Next Article in Journal
Secularization, Modernity, and Belief Shaping: Night School and Livelihood Education at the Chinese YMCA in the Early Twentieth Century
Next Article in Special Issue
The Adaptation and Development of the Proclean Notion of Κατάβασις: From Proclus to Maximus the Confessor
Previous Article in Journal
The Kojiki/Nihon Shoki Mythology and Chinese Mythology: Theme, Structure, and Meaning
Previous Article in Special Issue
This Strange Creature: Plato and Conversion Experiences
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Drunk with Wisdom: Metaphors of Ecstasy in Plato’s Symposium and Lucian of Samosata

by
Eva Anagnostou-Laoutides
Department of History and Archaeology, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia
Religions 2021, 12(10), 898; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12100898
Submission received: 30 August 2021 / Revised: 23 September 2021 / Accepted: 28 September 2021 / Published: 19 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Conversion Debates in Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity)

Abstract

:
Among the metaphors that Plato employed in the context of his apophatic approach to philosophical truth and its experience, inebriation stands out in the Symposium, where famously Socrates is compared to Dionysian figures such as the Silenoi and Marsyas (215a-c), and to frenzied Corybantic dancers (215e; 216d; 218b). The contentious nature of inebriation as a proxy of ecstasy is aptly exemplified in Euripides’ Bacchae, where Pentheus, the distrusting new tyrant of Thebes, is keen to associate the Bacchic trance with common intoxication and lewd behavior; although Plato tries to anticipate such criticisms by repeatedly stating in the Symposium that Socrates is sober and of sound mind (e.g., 214a; 216d; 219d; 220a), later authors are unforgiving of his metaphorical style, which is deemed inconsistent with Plato’s stern disapproval of poetry. Among such later authors, Lucian of Samosata deserves closer attention apropos his treatment of inebriation as a most confusing and inappropriate metaphor for philosophical inspiration. Despite the jocular style of his dialogues, Lucian’s depiction of Platonic inebriation powerfully sketches a deep intellectual crisis that especially afflicts the young people of his time. Thus, Lucian sheds unexpected light on a less prominent chapter of Plato’s reception during the Roman imperial period.

1. Introduction: Philosophical Conversion and “Platonic Inebriation”

Conversion, the result of undergoing an altered state of consciousness,1 was invariably described in Greek antiquity as ecstasy or divine possession,2 and was linked with philosophy rather than religion.3 For example, in the Platonic dialogues Socrates is typically portrayed as preoccupied with abstract notions, meditating for hours in full public view, lost in his thoughts,4 often talking to himself,5 yet candidly musing on his frequent divine visitations (his daimonion).6 Hence, Socrates becomes an easy target of fifth-century BCE Athenian anti-intellectualism,7 spearheaded by Aristophanes.8 This, however, does not alter that fact that our encounter with the secrets of the cosmos or the divine is typically marked by an inexpressible sublimity, often accompanied by feelings of amazement, fear, and awe. Thus, Plato’s descriptions of the inner experience of philosophy are full of lacunae, such as, for example, in the Symposium, where Diotima resorts to a series of negatives to convey the ineffable uniqueness of Beauty (Symp. 211b2). Still, Plato needs to relate in some way the experience of philosophical conversion and thus he coins a number of metaphors for which he draws on culturally familiar states of altered consciousness (see n.1). One of the most controversial metaphors that Plato employed to describe philosophical conversion is inebriation,9 notably expounded in the Symposium (e.g., Symp. 218b3-4), which relates the events that took place during a splendid banquet organized by Agathon in 416 BCE to celebrate his dramatic victory at the Lenaia festival of that year. The guests are some of the most prominent politicians and members of the Athenian intellectual elite of the time, including Socrates and aristocratic bad-boy Alcibiades.
The latter is, in fact, portrayed as gate-crashing the party (212d4-7) and proclaiming himself symposiarch (213e9-10) before urging everyone to drink beyond measure (213e10-214a4). In addition, when prompted by Eryximachus to participate in the competition of praises about Eros which the guests have chosen as their pastime, Alcibiades resolves to deliver a praise of Socrates, comparing him to the Silenoi and Marsyas,10 figures typically associated with Dionysus,11 who, according to Euripides’ iconic representation of the god’s cult, drove his followers “out of their mind,”12 stinging them with bouts of mania.13 Framed by repeated references to drinking in the dialogue–that of the other guests (176a7-c4),14 of Poros in Diotima’s tale (203b6-8), and notably, Alcibiades’ undeniable state of intoxication, as he is supported by a flute girl into the banqueting hall (212d-e)–Socrates’ philosophical inspiration is described as an ecstatic experience that leads his audiences to shock and amazement (215d6):15
ἐπειδὰν δὲ σοῦ τις ἀκούῃ ἢ τῶν σῶν λόγων ἄλλου λέγοντος, …, ἐκπεπληγμένοι ἐσμὲν καὶ κατεχόμεθα.
For whenever one listens to you or to someone else relating your speeches…we are all astounded and possessed.
Alcibiades has first-hand experience of this frenzy, which he compares to the orgiastic rites of the Corybantes (215e1-4):16
ὅταν γὰρ ἀκούω, πολύ μοι μᾶλλον ἢ τῶν κορυβαντιώντων ἥ τε καρδία πηδᾷ καὶ δάκρυα ἐκχεῖται ὑπὸ τῶν λόγων τῶν τούτου, ὁρῶ δὲ καὶ ἄλλους παμπόλλους τὰ αὐτὰ πάσχοντας.
For when I hear him, I am much worse than those partaking in the Corybantic dances; and my heart leaps and tears run down my eyes at the sound of his speeches, and I have witnessed many others undergoing the same experience.
Alcibiades’ statement focuses on the difference between appearance and essence and aims to dramatize the effect that Socrates has on his audiences: despite being rather unassuming in appearance (remember the joke at the start of the Symposium about Socrates looking unusually polished; 174a10-11), always joking with his interlocutors (175e8 and 215b9: Ὑβριστὴς εἶ; cf. 219c6; 221e4; 222b1 and especially 216e5-6: εἰρωνευόμενος δὲ καὶ παίζων πάντα τὸν βίον πρὸς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους διατελεῖ), and claiming to know little (216d4-5: καὶ αὖ ἀγνοεῖ πάντα καὶ οὐδὲν οἶδεν), in reality, he is a deft speaker that leads his interlocutors to aporia before guiding them to change their views and way of life (cf. 215b4-5; 216e3-8). Thus, indeed he resembles the Silenoi statues that look ridiculous at first (221e2-3: φανεῖεν ἂν πάνυ γελοῖοι τὸ πρῶτον) with their deceptively ludicrous exterior though inside them they hide statues of the gods. Similarly, an inexperienced and thoughtless person might at first laugh at Socrates’ speeches (221e7-222a1: ὥστε ἄπειρος καὶ ἀνόητος ἄνθρωπος πᾶς ἂν τῶν λόγων καταγελάσειεν) before realizing that his are the only speeches that make sense.
Nevertheless, Socrates’ philosophical inspiration, defined by Alcibiades as mania and baccheia (218b3-4), and supplemented by testimonies of the philosopher’s reputation for being able to quaff considerable amounts of wine,17 could easily render him misunderstood, even ridiculed, as being “under the influence” of wine, as being drunk.18 Despite repeated references in the Symposium to Socrates’ sophrosyne (214a; 216d; 219d), reinforced by Alcibiades’ assurance that “no-one has ever seen Socrates drunk” (220a6-7: Σωκράτη μεθύοντα οὐδεὶς πώποτε ἑώρακεν ἀνθρώπων), Plato’s bold attempt to defend Socrates backfired. “Platonic” or “Socratic inebriation” attracted considerable criticism by later readers for confusing philosophy, expected to unpack abstract notions in plain language, with the literary endeavor, typically associated with florid, figurative language. Thus, Plato was accused of misguiding students of philosophy who were unable to appreciate his penchant for metaphors. My paper, then, discusses the negative reception of Plato’s metaphorical style in the Hellenistic and early Roman imperial periods before focusing on the rejection of Socrates’ baccheia by Lucian of Samosata, the second century CE satirist who offers a refreshing insight into the renewed debate of his time on philosophical conversion.19

