Skip to content

The Symposium: on the masculine feel

February 9, 2012

John Piper has his say on the “masculine feel” of his Christian masculine God of his Christianity.  Scot McKnight looks for “a Greek word for ‘masculine’ (andreia)” in the New Testament and can’t find it.

Then Suzanne gets us thinking even more:  “Andreia [in Greek] is rather a necessary quality for all men and women.”  Maybe it’s time we listened.

Here’s from The Symposium of Plato.  In Greek (as translated into English by Benjamin Jowett), we hear Aristophanes talking, finally taking his turn.  This is about the supreme God, the masculine feel, and humans, both males and females.  [Pay close attention to the Greek words]:

Aristophanes professed to open another vein of discourse; he had a mind to praise [the God of] Love [ἔρωτος] in another way, unlike that either of Pausanias or Eryximachus.

Mankind [ἅνθρωποι]; he said, judging by their neglect of him, have never, as I think, at all understood the power of [the God of] Love [ἔρωτος]. For if they had understood him they would surely have built noble temples and altars, and offered solemn sacrifices in his honour; but this is not done, and most certainly ought to be done: since of all the gods [θεῶν] he is the best friend of men [ἀνθρώπων], the helper and the healer of the ills which are the great impediment to the happiness of the race. I will try to describe his power to you, and you shall teach the rest of the world what I am teaching you. In the first place, let me treat of the nature of man and what has happened to it; for the original human nature [τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν] was not like the present, but different. The sexes [τὰ γένη τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων] were not two as they are now, but originally three in number; there was man, woman [ἄρρεν καὶ θῆλυ], and the union [κοινὸν] of the two, having a name corresponding to this double nature, which had once a real existence, but is now lost, and the word “Androgynous” [ἀνδρόγυνον] is only preserved as a term of reproach. In the second place, the primeval man [ἀνθρώπου] was round, his back and sides forming a circle; and he had four hands and four feet, one head with two faces, looking opposite ways, set on a round neck and precisely alike; also four ears, two privy members, and the remainder to correspond. He could walk upright as men now do, backwards or forwards as he pleased, and he could also roll over and over at a great pace, turning on his four hands and four feet, eight in all, like tumblers going over and over with their legs in the air; this was when he wanted to run fast. Now the sexes were three, and such as I have described them; because the sun, moon, and earth are three;-and the man [τὸ ἄρρεν] was originally the child of the sun [τοῦ ἡλίου], the woman [τὸ θῆλυ] of the earth [τῆς γῆς], and the man-woman [τὸ ἀμφοτέρων] of the moon [τὸ δὲ ἀμφοτέρων], which is made up of sun and earth, and they were all round and moved round and round: like their parents [τοῖς γονεῦσιν]. Terrible was their might and strength, and the thoughts of their hearts were great, and they made an attack upon the gods [τοῖς θεοῖς]; of them is told the tale of Otys and Ephialtes who, as Homer says, dared to scale heaven, and would have laid hands upon the gods. Doubt reigned in the celestial councils. Should they kill them and annihilate the race with thunderbolts, as they had done the giants, then there would be an end of the sacrifices and worship which men offered to them; but, on the other hand, the gods could not suffer their insolence to be unrestrained.

At last, after a good deal of reflection, Zeus discovered a way. He said:

“Methinks I have a plan which will humble their pride and improve their manners; men [ἅνθρωποι] shall continue to exist, but I will cut them in two and then they will be diminished in strength and increased in numbers; this will have the advantage of making them more profitable to us. They shall walk upright on two legs, and if they continue insolent and will not be quiet, I will split them again and they shall hop about on a single leg.”

He spoke and cut men [ἀνθρώπους] in two, like a sorb-apple which is halved for pickling, or as you might divide an egg with a hair; and as he cut them one after another, he bade Apollo give the face and the half of the neck a turn in order that the man [ἄνθρωπος] might contemplate the section of himself: he would thus learn a lesson of humility [ὁ ἄνθρωπος]. Apollo was also bidden to heal their wounds and compose their forms. So he gave a turn to the face and pulled the skin from the sides all over that which in our language is called the belly, like the purses which draw in, and he made one mouth at the centre, which he fastened in a knot (the same which is called the navel); he also moulded the breast and took out most of the wrinkles, much as a shoemaker might smooth leather upon a last; he left a few, however, in the region of the belly and navel, as a memorial of the primeval state. After the division the two parts of man, each desiring his other half, came together, and throwing their arms about one another, entwined in mutual embraces, longing to grow into one, they were on the point of dying from hunger and self-neglect, because they did not like to do anything apart; and when one of the halves died and the other survived, the survivor sought another mate, man or woman [γυναῖκα καλοῦμεν] as we call them, being the sections of entire men or women [γυναικὸς —εἴτε ἀνδρός], and clung to that. They were being destroyed, when Zeus in pity of them invented a new plan: he turned the parts of generation round to the front, for this had not been always their position and they sowed the seed no longer as hitherto like grasshoppers in the ground, but in one another; and after the transposition the male generated in the female [τοῦ ἄρρενος ἐν τῷ θήλει] in order that by the mutual embraces of man and woman [ἀνὴρ γυναικὶ] they might breed, and the race might continue; or if man came to man [ἄρρην ἄρρενι] they might be satisfied, and rest, and go their ways to the business of life: so ancient is the [Love] desire [ὁ ἔρως] of one another which is implanted in us, reuniting our original nature, making one of two, and healing the state of man [ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις].

