposition of speeches. Further, unlike Hoff mann (who had argued that there was an intimate connection be tween the first four speeches), he believes that Agathon must also be brought into consideration. The result is that the original speaking arrangement of the first five speeches would have led to a perfect interlocking ring composition: Gierse finds thematic links between Phaedrus and Agathon (in, for example, their emphasis on essence, poetry, myth, and the gods' gifts), and also between Pausanias and Eryximachus (in their focus on two Erotes). Aristophanes is said to be unique but to have ties with both Phaedrus and Agathon. More over, this order is interlocking because Phaedrus and Eryximachus 7 K. Schilling, ZPhF 2 (1947) 193f (I am not, however, convinced by SChilling's arrangement of the speeches); Rosen 94 n.16, Gierse 519 and n.5. LOWENSTAM, STEVEN, Aristophanes' Hiccups , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:1 (1986:Spring) p.43 46 ARISTOPHANES' HICCUPS are lovers, as are Agathon and Pausanias. Gierse argues that Plato rejected this original order because it would have created "ein harmo nisch geschlossenes, fUnfgliedriges Kunstwerk" that excluded Socra tes, who is to present the correct interpretation of eros (520). The revised order of speeches no longer separates Socrates from his predecessors but provides a smooth transition. Although Gierse's insights are of interest, he presents Plato as a bungler who could not even conceal his mistakes: for, again, if Plato had determined that Eryximachus' speech should follow that of Pau sanias in order to prevent a premature ring structure, he could have changed the original seating arrangement. Three additional interpretations may be mentioned briefly. Rosen suggests that the hiccups are a "discreet and ironical reference by Plato to the importance in the Clouds of breaking wind" (126). He argues further that since Aristophanes cannot deliver his speech with out the medical aid of Eryximachus, poetry is shown to be subor dinate to science ("technicism"). This statement is immediately con tradicted, however, when Rosen asserts that Plato prefers Aristopha nes, "who is given a higher position in the dialectical ascent" than Eryximachus.8 Similarly Penwill (149) interprets the episode as indi cating "the dependence of the pOietes on the demiourgos, of art on technology"; again it is alleged that the "higher place in ascending order of encomia suggests that the creative artist's insights are supe rior to those of the materialistic technician."9 Both these readings are based on the assumption that the speeches are arranged in a quali tative progression, but this point has not been demonstrated; and in any case the motivations imputed to Plato are insufficient to occasion the drama of the hiccups and the revised speaking order. Guthrie, on the other hand, argues that the alteration of the se quence as a result of something so trivial as hiccups serves "to warn the reader that the order of the speeches is not significant but acci- Rosen 9lf. In fact, as we learn in Socrates' speech, the sciences can occupy a high 8 er dialectical position than poetry (208E5-210EI). Further, if poetry were dependent upon science, one would expect Aristophanes' speech to precede that of Eryximachus, not follow it. The confusion results from Rosen's failure to define properly the mean ing and relation of "subordination" in the order of speaking and the "dialectical as cent." Earlier he has questioned attempts to demonstrate a dialectical hierarchy (3lf and n.94), with particular criticism of Isenberg, whose interpretation of the hiccups he describes here as unclear (Rosen 91 n.6). In fact what Isenberg had argued was that the hiccups are intended to reverse the speaking order because "the function of Aristo phanes ... [is that he] criticizes and satirizes the previous speakers and brings their dis courses down to the lowest level of Becoming" (Isenberg 60). Although Penwill (I71 n.22) criticizes Rosen's treatment as "forced," it is unclear 9 how their interpretations differ. LOWENSTAM, STEVEN, Aristophanes' Hiccups , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:1 (1986:Spring) p.43 STEVEN LOWENSTAM 47 dental." 10 This is perhaps the least likely interpretation. What would a Platonic dialogue look like if the author inserted a dramatic action every time he wanted to indicate that something was not important? The actual order of the speeches is significant, as will be argued below. Guthrie, however, is arguing against the interpretation that the speeches advance qualitatively.ll One might agree that each of the first four speeches is an improvement over the last; but despite the esteem that Agathon's encomium has gained with Rosen (158-96) and Penwill (151-55), most scholars have found this speech to be the stumbling block to such an interpretation. Guthrie may be right in dismissing the idea of a qualitative progression, but it is unlikely that the hiccups episode can be explained as he does. At this point we may summarize the guidelines for further discus sion suggested by this survey of interpretation. First, the hiccups themselves cannot be treated in isolation but must be considered in relation to the transposition of speeches. Next, we need to explain why Plato did not merely alter the order but allowed the reader to observe the change. The method of Hoffmann and Gierse in compar ing the original to the revised order can be valuable in this respect. Finally, any discussion of the speeches should consider whether in general there is a meaning to the whole order of encomia. Is there, in fact, a significant progression in the speeches? I will argue here that Plato devised the original sequence of the first five speeches in such a way as to introduce topics in the precise order in which Socrates would take them up later. That is, the major subjects raised by the first speakers in their original order are ar ranged in the same sequence in Socrates' discourse when he treats the various means by which humans seek immortality.12 As such, since Socrates' survey moves from the lowest objects of desire to the highest, there is an ascending order not so much in the quality of the first five speeches as in the sublimity of their subject matter. This interpretation, however, requires two qualifications. The first is, I believe, obvious. No one speaker can be credited with intro ducing and focusing on sexuality. Since the first four speakers to 10 Guthrie 382 n.2. Cf Plochmann 10, who stands at the other end of the spectrum: "these hiccups are one of the surest indications in the dialogue that nothing is wholly casual .... " Friedlander (I 161) argues that the revised speaking order calls attention to Socrates' approaching turn to speak. 11 See Bury liii; cf Taylor 213, Rosen 31f and 91f, Guthrie 368 n.1, and Penwill 149. 12 Ploch mann (t 7) attempts to correlate the previous speakers to the philosophical hierarchy alone. His results, however, do not demonstrate an orderly progression; Rosen (31 n.4) points out that "Plochmann's characterizations of the speeches are ... seriously incomplete." LOWENSTAM, STEVEN, Aristophanes' Hiccups , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:1 (1986:Spring) p.43 48 ARISTOPHANES' HICCUPS some degree comprehend eros in sexual terms, each discusses coitus in both homosexual and heterosexual terms. (It is therefore interest ing from what follows that Agathon never explicitly alludes to sexual relations.) As far afield as their discourses go, they lead ultimately to conclusions about the relationship of the lover and the beloved, both sexually and otherwise. One might therefore say that sexuality is common property at the symposium. Similarly, physical beauty is a topic that is raised either implicitly or explicitly by all the speakers. The second qualification is that poetry is also a shared topic, not the express area of one of the early speakers. Each of the first five encomiasts quotes or alludes to poetic passages.13 Further, not one but two poets are present; and if we accept Helen Bacon's cogent interpretation of the end of the dialogue, there is a third: Socrates is the poet laureate.14 In fact we could argue that everyone at the sym posium is a poet: Socrates, through the mouthpiece of Diotima, argues that, just as everyone is a lover or desirer (Epaurr,~, 2050 1-8), so everyone who creates is a poet (1TO''11n1~' 20588-c9). By making a speech "from scratch" (EK T01) 1-'';' ~VTO~, 20589), each of our speakers thus becomes a poet.15 Further, each deals with inven tion, which Socrates connects with poetry.l6 While there is no need to insist on this latter point, it is clear that poetry, as well as sexuality, is treated by more than one speaker and should therefore be considered common property. Again, the order of topics introduced by the first speakers can be related to the organization of Socrates' argument for immortality. The last half of his speech is devoted to the three means by which humans seek immortality. The first approach, which is shared by animals, is that of procreation. Secondly, there are the seekers of fame, who are evaluated according to the degree of immortality their Phaedrus quotes Hesiod, Parmenides, and Homer (178B5-7, 11; 179B1) and 13 alludes to Homer and Aeschylus (I80A4-7). Pausanias cites a line in Homer (I83E30. Eryximachus mentions "the poets" (186E20. Aristophanes cites Homer (190B7). Aga thon quotes Homer, Sophocles, Euripides, and probably himself (I 95 D4f, 196D 1, 196E2f, 197c50. 