2. Critiquing Plato’s Metaphorical Language

As Millet has pointed out,20 Socrates was already a controversial figure in his own time, and shortly after his death, a plethora of Socratic literature came into circulation, including “the so-called Sokratikoi Logoi or ‘Conversations with Socrates’, which was possibly as much hostile to Socrates as in his favour.” Among this wide variety of approaches to Socrates, Plato’s metaphorical attempts to articulate Socratic wisdom came in for criticism. Hence, in the fourth century BCE, Dicaearchus shows little sympathy for Socrates’ discursive tropes and accuses Plato of encouraging people to engage with philosophy at a superficial level (Phld. Hist. Acad., PHerc. 1021, col. 1.1-21):21
ἐνδεχ̣όμενον [οὖ]ν ἐπα-
νεκαίνιϲε πάλιν ἅπαϲαν
τὴν τέ[χνην κ]αὶ κ[α]τὰ τοῦτ’
ἐν τοῖϲ [λ]γοιϲ εὐρυθμίαν
προϲέλαβεν, αὐτὸϲ δε πολ-
λὰ ἐπειϲηνέγκατο ἴδια· [δι’] ὧν
– εἴ γε διὰ παρρη[ϲίαϲ δ]ε[ῖ c. 3 ] ̣ ̣
νόμενα λέγειν–πλ̣[εῖϲτον]
δὴ τῶν πάντων [ἀνθρ]ώ-
πων οὗτοϲ εὔξηϲε[ν φ]ιλο-
ϲοφίαν καὶ κατέλυϲ[ε]ν· προ-
[ετ]ρέψατο μὲγ γὰρ ἅπ[α]νταϲ
ὡϲ εἰπεῖν ἐπ’ αὐτὴν διὰ
τῆϲ ἀναγραφῆϲ τῶν λ[ό]-
γων, ἐπιπολαίωϲ δὲ καί
τ̣[ι]ναϲ ἐποίηϲε φιλοϲοφεῖν̣
φανερὰν ἐκτρέ[πων] εἰ̣[ϲ]
τριβή[ν]. φηϲὶ δ’ ὅτι [c. 7 ]
[c. 5 ]εκαιπ ̣ ̣ ̣[c. 2 ] ̣ ναϲ[(.)]
[c. 2 ] τ̣οῦ φιλ[οϲ]οφεῖν ἐνδ[ό]-
ϲιμον ἔδω[κεν], ….
…possible ... he (sc. Plato) renewed again the entire art and, in doing so, added good rhythm in his dialogues.22 He himself introduced many things of his own. [Through] these–if (I may) say ... frankly–indeed [most] of all humans this man strengthened and broke up philosophy. For he urged everyone so to speak to practice it by writing down his dialogues. However, he also made some people practice philosophy in a superficial manner, leading them astray to a visible practice. Additionally, he (sc. Dicaearchus) says that ... [he] gave an impulse for practicing philosophy...
This mode of criticism was still operative in the first century CE; thus, while focusing on the use of metaphors in speeches, Demetrius, the author of On Style,23 offers aspiring writers the following advice (Eloc. 80):24
Ἐπὰν μέντοι κινδυνώδης ἡ μεταφορὰ δοκῇ, μεταλαμβανέσθω εἰς εἰκασίαν: οὕτω γὰρ ἀσφαλεστέρα γίγνοιτ̓ ἄν. εἰκασία δ̓ ἐστὶ μεταφορὰ πλεονάζουσα, … οὕτω μὲν γὰρ εἰκασία γέγονεν καὶ ἀσφαλέστερος ὁ λόγος, ἐκείνως δὲ μεταφορὰ καὶ κινδυνωδέστερος. διὸ καὶ Πλάτων ἐπισφαλές τι δοκεῖ ποιεῖν μεταφοραῖς μᾶλλον χρώμενος ἢ εἰκασίαις, ὁ μέντοι Ξενοφῶν εἰκασίαις μᾶλλον.
When a metaphor seems bold, convert it into a simile for greater safety. A simile is an expanded metaphor…The result is a simile and a less risky form of expression, while the former was a metaphor and more dangerous. This is why Plato’s use of metaphor in preference to simile is thought risky. Xenophon by contrast prefers the simile.
Socrates’ superior state of mental agility and the process of acquiring it cannot be communicated and/or experienced precisely; this, however, as Halliwell pointed out, leads prospective students of philosophy to confusion and uncertainty about the nature of truth to which ecstasy is expected to lead.25 Thus, as Platonism came in for increasing criticism in the Hellenistic and early Imperial periods, the boundaries between metaphor, experience, diction, and reality in the metaphor of Socratic intoxication became a locus for satire.26
This wariness around philosophical discourse and its inspirational effect27 reflects a heated debate in the centuries after Plato,28 a debate that does not always differentiate between Plato, Socrates, and their followers. According to pseudo-Longinus, Caecilius Calactinus, who wrote at the time of Augustus,29 was among several later readers who were especially critical of Plato’s inebriation metaphor (Subl. 32.7; = Caec. Cal. fr. 150): 30
ὅτι μέντοι καὶ ἡ χρῆσις τῶν τρόπων, ὥσπερ τἆλλα πάντα καλὰ ἐν λόγοις, προαγωγὸν ἀεὶ πρὸς τὸ ἄμετρον, δῆλον ἤδη, κἂν ἐγὼ μὴ λέγω. ἐπὶ γὰρ τούτοις καὶ τὸν Πλάτωνα οὐχ ἥκιστα διασύρουσι, πολλάκις ὥσπερ ὑπὸ βακχείας τινὸς τῶν λόγων εἰς ἀκράτους καὶ ἀπηνεῖς μεταφορὰς καὶ εἰς ἀλληγορικὸν στόμφον ἐκφερόμενον. ῾οὐ γὰρ ῥᾴδιον ἐπινοεῖν̓ φησὶν ῾ὅτι πόλιν εἶναι δεῖ δίκην κρατῆρος κεκερασμένην, οὗ μαινόμενος μὲν οἶνος ἐγκεχυμένος ζεῖ, κολαζόμενος δ̓ ὑπὸ νήφοντος ἑτέρου θεοῦ, καλὴν κοινωνίαν λαβὼν ἀγαθὸν πόμα ϰαὶ μέτριον ἀπεργάζεται.᾿ νήφοντα γάρ, φασί, θεὸν τὸ ὕδωρ λέγειν, κόλασιν δὲ τὴν κρᾶσιν, ποιητοῦ τινος τῷ ὄντι οὐχὶ νήφοντός ἐστι.
However, it is obvious without my stating it, that the use of metaphor, like all the other attractions of style, always tempts writers to excess. Indeed, it is for these passages in particular that critics pull Plato to pieces, on the ground that he is often carried away by a sort of Bacchic possession in his writing into harsh and intemperate metaphor and allegorical bombast. “It is by no means easy to see,” he says, “that a city needs mixing like a wine bowl,31 where the mad wine seethes as it is poured in, but is chastened by another and a sober god and finding good company makes an excellent and temperate drink.” To call water “a sober god” and mixing “chastisement,” say the critics, is the language of a poet who is far from sober.
Although ps.-Longinus defends Plato, using vocabulary that evokes the Platonic Symposium,32 evidently Plato did not avoid being misunderstood. His critics were particularly challenged by the contradiction of a philosophical mind overcome by frenzy and yet able to grasp transcendental truth(s) with remarkable alertness.33 Indeed, even if we allow for the typical exaggeration associated with comedy and its antagonistic relationship with philosophy, as already noted in the context of Aristophanes’ (alleged) attack on Socrates,34 and even if we try to counter the criticisms levelled at Plato with the Stoic emphasis on the usefulness of poetry,35 Plato’s style was nonetheless the target of ridicule. Lucian, one of his most vocal yet rather understudied critics, was especially preoccupied with Plato’s controversial description of philosophical trance as wine-fueled frenzy.