Each of us when separated, having one side only, like a flat fish, is but the indenture of a man [ἀνθρωπίνην], and he is always looking for his other half. Men who are a section of that double nature which was once called Androgynous [ἀνδρόγυνον] are lovers of women [φιλογύναικές]; adulterers are generally of this breed, and also adulterous women who lust after men [γυναῖκες φίλανδροί]: the women who are a section of the woman [γυναικῶν γυναικὸς] do not care for men [τοῖς ἀνδράσι], but have female attachments; the female companions [τὰς γυναῖκας] are of this sort. But they who are a section of the male follow the male [ἄρρενος … τὰ ἄρρενα], and while they are young, being slices of the original man, they hang about men and embrace them [φιλοῦσι τοὺς ἄνδρας], and they are themselves the best of boys and youths, because they have the most manly nature [ἀνδρειότατοι ὄντες φύσει]. Some indeed assert that they are shameless, but this is not true; for they do not act thus from any want of shame, but because they are valiant and manly, and have a manly countenance [θάρρους καὶ ἀνδρείας καὶ ἀρρενωπία], and they embrace that which is like them. And these when they grow up become our statesmen, and these only, which is a great proof of the truth of what I am saving. When they reach manhood they are loves of youth, and are not naturally inclined to marry or beget children,-if at all, they do so only in obedience to the law; but they are satisfied if they may be allowed to live with one another unwedded; and such a nature is prone to love and ready to return love, always embracing that which is akin to him. And when one of them meets with his other half, the actual half of himself, whether he be a lover of youth or a lover of another sort, the pair are lost in an amazement of love and friendship and intimacy, and would not be out of the other’s sight, as I may say, even for a moment: these are the people who pass their whole lives together; yet they could not explain what they desire of one another. For the intense yearning which each of them has towards the other does not appear to be the desire of lover’s intercourse, but of something else which the soul of either evidently desires and cannot tell, and of which she has only a dark and doubtful presentiment. Suppose Hephaestus, with his instruments, to come to the pair who are lying side, by side and to say to them, “What do you people want of one another?” they would be unable to explain. And suppose further, that when he saw their perplexity he said: “Do you desire to be wholly one; always day and night to be in one another’s company? for if this is what you desire, I am ready to melt you into one and let you grow together, so that being two you shall become one, and while you live a common life as if you were a single man, and after your death in the world below still be one departed soul instead of two-I ask whether this is what you lovingly desire, and whether you are satisfied to attain this?”-there is not a man of them who when he heard the proposal would deny or would not acknowledge that this meeting and melting into one another, this becoming one instead of two, was the very expression of his ancient need. And the reason is that human nature was originally one and we were a whole, and the desire and pursuit of the whole is called love. There was a time, I say, when we were one, but now because of the wickedness of mankind God has dispersed us, as the Arcadians were dispersed into villages by the Lacedaemonians. And if we are not obedient to the gods, there is a danger that we shall be split up again and go about in basso-relievo, like the profile figures having only half a nose which are sculptured on monuments, and that we shall be like tallies.

Wherefore let us exhort all men to piety, that we may avoid evil, and obtain the good, of which Love is to us the lord and minister; and let no one oppose him-he is the enemy of the gods who oppose him. For if we are friends of the God and at peace with him we shall find our own true loves, which rarely happens in this world at present. I am serious, and therefore I must beg Eryximachus not to make fun or to find any allusion in what I am saying to Pausanias and Agathon, who, as I suspect, are both of the manly nature, and belong to the class which I have been describing. But my words have a wider application-they include men and women everywhere; and I believe that if our loves were perfectly accomplished, and each one returning to his primeval nature had his original true love, then our race would be happy. And if this would be best of all, the best in the next degree and under present circumstances must be the nearest approach to such an union; and that will be the attainment of a congenial love. Wherefore, if we would praise him who has given to us the benefit, we must praise the god Love, who is our greatest benefactor, both leading us in this life back to our own nature, and giving us high hopes for the future, for he promises that if we are pious, he will restore us to our original state, and heal us and make us happy and blessed. This, Eryximachus, is my discourse of love, which, although different to yours, I must beg you to leave unassailed by the shafts of your ridicule, in order that each may have his turn; each, or rather either, for Agathon and Socrates are the only ones left.

2 Comments leave one →
  1. February 9, 2012 12:56 pm

    Somehow reading Plato’s Aristophanes in the Greek reminds me of reading Matthew’s Jesus in the Greek (quoting the Greek Genesis — here’s the English Standard Version of that):

    [Chapter 19 of the gospel]

    4 He answered,

    “Have you not read that

    He who created them from the beginning made them male and female [ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ],

    5 and said,

    ‘Therefore a man [ἄνθρωπος] shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife [τῇ γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ], and the two shall become one flesh [οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν]’?

    6 So they are no longer two but one flesh [δύο ἀλλὰ σὰρξ μία]. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

  2. Suzanne McCarthy permalink*
    February 9, 2012 1:01 pm

    I have always loved this passage because it is so playful, and so evocative of the intense attachment expressed in sexuality, as a relationship between two people regardless of gender. It so well represents that yearning to be one, to melt into one another, that goes beyond the sexual union, but is usually expressed in sexuality.

    But in other ways, it is rather provocative, since it grounds homosexuality firmly in the masculine and patriarchal society. It calls into question many of our presuppositions about homosexuality in our society today.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: