Jodi Newman

CLASS 114

Hardy

February 28, 2002

In reading "Aristophanes and Homoeroticism: Admiration or Scorn?" what struck me as a problem was the interpretation of Aristophanes’ speech in Plato’s Symposium. Aristophanes’ speech is taken and interpreted in a serious manner, with the explanation that since the other speeches were serious, so his is as well. In viewing the speech in this serious light, I feel that the social commentary behind the speech is lost, and a one sided view is therefore expressed, losing a vital part of the story’s meaning. I feel that in viewing Aristophanes’ views on love in this manner, the message is being read without taking in mind the narrator, leaving out a fundamental function of Aristophanes’ speech in Symposium. To gain a better understanding of Aristophanes’ views on homoeroticism and love, it is important to understand that the words are coming from the famed comic, and therefore a certain degree of satire must be expected. This can be seen through the speech itself, as well as through Plato’s characterization of Aristophanes’ and through what is known of the historic writer.

First, in looking directly at the speech, I argue that although Aristophanes’ is not degrading homosexual love, his speech is meant as a comment on the social pretenses in which the homosexual love is acceptable and the absurdity of societies reactions to it. This view is textually supported in lines 191e-192a in Symposium where after Aristophanes talks about the great males who are homosexuals, he comments that, "There’s good evidence for their quality: as adults, they’re the only men who end up in government." Given that homosexuality and government were matters that only concerned the upper class, as described in footnote 192a in Symposium, politicians were seen as less manly for their admitted homoerotic relationships, as seen by the use of this as a comic device in Aristophanes’ works (footnote 192a, Symposium). Therefore, this comment in the speech on love is supposed to be a social comment on how although homoeroticism was a characteristic of the upper strata of society, it was also used as a source of degradation if it was a life choice. Aristophanes’ is therefore using satire to point out the paradox of the situation- only rich men practice homosexuality, but they are also ashamed by it if more then a physical game. If Aristophanes’ speech was read in a serious manner, the meaning of this comment is lost. Mazer’s interpretation is therefore not wrong, but just short sighted in uncovering the whole meaning of the speech.

Furthermore, Aristophanes points out that he hopes that a certain degree of humor emerges from his speech, "my worry is not that what I am about to say might be funny- that would be a bonus and typical of my muse" (line 189b, Symposium). This directly tells the audience that a certain degree of humor and satire would be included, prompting the reader to look for it. Also, Aristophanes is known for his satire and political commentary (Henderson, 12). Aristophnaes felt his comedies were essential to any democracy, and therefore saw himself as the identifier of the, "shortcomings of the status quo by holding it up against a vision of things as they ought to (or used to) be" (Henderson 12). This view of Aristophanes’ would lead to the conclusion that his speech would serve the same purpose, with satire used as a device to show the obvious but point out its problems through satire.

Based on both the text of the speech and what is known about Aristophanes’ it is therefore more beneficial to read Aristophanes’ speech on love in Symposium in a satirical manner. Although Mazer is not wrong in her interpretation on Aristophanes’ ideas on homoerotic love, more is exposed and more is said if the speech is read not seriously, but satirically, contributing to a greater understanding of Aristophanes’ message and meaning.