3. Lucian and “Platonic Inebriation”

Lucian epitomizes the satirical critique of Socratic inebriation as an image unsuitable to express and articulate philosophical progress because it is dangerously open to misinterpretation.36 In Lucian’s Lexiphanes, the eponymous character whose name etymologically points to a bombastic speaker, claims to have composed a Symposium to compete with Plato’s famous dialogue (Lex. 1):37
ἀντισυμποσιάζω38 τῷ Ἀρίστωνος ἐν αὐτῷ.
Πολλοὶ μὲν οἱ Ἀρίστωνες· σὺ δὲ ὅσον ἀπὸ τοῦ συμποσίου τὸν Πλάτωνά μοι ἔδοξας λέγειν.
Ὀρθῶς ἀνέγνως.
I am counter-banqueting the son of Aristo in it.
There are many “Aristos,” but to judge from your “banquet” I suppose you mean Plato.
You read me right.
When asked by Lycinus, Lucian’s alter ego,39 to recite part of his new work, an invitation expressed in notably sympotic terms (νέκταρος γάρ τινος ἔοικας οἰνοχοήσειν ἡμῖν ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ: I dare say you will properly “wine us with nectar” out of it), Lexiphanes embarks on an incoherent exhibition of utter verbalism, replete with Atticisms40 (Lex. 16), to which Lycinus replies:
Ἅλις, ὦ Λεξίφανες, καὶ ποτοῦ καὶ ἀναγνώσεως. ἐγὼ γοῦν ἤδη μεθύω σοι καὶ ναυτιῶ καὶ ἢν μὴ τάχιστα ἐξεμέσω πάντα ταῦτα ὁπόσα διεξελήλυθας, εὖ ἴσθι, κορυβαντιάσειν μοι δοκῶ περιβομβούμενος ὑφ’ ὧν κατεσκέδασάς μου ὀνομάτων. καίτοι τὸ μὲν πρῶτον γελᾶν ἐπῄει μοι ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς, ἐπειδὴ δὲ πολλὰ καὶ πάντα ὅμοια ἦν, ἠλέουν σε τῆς κακοδαιμονίας ὁρῶν εἰς λαβύρινθον ἄφυκτον ἐμπεπτωκότα καὶ νοσοῦντα νόσον τὴν μεγίστην, μᾶλλον δὲ μελαγχολῶντα.
Enough, Lexiphanes, both of the drinking-party and of the reading. I am already drunk and nauseous, and if I do not very soon vomit all this gallimaufry of yours, know it well, I expect to go raving mad with the roaring in my ears from the words with which you have showered me. At first I was inclined to laugh at it all, but when it turned out to be such a quantity and all of a sort, I pitied you for your hard luck, seeing that you had fallen into an inescapable labyrinth and were afflicted with the most serious of all illnesses—likely suffering from melancholy.41
For Lucian, Plato’s refutation of rhetoric is but another form of it which can obscure the purpose of philosophical enlightenment when entrusted to the wrong people.42 In adopting this approach, Lucian responds to the widespread (certainly at the time) view that few people can grasp complex philosophical arguments and have the stamina to make the necessary lifestyle changes that accord with philosophical insight. This image, however, is in loud contrast with the hordes of young men that by Lucian’s time flocked to philosophers and oratory schools to improve themselves. The impetus for self-improvement, fuelled by aspirations of social advancement, led to a systematic misreading or misapplication of Plato’s dialogues that, according to Lucian, Plato had invited.
Lycinus’ informal diagnosis of Lexiphanes’ insanity is confirmed a couple of paragraphs later by Sopolis,43 a doctor who happens to approach (Lex. 18):
Ἀλλ’ εἰς καλὸν γὰρ τουτονὶ Σώπολιν ὁρῶ τὸν ἰατρὸν προσιόντα, φέρε τούτῳ ἐγχειρίσαντές σε καὶ διαλεχθέντες ὑπὲρ τῆς νόσου ἴασίν τινά σοι εὑρώμεθα· συνετὸς γὰρ ἁνὴρ καὶ πολλοὺς ἤδη παραλαβὼν ὥσπερ σὲ ἡμιμανεῖς καὶ κορυζῶντας ἀπήλλαξεν ἐγχέας φάρμακον. Χαῖρε, Σώπολι, καὶ τουτονὶ Λεξιφάνην παραλαβὼν ἑταῖρον, ὡς οἶσθα, ἡμῖν ὄντα, λήρῳ δὲ νῦν καὶ ξένῃ περὶ τὴν φωνὴν νόσῳ ξυνόντα καὶ κινδυνεύοντα ἤδη τελέως ἀπολωλέναι σῶσον ἑνί γέ τῳ τρόπῳ.
But what luck! Here I see Sopolis the physician drawing near. Come now, suppose we put you in his hands, have a consultation with him about your complaint, and find some cure for you. The man is clever, and often before now, taking charge of people like yourself, half crazed and full of drivel, he has relieved them with his doses of medicine.—Good-day to you, Sopolis. Do take charge of Lexiphanes here, who is my friend, as you know, and at present has on him a nonsensical, outlandish distemper affecting his speech which is likely to be the death of him outright. Do save him in one way or another.
Thus, pretentious, exaggerated speech is firmly identified as a symptom of a disorder bordering madness (par. 18: ὥσπερ σὲ ἡμιμανεῖς καὶ κορυζῶντας), similar to Corybantic frenzy (par. 16: κορυβαντιάσειν μοι δοκῶ) and drunkenness (μεθύω).44 By extension, Lucian criticizes Plato, Lexiphanes’ confessed model, both for his promotion of Socratic intoxication and for his metaphorical, florid language. Importantly, this condition is not to be confused with the insights of a true philosopher–with all his eloquence Lexiphanes is but a deluded impostor.