14 H. H. Bacon, "Socrates Crowned," Virginia Quarterly Review 35 (1959) 415-30: "Does the end of the 'Symposium' tell us that, in the judgement of Dionysus, it is not Agathon or Aristophanes but Socrates who carries off the prize for poetry?" (424); the answer is that Socrates "wins the crown of tragedy and comedy from Agathon and Aristophanes" (430). There is a close connection between this passage, in which everyone who creates 15 something from non-being is called a poet (205B8-c9), and 209A3-5, in which poetry and invention are discussed as a means to immortality, although the latter passage is more restrictive. 16 Most obvious is Eryximachus, who least grounds his speech in poetry (supra n.13); he does, however, discuss the invention of medicine (186EI-3). LOWENSTAM, STEVEN, Aristophanes' Hiccups , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:1 (1986:Spring) p.43 STEVEN LOWENSTAM 49 deeds or creations attain. The ascending order that serves as the organizing principle in this passage proceeds from performers of no ble deeds (Alcestis, Achilles, Codrus) to poets and inventors (Ho mer, Hesiod) and, at the highest level, codifiers of law (Lycurgus, Solon). The third means to immortality is similarly hierarchical, inas much as the philosopher carries out a process of abstraction from those things that least partake of the Idea to the Form of beauty itself. The sequence of topics here is abstract physical beautY,17 (beau ty of soul,) the beauty of ethics and laws, beauty of sciences, the science of beauty, and finally the Form of beauty. The introduction of these elements by previous speakers can be traced as follows. Procreation cannot be identified with any particular speaker, because, as we have noted, all the earlier encomiasts to some degree equate eros with sexuality. Performance of noble deeds is the topic on which Phaedrus concentrates; indeed, two of the exem plars whom Socrates discusses in his speech (Alcestis and Achilles) are first mentioned by Phaedrus. Moreover, it is Phaedrus who first touches upon poetry by quoting Hesiod, Parmenides, and Homer, and by mentioning Aeschylus and Homer. It is better, however, as we have suggested, to consider poetry and invention common property, as in the case of sexuality, for each of the speakers deals with this topic,18 If we do not assign poetry and invention to anyone encomi ast, there is a slight break in order; this hiatus is reflected in the dialogue itself: we are told that there were other speeches between those of Phaedrus and Pausanias that are not recounted (I80cl-3). The next recorded speech is that of Pausanias, who is interested in attitudes towards homosexuality; he pursues this topic largely by discussing how various law codes deal with pederasty. The connection between Pausanias' speech and the comparable passage in Socrates' is emphasized by the repetition of an important phrase: Socrates asserts that the greatest accomplishment of the pursuers of fame is cppo vTJuiv TE Kat TT,V aAATJV apET-r1v, which is best achieved by the codi fiers of laws (208E5-209A8). He extracts these words directly from Pausanias' description of the lover's contribution to the beloved (I84D-El). The subject of Pausanias' speech, however, is not so much the reality as the semblance of justice and virtue. Guthrie Subdivided into appreciation of the beauty of one person, then of two, and finally 17 of all beautiful persons (211 c 1-4). This process of abstraction is to be assumed for all the steps; e.g. one, two, all excellent laws. That a subdivision is being discussed, and not a new area, can be deduced from 210A4-B6, where "two bodies" is omitted. For beauty of soul see n.22 infra. Cj. supra nn.13 and 15. 18 LOWENSTAM, STEVEN, Aristophanes' Hiccups , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:1 (1986:Spring) p.43 50 ARISTOPHANES' HICCUPS recognizes this in his discussion of the non-philosophical means to immortality (procreation and fame), the pinnacle of which is "good sense and justice in the political sphere perpetuated in constitutions and other laws" (his adept rendering of cJ>povTJulv TE Kat T7}V aAATJV apErr}v): The means to it [non-philosophical immortality] do not go beyond what in the Phaedo is designated "popular and political virtue," which is not true virtue and is practiced for the wrong motives (82A, 68B-69D). As in the Symposium, philosophical virtue is con trasted with it and compared to the state of the fully initiated (389). Although none of the encomiasts treats a topic as Socrates will, it is Aristophanes who introduces this true virtue and justice (ethics and laws) in contrast to their mere appearance. Unlike Pausanias, who attempts to demonstrate that his self-serving definition of sexual relations can be justified by an examination of existing law codes, the comic poet argues that human happiness can only be attained through the disavowal of aselgeia, akolasia, and asebeia.19 If the reasons for affirming this belief are less philosophical and less conducive to a Ta proper appreciation of KaAa E'7TI.TTJ8EvJ.UXTa (211c5), this point only indicates that we are dealing with a speech of Aristophanes and not of Socrates. Eryximachus not only discusses his own science of medicine but also treats the sciences of music, education, agriculture, astronomy, and religion. That he is dealing with fields of knowledge considered as sciences is made clear by his repetition of the word E1rW'rr}#LTJ (186c6, 187c5, 18885). In Socrates' speech the sciences are denoted by the same word (e.g. E1rW'TTJ,."wV Kill~, 210c7) as well as by J.UXBT,J.UXTa (211c6), a term employed by no other speaker in the Symposium. The use of E1rW'rr}#LTJ is limited to Eryximachus and Socrates. Agathon complains that all the previous speakers have addressed themselves to the consequences of desire, not to its actual nature (oM~ EUTl,V, 195A4).20 Clearly the level (but not necessarily its treat- 19 Cf. Ploch mann 13: "Aristophanes takes justice as the paramount virtue, treats it as a restraint, a holding-back of ambition to supersede the gods." Cf. Penwill 152: "Agathon is the first of the encomiasts to praise love for what he 20 is"; Isenberg 37: "The place of Agathon's discourse in the order of the speeches is due only to the fact that he has raised the discussion from the level of Becoming to Being, not to the superior intricacy of his dialectic." Isenberg arranges the seven speeches of the Symposium according to whether they deal with Being or Becoming, and whether their structure is "one-term," "two-term," or "three-term." The first four speeches are wholly concerned with the realm of Becoming, with Pausanias and Eryximachus employing two-term dialectics (Ouranian and Pandemian Eros) and Phaedrus and LOWENSTAM, STEVEN, Aristophanes' Hiccups , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:1 (1986:Spring) p.43 STEVEN LOWENSTAM 51 ment) is raised when the emphasis turns to essence. Agathon's discussion of the properties of desire begins with the premise that Eros is most beautiful (KaAAI.UTOIl ollTa, 195A 7). In other words, he introduces the science oj beauty (in Socrates' speech: TOV KaAov J,Ui (J-q/-Ul ilia 'Y1I4i atfro 'TEAEVTOJII 0 EU'TI. KaAOIl ).21 To be sure, Agathon does not touch upon any of the complexities that will be raised by Socrates; the point is that Agathon, like all the previous speakers, does broach a subject that only Socrates will be able to treat properly. Socrates' speech follows; and if we wish to grant him a role in his own speech, one can point out that he is the first to discuss the Form oj beauty. After the transcendent heights of Socrates' discourse there must be a descent; consequently Alcibiades' speech strikes a lower level. Since the latter relates how he saw beyond Socrates' phys ical ugliness and observed as never before the philosopher's inner beauty, we may assign beauty oj soul to him. Again, at this point we need not press for exact correspondence: when the philosophical hierarchy is recapitulated in 21IB5-D 1, beauty of soul is deleted: it may be coterminous with the other non-physical objects of desire.22 That Alcibiades' speech is, however, out of order may be indicated not only by his arrival after all the other speeches had been deliv ered, but also by his attempted demotion in the seating order when Agathon decides to sit by Socrates (223 B If). In sum, then, the topics of Socrates' speech are first raised by the previous encomiasts in a definite order: procreation (topic in com mon), performance of noble deeds (Phaedrus), poetry and invention (topic in common), codification of laws (Pausanias), abstract physical beauty (topic in common), [abstract beauty of soul (Alcibiades),1 ethics and justice (Aristophanes), sciences (Eryximachus), science of beauty (Agathon), [Form of beauty (Socrates)] Excluding Alcibia- .23 Aristophanes exhibiting only one-term. Agathon employs a one-term dialectic of Being, Socrates three terms (Being, Intermediate [-daimonl, and Becoming), and Alcibiades two terms (Intermediate [Socrates] and Becoming [AIcibiades]). 