Lucian returns to the theme of the exaggerated and haphazard metaphors employed by philosophers in Hermotimus 59. In this dialogue, Lycinus attempts to dissuade his friend Hermotimus from his enthusiastic desire to be tutored in philosophy. Lycinus, after comparing philosophers to wine merchants keen to impress their prospective customers,45 asks of his new interlocuter, Hermotimus (Herm. 60):
Πῶς οὖν οἷόν τέ σοι ἦν ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου γεύματος εἰδέναι τὰ πάντα; οὐ γὰρ τὰ αὐτά γε, ἀλλὰ ἀεὶ ἕτερα καινὰ ἐπὶ καινοῖς ἐλέγετο, οὐχ ὥσπερ ὁ οἶνος ὁ αὐτὸς ἦν. ὥστε, ὦ ἑταῖρε, ἢν μὴ ὅλον ἐκπίῃς τὸν πίθον, ἄλλως μεθύων περίει· ἀτεχνῶς γὰρ ἐν τῷ πυθμένι δοκεῖ μοι ὁ θεὸς κατακρύψαι τὸ φιλοσοφίας ἀγαθὸν ὑπὸ τὴν τρύγα αὐτήν. δεήσει οὖν ὅλον ἐξαντλῆσαι ἐς τέλος, ἢ οὔποτ’ ἂν εὕροις τὸ νεκτάρεον ἐκεῖνο πόμα, οὗ πάλαι διψῆν μοι δοκεῖς. σὺ δὲ οἴει τὸ τοιοῦτον αὐτὸ εἶναι, ὡς εἰ μόνον γεύσαιο αὐτοῦ καὶ σπάσαις μικρὸν ὅσον, αὐτίκα σε πάνσοφον γενησόμενον ὥσπερ φασὶν ἐν Δελφοῖς τὴν πρόμαντιν, ἐπειδὰν πίῃ τοῦ ἱεροῦ νάματος, ἔνθεον εὐθὺς γίγνεσθαι καὶ χρᾶν τοῖς προσιοῦσιν. ἀλλ’ οὐχ οὕτως ἔχειν ἔοικε· σύ γ’ οὖν ὑπὲρ ἥμισυ τοῦ πίθου ἐκπεπωκὼς ἐνάρχεσθαι ἔτι ἔλεγες.
Then how could you have known everything from just the first taste? There were not the same, but always new things being said on new subjects, unlike wine, which is always the same. So, my friend, unless you drink the whole butt, your tipsiness has been to no purpose; god seems to me to have hidden the good of philosophy right down at the bottom beneath the very lees. You will have to drain it all to the end or you will never find that nectarous drink for which I think you have long thirsted. But you imagine it to be such that, if you were but to taste and draw just a drop, you would at once become all-wise, as, they say, the prophetess at Delphi becomes inspired as soon as she drinks of the sacred spring and gives her answers to those who consult the oracle. But it seems it is not so: you had drunk over half the butt, and you said that you were still at the beginning.
The condemnation of the intoxicating effect of philosophical rhetoric in this dialogue is, however, marked by ambiguity. Hermotimus starts the dialogue anxious to become a distinguished philosopher,46 but when he comes to his senses, as if recovering from a previous drunkenness (Herm. 83: νυνὶ γὰρ ὥσπερ ἐκ μέθης ἀνανήφων ὁρῶ οἷα μέν ἐστιν), he pledges to drop his study of philosophy in tandem with its accompanying apparel (Herm. 86): he will cut his long beard, refrain from his punitive lifestyle, maybe even wear purple.47 Lycinus introduces his attempt to sober Hermotimus up, however, with a reference to Symposium (215e1-2): ἐμοὶ μὲν ὥσπερ κορυβαντιῶντι μὴ πρόσεχε τὸν νοῦν, ἀλλ’ ἔα ληρεῖν, “Take no notice of my corybantic frenzy, but let me speak nonsense” (par. 63).48 For Hermotimus to be swayed by Lycinus’ counter-arguments, he must thus have experienced another kind of intellectual illumination, similar in its description at least to the mesmerizing effect his teacher’s words used to have on him.49 Lycinus is a deft speaker, as Hermotimus protests repeatedly.50
In his Wisdom of Nigrinus,51 which also contains striking allusions to Plato’s Symposium,52 Lucian moves from attacking pretentious eloquence to targeting Socratic intoxication directly. As often reiterated so far, in the Symposium Plato is constantly aware of the shallowness and ineptness of the metaphors at his disposal to describe the Socratic effect; therefore, Alcibiades’ comic descriptions of experiencing philosophy do not undermine Socrates’ moderation, self-evident in his sobriety while in the company of his tipsy fellow-symposiasts. His is (presented as) a genuine phenomenon, not a desperate attempt to recreate it.53 In Nigrinus 38, we read a description of Socratic intoxication, based on both the Symposium and the Phaedrus (bold fonts in the quotation below indicate similarities with Plato’s descriptions), which nonetheless represents only heady enthusiasm:54
Ὡς σεμνὰ καὶ θαυμάσια55 καὶ θεῖά γε, ὦ ἑταῖρε, διελήλυθας,56 ἐλελήθεις δέ με πολλῆς ὡς ἀληθῶς τῆς ἀμβροσίας καὶ τοῦ λωτοῦ κεκορεσμένος· ὥστε καὶ μεταξὺ σοῦ λέγοντος ἔπασχόν τι ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ, καὶ παυσαμένου ἄχθομαι57 καὶ ἵνα δὴ καὶ κατὰ σὲ εἴπω, τέτρωμαι·58 καὶ μὴ θαυμάσῃς· οἶσθα γὰρ ὅτι καὶ οἱ πρὸς τῶν κυνῶν τῶν λυσσώντων δηχθέντες οὐκ αὐτοὶ μόνοι λυσσῶσιν, ἀλλὰ κἄν τινας ἑτέρους ἐν τῇ μανίᾳ τὸ αὐτὸ τοῦτο διαθῶσιν, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔκφρονες59 γίγνονται· συμμεταβαίνει γάρ τι τοῦ πάθους ἅμα τῷ δήγματι καὶ πολυγονεῖται ἡ νόσος καὶ πολλὴ γίγνεται τῆς μανίας διαδοχή.
What a grand, wonderful, and indeed divine tale you have told, my friend; I did not realize but you have been truly chock-full of ambrosia and lotus! So that while you spoke, I felt something in my soul, and now you have stopped Ι am vexed: to speak in your style, I am wounded. Additionally, no wonder! for you know that people bitten by rabid dogs not only go mad themselves, but if in their fury they give the same thing to others, they too go out of their minds. Something of the affection is transmitted with the bite; the disease multiplies, and there is a great run of madness.
The character Nigrinus, described as a Platonic philosopher (par. 2), praises philosophy and the freedom it bestows, while criticizing in a distinctly Socratic manner people’s preoccupation with wealth, money, and reputation (par. 4: αὐτήν τε φιλοσοφίαν ἐπαινέσαι καὶ τὴν ἀπὸ ταύτης ἐλευθερίαν…πλούτου τε καὶ ἀργυρίου καὶ δόξης).60 His words allegedly restore the “soul sight” of his zealous student who relates the story (par. 5: τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν ὀξυδερκέστερος κατὰ μικρὸν ἐγιγνόμην),61 and inspire him to offer an accurate (if ironic) interpretation of Plato’s Socrates in the Symposium couched in the language of medicine:62
γαῦρός63 τε γὰρ ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου καὶ μετέωρός64 εἰμι καὶ ὅλως μικρὸν οὐκέτι οὐδὲν ἐπινοῶ: δοκῶ γάρ μοι ὅμοιόν τι πεπονθέναι πρὸς φιλοσοφίαν, οἷόνπερ καὶ οἱ Ἰνδοὶ πρὸς τὸν οἶνον λέγονται παθεῖν, ὅτε πρῶτον ἔπιον αὐτοῦ: θερμότεροι γὰρ ὄντες φύσει πιόντες ἰσχυρὸν οὕτω ποτὸν αὐτίκα μάλα ἐξεβακχεύθησαν καὶ διπλασίως ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀκράτου ἐξεμάνησαν. Oὕτω σοι καὶ αὐτὸς ἔνθεος καὶ διπλασίως ὑπὸ τῶν λόγων περιέρχομαι.
What he said has made me proud and exalted, and in short, I am no longer concerned with trifles. I suppose I have had a similar experience with philosophy that the Hindus are said to have had with wine when they first tasted it. As they are by nature warmer than we, on taking such strong drink they went into frenzy at once and became manic by the unmixed drink twice as much. There you have it! I am going about enraptured twice as much by his words.
Although the interlocutor of Lucian’s character protests that “this is not drunkenness but sobriety and temperance” (Nigr. 6: Καὶ μὴν τοῦτό γε οὐ μεθύειν, ἀλλὰ νήφειν τε καὶ σωφρονεῖν ἐστιν), Nigrinus’ student, like Hermotimus above, clings to the bombastic descriptions of his transformation and revels in the license to use this kind of language that he has secured on account of his engagement with philosophy; Nigrinus himself, trapped in his image, watches on in guilty awareness and unable to react.65
Finally, in Lucian’s Bis Accusatus, Drunkenness is portrayed as dragging Academy at court, because she was able to convert one of her dearest slaves, the bad-boy-turned-philosopher Polemon,66 whose description readily evokes Plato’s Alcibiades in the Symposium.67 Polemon’s physical drunkenness corresponds to his “inspirational” way of teaching.68 However, when Drunkenness is too intoxicated to defend her case,69 Academy offers to speak for her, an offer probably designed to allude to Socrates’ disconcerting practice of delivering arguments on behalf of his rhetorical opponents, which Cicero appreciated as a key feature of Socratic irony70 (which he describes as severe ludas in De Or. 2.269-270). As Lane has pointed out,71 Socrates employed his ironic, playful style both in the Aristophanic way, where it means “concealing by feigning” and in the Aristotelian way where emphasis is given to self-deprecation. His style caused confusion among ancient as much as modern readers;72 hence, in Lucian, Academy seizes the opportunity to discredit the arguments of Drunkenness even further rather than deliver a fair defence on her behalf, a hint to the criticism that Socratic rhetorical practices incurred.73 It seems then that, as an author of satiric dialogues, Lucian engages with Old Comedy74 and its potential for moralizing rhetoric, recognizing its affinity with philosophy and its equal claim to parrhesia.75 In this guise, he calls for a re-evaluation of the flow of wine and jokes76 in the post-Platonic era.