211c8-Dl. I follow the text of K. Dover, Plato. Symposium (Cambridge 1980), 21 although it is not required for my argument. For the manuscripts' Kai Dover reads ilia. A. J. Festugiere, Contemplation et vie contemplative selon Platon (Paris 1950) 165, 22 merges abstract beauty of soul with ethics and justice. In discussing the philosophical hierarchy, he asserts that "on commence par la beaute sensible, on passe ensuite it la a a beaute des ames, c'est dire au plan moral, invisible, immateriel, puis la beaute des sciences .... " On the other hand, beauty of soul may denote the entire philosophical hierarchy above beauty of body. Since A1cibiades describes Socrates' beauty of soul so skillfully, it is suitable for AIcibiades' speech to be given the position in this hierarchy that it in fact occupies. At the lower level of the hierarchy there is a perfect alternation between common 23 topics and subjects particularly treated by one speaker. This arrangement, however, is LOWENSTAM, STEVEN, Aristophanes' Hiccups , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:1 (1986:Spring) p.43 52 ARISTOPHANES' HICCUPS des, this order is identical to the seating plan: the speeches would have been given in this sequence if Aristophanes had not been aftlicted with hiccups. Since this speaking order makes perfect sense, the question is why it was changed. As a result of the transposition of speeches, the two poets, Aris tophanes and Agathon, speak directly before Socrates, and it is these three who will continue to talk until dawn.24 The connection between them is more crucial than that between Socrates and the first three encomiasts. For although Socrates rejects all the previous speeches (while appropriating material from each), he explicitly repudiates only these two: first he deflates the tragedian with the elenchus of his main argument, then he out-anachronizes the comic poet in dis carding his viewpoint.25 These refutations are not merely skirmishes in the battle between Poetry and Philosophy: we are faced with an odd situation, for at different points in the dialogue Socrates main tains both the views expressed by the poets. At the outset Socrates informs Aristodemus that he, Socrates, has beautified himself in preparation for visiting a beautiful one ('1f'apa KaAOJl, 174A9). He continues by citing (in a transposed word-order) the proverb that the good freely visit the good.26 Aristodemus demurs and asserts that in his own case the wise must be sought by the un learned. This repartee raises the very question with which the dialogue deals:27 are the good and beautiful approached and desired by those who have already become good and beautiful or by those who wish to be so? At this point we find Socrates maintaining the same view that Agathon will later in the evening, when he argues that Eros embodies happiness, beauty, justice, moderation, courage, wisdom, and poetry. (The philosopher may be alluding to this fact when he admits that he once held the view expounded by Agathon [201E3-5].) obviously composed less for symmetry than to avoid the need for three more speeches, which would have vitiated the present balance between the views of Socrates and those of the other speakers. What is important is that the main steps of the philosophical hierarchy be represented by speakers, as in fact they are. It should be noted that al though there is a correspondence between Agathon's speech, for instance, and the science of beauty, this need not indicate that Agathon has mastered the philosophical hierarchy up to this point. It is safe to assume that none of the banqueters-with the exception of Socrates-has ventured onto the philosophical ladder. Hoffmann 44, Clay 243. 24 25 205 D 10-206 AI, where Socrates avers that Diotima had dismissed Aristophanes' argument. For anachronism as a comic device, and the possibility that Plato is attempt ing to outdo the historical Aristophanes with this device, see K. J. Dover, "Aristopha nes' Speech in Plato's Symposium," iHS 86 (1966) 45. See A. Allen, "Plato's Proverbial Perversion," Hermes 102 (1974) 505-07. 26 27 Cf, FriedUinder III 7f.