4. Conclusions

I have explored here a rather overlooked chapter of Plato’s reception that focuses on the problem of articulating philosophical conversion. Despite his well-documented objection to poetry and its ambiguous use of rhetoric, Plato resorted to culturally ingrained metaphors to defend Socrates’ philosophical insights. Among such metaphors, further developed in the writings of Neoplatonic thinkers and often adapted by theologians such as pseudo-Dionysius Areopagite to refer to the core dogmatic truths of Christianity, inebriation proved to be especially controversial. Although Plutarch promoted the educational value of sympotic conviviality (Teodorsson (1999); Roskam (2009)), Lucian used his sharp satire to point out the simmering intellectual crisis of his time which Plato had unwittingly fuelled with his passionate imagery: while “Platonic inebriation” was meant to express powerfully the interiorization of philosophy and its life-altering effect, an image already misrepresented by Socrates’ critics in his own time, the trope was now transformed in the hands of inept teachers and desperate students into a dangerous way of manipulating the students’ zeal for progress. Truth, it seems, was as highly prized and yet as elusive in Lucian’s time as during any time of humanity’s intellectual struggle to grapple with our purpose in this world.

Funding

This research was funded by the Australian Research Council, FT160100453 [2016–2023].

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Notes

1
See Druckman and Bjork (1994), pp. 207–8, noting that altered states of consciousness are marked by heightened or intensified awareness; cf. Kihlstrom (1984), p. 207. The ancient Greeks used to induce such states with the aid of dance, music, hallucinogens, strong emotions, or wine, all of which typically featured as part of ancient mysteries or divination rites. See Ustinova (2017), pp. 83, 117–29, 130, 134–36, 174–79, 182, 186, 193–95, 332; also, Hamilton (2008), pp. 41–46. N.B. Ancient texts and their translations (often with my modifications) are cited from the relevant Loeb Classical Library editions (=LCL), unless otherwise specified.
2
(Siikala [1992] 2002), pp. 26–34; on trance and ecstasy, see Rouget (1990) with Ustinova (2017), pp. 20–21.
3
See Herrero de Jáuregui (2010), p. 135 with n.2 citing Nock (1933) among others.
4
Pl. Symp. 175a1-b4 and 220c3-d5.
5
Tht. 173e-174a and 189e-190a; cf. Phdr. 249d1-4. Frede (1989), pp. 28–31; Pelosi (2010), p. 91.
6
See Pl. Apol. 31c-d; 40a-c; 41c-d; Phdr. 242b-d; Resp. 496c; Tht. 150e-151a; Euthphr. 3b; Alc. I 105e-106a; Euthyd. 272e-273a; Theag. 128d-129e; Xen. Mem. 1.1.1-5 and Apol. 12–13. Ustinova (2017), pp. 318–21.
7
On Athenian anti-intellectualism, see Pl. Tht. 155e5-8; cf. Green (1979), pp. 15–16 and Bromberg (2017), pp. 32–35.
8
See Ar. Nub. 188–199; Pl. Apol. 19c4-7. Whitehorn (2002), pp. 33–34.
9
On the influence of “Platonic inebriation” on Christian conversion, see Anagnostou-Laoutides (2020).
10
Pl. Symp. 215a1-216a2; 216d6-7; 221d6-8.
11
On the association of the Silenoi (or their leader, Silenos; cf. Carpenter (1986), p. 76) with drunkenness, see Eur. Cycl. 139–161; for Drunkennes (Μέθη) represented with Silenos at his temple at Elis, see Paus. 6.24.8. Silenos was believed to have nursed Dionysus: Diod. Sic. 4.4.3 and OF 54. On the entourage of Dionysus known as both satyrs and silenoi, see Hedreen (1992), pp. 161–5. Although Marsyas interacts in myth with Apollo (see Hdt 7.26.3; Pl. Euthyd. 285c; Xen. Anab. 1.2.8), yet, he is typically described as a satyr (cf. Paus. 1.24.1 referring to Marsyas the Silenos) from Phrygia. On Marsyas’ experience of ec-stasy, as represented in his punishment by flailing, see Hamilton (2008), pp. 40–41.
12
Eur. Bacch. 850; also, 1122–1124; cf. Roth (2005), p. 39.
13
Eur. Bacch. 32–33.
14
Also, note that the Symposium concludes with a second gate-crashing event (223b2-8) during which a great crowd of revellers enter the hall forcing everyone to drink even more (ἐξαίφνης δὲ κωμαστὰς ἥκειν παμπόλλους ἐπὶ τὰς θύρας, …, καὶ οὐκέτι ἐν κόσμῳ οὐδενὶ ἀναγκάζεσθαι πίνειν πάμπολυν οἶνον).
15
All Symposium translations are mine having consulted Lamb 1925 (=LCL 166).
16
However, the role of wine in these rites is not easy to determine; see Jiménez San Cristóbal (2009), pp. 46–47 and esp. 55. On the use of wine in baccheia, see schol. Ar. Nub. 606 and Hsch. s.v. ληνεύουσι. Cf. Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2001, 118–122. On the connection of enthusiasm with maenadism and drunkenness, see Suda s.v. Ἐνθουϲιώϲαϲ·. On references to Corybantic choreia in the Phaedrus, see Belfiore (2006). Also, see Ustinova (2017), pp. 119, 124, 134, 137 (on the use of wine in mystic rites) and 172, 174, 177, 182, 191 (on wine and Dionysus); cf. Jiménez San Cristóbal (2002), pp. 307–17; Dodds (1960), p. xiii; Graf and Johnston (2007), pp. 148–9.
17
Pl. Symp. 214a5-6; cf. Symp. 176c4-6. Anagnostou-Laoutides and Payne (2021) on Socrates’ sobriety despite his comparison with the Dionysian Silenoi and Marsyas.
18
For Plato’s comparison of joking with drinking, see Anagnostou-Laoutides (2021).
19
See Anagnostou-Laoutides and Van Wassenhove (2020) on Seneca’s reception of “Platonic inebriation” in his De Tranquilitate Animi.
20
See Millet (2005), 26–27 with Xen. Mem. 1.1-2 and DL 2.19–20.
21
Text and trans. Verhasselt (2017), p. 59; Dorandi (1991), pp. 144–5.
22
See Dem. Eloc. 183–185 on the rhythm of the Platonic dialogues; cf. ps.-Long. Subl. 39.1; Halliwell (2011), pp. 337–8.
23
Regarding the identity of the author (often believed to be Aristotle’s student, Demetrius of Phaleron) and the dating of the work (possibly as late as 1st century BCE), see the introductory notes by Innes and Roberts in Halliwell et al. (1995) (=LCL 199), 310–319. Trans. also by Innes and Roberts (= LCL 199), 401.
24
Cf. Dem. Eloc. 87 and 89.
25
Halliwell (2011), pp. 359–67. Cf. Trabattoni (2012) on Plato’s definition of metaphysical reality.
26
Tieleman (2003), 166 (on Zeno); Plut. de profect. in virt. 84d.
27
See Lucian, Fish. 42 (with Peterson 2010, pp. 130–1) where Philosophy admits that distinguishing between true philosophers and opportunist rhetoricians is almost impossible given the similarity of their appearance. Cf. Plato, Phdr. 261a for evidence that Socrates did not oppose rhetoric per se but its uncritical and immoral employment by poets and logographoi.
28
See Plut. de rect. rat. aud. 44a-d echoed in Plut. de profect. in virt. 80e-81f; also, see Cic. Acad. 1.17-19 and 33–34 in Karamanolis (2020) on the changes that Plato’s heirs made to his unified philosophical system.
29
Suda, s.v. Καικίλιος (=Adler (1976), K1165 in 3.83); BNJ 1–3.
30
For the text, see Ofenloch (1967), 129; trans. Fyfe, rev. Russell (1995) (=LCL 199), 263, 265; also see Ps.-Long. Subl. 3.5: πολλὰ γὰρ ὥσπερ ἐκ μέθης τινὲς εἰς τὰ μηκέτι τοῦ πράγματοfς, ἴδια ἑαυτῶν καὶ σχολικὰ παραφέρονται πάθη: εἶτα πρὸς οὐδὲν πεπονθότας ἀκροατὰς ἀσχημονοῦσιν, εἰκότως, ἐξεστηκότες πρὸς οὐκ ἐξεστηκότας (For writers often behave as if they were drunk and give way to outbursts of emotion which the subject no longer warrants, but which are private to themselves and consequently tedious, so that to an audience which feels none of it their behavior looks unseemly. And naturally so, for while they are in ecstasy, the audience is not; trans. Fyfe, rev. Russell (1995), 171). Using Plato’s metaphor of mixing wine with water, Plutarch (aud. poet. 15d-e) advises against overdramatic effects in poetry. On Subl. 32.7, see Walsh (1988), p. 262. For Plato’s tendency to coin metaphors, see Caec. Cal. fr. 95 (Ofenloch (1967), pp. 85.10–86.11). On the different approaches of Ps.-Longinus and Caecilius to the role of sublimity in Plato, see Innes (2002). Finally, cf. Dem. Eloc. 5 and 15 on rhetorical exaggeration that makes speakers appear drunk.
31
The metaphor appears in Plato’s Leg. 773c8-d4; cf. Belfiore (1986).
32
Ps.-Longinus qualifies his statement with references to the ability of the sublime to inspire wonder and amazement (ἐκπλήξει τοῦ πιθανοῦ καὶ τοῦ πρὸς χάριν ἀεὶ κρατεῖ τὸ θαυμάσιον); cf. Subl. 8.4 as well as Plato, Symp. 215d6 and 216d4. For Longinus’ awareness of the difference between persuasion and ecstasy, see Halliwell (2011), pp. 329–30.
33
Note that in his response to the critique levelled at Plato and the ensuing confusion regarding the nature of philosophical inspiration, Longinus stresses the voluntary submission of the mind to experiencing ecstasy; Halliwell (2011), pp. 340, 343–5. Also, remember Plato’s striking description of philosophical elation in the Phaedrus, where the lover is described as being in agony, unaware of the nature of his affliction (250a9-b1: ὃ δ᾽ ἔστι τὸ πάθος ἀγνοοῦσι διὰ τὸ μὴ ἱκανῶς διαισθάνεσθαι; cf. 251e1-2: ἀδημονεῖ τε τῇ ἀτοπίᾳ τοῦ πάθους καὶ ἀποροῦσα λυττᾷ; also, see 265b8-9 where Socrates admits that his use of metaphors, here the comparison of philosophy with erotic passion, allowed him to portray *some* aspects of truth although he was partly carried away to another direction (ἴσως μὲν ἀληθοῦς τινος ἐφαπτόμενοι, τάχα δ᾽ ἂν καὶ ἄλλοσε παραφερόμενοι,…).
34
See Peterson (2019), 38–44 on the competition between Old Comedy and philosophy on shaping social morality, and its reception by Plutarch; cf. Dem. Eloc. 171.
35
Asmis (2017), pp. 136–7.
36
Fowler (2018), pp. 236–9, esp. 237; on Lucian and Petronius inspired by Menippean satire, see Teodorsson (2009), p. 10. Anderson (1978), pp. 372–3; Hunter (2012), pp. 15–16; Männlein-Robert (2021).
37
Trans. Harmon (1936) (=LCL 302), 293, 295. For the similarity of Lucian’s Lexiphanes with Plato’s Symposium, see Whitmarsh (2005), p. 46, with Weissenberger (1996), pp. 68–84 and 151–283; cf. Kazantzidis (2019) on Lucian’s use of the association between melancholy and irregular speech patterns.
38
See Weissenberger (1996), pp. 159–60.
39
Tarrant (2009), p. 20.
40
Weissenberger (1996), pp. 72–74. Cf. Kazantzidis (2019), p. 291. Trans. Harmon (1936) (=LCL 302), 315.
41
For melancholy as a disease especially afflicting philosophers, see the ps.-Aristotelian Problems 953a10-15; cf. DL 7.118 and Plut. Lys. 2.3. The condition is associated with black-bile irregularities (ps.-Prob. 954a32-34) and was known to Galen (Stewart 2018, pp. 88–100) but was derived from (or, at least, perceived as originating in) Hippocratic medicine.
42
In his own Symposium (par. 45) Lucian refers to the philosophers who get drunk and attack each other as Lapiths and Centaurs; on Lucian’s reception of Plato’s Symposium in his Double Indictment and the Dialogues of the Courtesans, see Blondell and Boehringer (2014), esp. 233–234; cf. Peterson (2018).
43
See Weissenberger (1996), 82–84 arguing that Lucian’s intention was to identify Sopolis with Galen. Trans. Harmon (1936) (=LCL 302), 317.
44
See ps.-Prob. 875b19 (τῶν μεθυόντων ἡ γλῶττα πταίει) and 875b29-31; cf. Hipp. Dis. 2.22. For the connection of drunkenness and irrationality in the Hippocratic corpus, see Thumiger (2017), p. 226.
45
The text (still par. 59) reads: Ὅτι αὐθομολογούμενον πρᾶγμα λαβὼν καὶ γνώριμον ἅπασι τὸν οἶνον εἰκάζεις αὐτῷ τὰ ἀνομοιότατα καὶ περὶ ὧν ἀμφισβητοῦσιν ἅπαντες ἀφανῶν ὄντων. ὥστε ἔγωγε οὐκ ἔχω εἰπεῖν καθ᾿ ὅτι σοι ὅμοιος φιλοσοφία καὶ οἶνος, εἰ μὴ ἄρα κατὰ τοῦτο μόνον, ὅτι καὶ οἱ φιλόσοφοι ἀποδίδονται τὰ μαθήματα ὥσπερ οἱ κάπηλοι–κερασάμενοί γε οἱ πολλοὶ καὶ δολώσαντες καὶ κακομετροῦντες. (You take a self-evident thing, known to all, wine, and you compare to it most dissimilar things that everyone debates about because they are obscure. So, I surely cannot tell how in your view philosophy and wine are similar, except perhaps with regard to this, that philosophers sell their lessons as wine-merchants their wines–many indeed corrupting and cheating and giving bad measure). Trans. for both paragraphs 59 and 60 cited above from Kilburn (1959) (=LCL 430), 369 and 371 respectively. For Plato’s influence on Hermotimus, see Hunter (2012), pp. 1–3.
46
Herm. 63; cf. Plut. de profect. in virt. 78e-f.
47
The text reads as follows: ἄπειμι γοῦν ἐπ’ αὐτὸ τοῦτο, ὡς μεταβαλοίμην καὶ αὐτὸ σχῆμα. ὄψει γοῦν οὐκ εἰς μακρὰν οὔτε πώγωνα ὥσπερ νῦν λάσιον καὶ βαθὺν οὔτε δίαιταν κεκολασμένην, ἀλλ’ ἄνετα πάντα καὶ ἐλεύθερα. τάχα δὲ καὶ πορφυρίδα μεταμφιάσομαι, ὡς εἰδεῖεν ἅπαντες ὅτι μηκέτι μοι τῶν λήρων ἐκείνων μέτεστιν (I am going away to do just that—to make a change—of dress as well. You will soon see me without this big, shaggy beard. I shall not punish my daily life, but all will be liberty and freedom. Perhaps I shall even put on purple, to show everybody that I’ve no part in that nonsense now).
48
Cf. Hermotimus’ tears of joy when he comes to his senses (Herm. 83), evoking Alcibiades’ tears while in Corybantic ecstasy in Symp. 215e2 (δάκρυα ἐκχεῖται). On the external transformation of students of philosophy, cf. Luc. Nirg. 1.
49
50
Herm. 63 and 65. On the Socratic style, which Alcibiades notes already in Symp. 216d2-6, also see Dem. Eloc. 297: Τὸ δὲ ἰδίως καλούμενον εἶδος Σωκρατικόν, ὃ μάλιστα δοκοῦσιν ζηλῶσαι Aἰσχίνης καὶ Πλάτων … ἅμα γὰρ καὶ εἰς ἀπορίαν ἔβαλεν τὸν παῖδα λεληθότως… (what is particularly called the Socratic manner, which Aeschines and Plato are especially considered to emulate…Socrates unobtrusively drives the boy into a corner).
51
For a summary of scholarship on Lucian’s Nigrinus, see Anderson (1978) and more recently Peterson (2010), pp. 251–301.
52
On Lucian’s use of Platonic themes, see Neef (1940), pp. 18–38; cf. Hirzel (1895), 2.289-333 and Bompaire (1958), pp. 304–20, 372–4, 607–13; on his use of the Symposium, see Whitmarsh (2001), pp. 267–9, 271, 274–6 (also noting Lucian’s familiarity with the Phaedrus); cf. Peterson (2010), pp. 263–4.
53
On the popularity of “recreating” Platonic dialogues, see Cic. De Or. 1.28: Cur non imitamur, Crasse, Socratem illum, qui est in Phaedro Platonis? (why don’t we imitate Socrates, Crassus, as he appears in Plato’s Phaedrus?)
54
Trans. Harmon (1913) (=LCL 14), 139.
55
For the typical description of Socrates with the adjective θαυμάσιος in the Symposium, see 219c1-2: δαιμονίῳ ὡς ἀληθῶς καὶ θαυμαστῷ; cf. 215c1; 220c7; 221c3-4 and 6-8; cf. 217a1-2 where Alcibiades describes the rare occasion when he has caught Socrates in a serious moment and glimpsed the images in him: “καί μοι ἔδοξεν οὕτω θεῖα καὶ χρυσᾶ εἶναι καὶ πάγκαλα καὶ θαυμαστά;” Alcibiades’ heaping of adjectives evokes Lucian’s description of Nigrinus’ words above (with two of them coinciding: θεῖα, θαυμαστά/θαυμάσια). The adverb σεμνῶς is found in both dialogues (Symp. 199a3: καὶ καλῶς γ’ ἔχει καὶ σεμνῶς ὁ ἔπαινος, referring ironically to Agathon’s speech; Phdr. 258al: λέγων μάλα σεμνῶς καὶ ἐγκωμιάζων ὁ συγγραφεύς, where again Socrates speaks ironically about politicians, keen on writing speeches despite Phaedrus’ view that they mostly avoid it “for fear of being called sophists by posterity” (257d9-10: δόξαν φοβούμενοι τοῦ ἔπειτα χρόνου, μὴ σοφισταὶ καλῶνται).
56
Note the use of διέρχομαι, common otherwise, in Phdr. 273a3-7 where Socrates is said to have gone over the issues deemed important by professional rhetoricians who nevertheless care little about the truth (Aὐτά γε, ὦ Σώκρατες, διελήλυθας ἃ λέγουσιν οἱ περὶ τοὺς λόγους τεχνικοὶ προσποιούμενοι εἶναι·); cf. Phdr. 269b-c and 271a-c.
57
Lucian continues to use here vocabulary that evokes Plato’s descriptions of philosophical mania; see Phdr. 238c2 (ἡ ... ἐπιθυμία πρὸς ἡδονὴν ἀχθεῖσα κάλλους) and 252c8 (τὸ τοῦ πτερωνύμου ἄχθος); cf. Phdr. 251a9-10 (ἐκ τῆς φρίκης μεταβολή) referring to the mental change the philosophical eros affects; on the use of the word pathos in the Phaedrus, see 238c7 (θεῖον πάθος πεπονθέναι), 250a9; 251c1; 251e1; 252b2; 252c4; 254e2; 262b4.
58
For the use of the verb τέτρωμαι, see Symp. 219b4 (καὶ ἀφεὶς ὥσπερ βέλη, τετρῶσθαι αὐτὸν ᾤμην) where Alcibiades hopes to have wounded Socrates erotically and 219e2 (χρήμασί γε πολὺ μᾶλλον ἄτρωτος ἦν πανταχῇ ἢ σιδήρῳ ὁ Aἴας) stating that Socrates is not tempted by money; cf. Symp. 220e1-2 where τετρωσμένος is used literally to refer to Alcibiades’ actual battle wounds. For the use of verb δάκνω (to bite) and related words, see Symp. 217e7-218a: ἔτι δὲ τὸ τοῦ δηχθέντος ὑπὸ τοῦ ἔχεως πάθος κἄμ’ ἔχει. φασὶ γάρ πού τινα τοῦτο παθόντα οὐκ ἐθέλειν λέγειν οἷον ἦν πλὴν τοῖς δεδηγμένοις, ὡς μόνοις γνωσομένοις τε καὶ συγγνωσομένοις εἰ πᾶν ἐτόλμα δρᾶν τε καὶ λέγειν ὑπὸ τῆς ὀδύνης. ἐγὼ οὖν δεδηγμένος τε ὑπὸ ἀλγεινοτέρου καὶ τὸ ἀλγεινότατον ὧν ἄν τις δηχθείη-τὴν καρδίαν γὰρ ἢ ψυχὴν ἢ ὅτι δεῖ αὐτὸ ὀνομάσαι πληγείς τε καὶ δηχθεὶς ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ λόγων, οἳ ἔχονται ἐχίδνης ἀγριώτερον, νέου ψυχῆς μὴ ἀφυοῦς ὅταν λάβωνται, καὶ ποιοῦσι δρᾶν τε καὶ λέγειν ὁτιοῦν (Now I have been bitten by a more painful creature, in the most painful way that one can be bitten: in my heart, or my soul, or whatever one is to call it, I am stricken and stung by his philosophical discourses, which adhere more fiercely than any adder when once they lay hold of a young and not ungifted soul, and force it to do or say whatever they will; trans. Lamb (1925) = LCL 166, 227).
59
Both the Symposium and the Phaedrus contain many references to sophrosyne and its opposite (ἀφροσύνη); here I focus on the adjective ἄφρων, used in Symp.194b9-10 and repeated on 218d7 (about the foolish being many) and the noun τὸ ἄφρον (unreason) used in Phdr. 236a2; 265e5; cf. Ion 5333e7: οὐκ ἔμφρονες (referring to those dancing in Corybantic rites and enthused poets) and 534b5: ἔκφρων.
60
See, for example, Alcibiades’ reference to Socrates’ scorn about material possessions, beauty, and honors in Symp. 216d9-e4.
61
Lucian’s reference here alludes to Socrates’ description of the lover’s initiation into philosophy, when his soul is blessed with clear intellectual vision that allows him to see the bright image of beauty; Phdr. 250b-c (κάλλος δὲ τότ᾽ ἦν ἰδεῖν λαμπρόν, ὅτε σὺν εὐδαίμονι χορῷ μακαρίαν ὄψιν τε καὶ θέαν, […], ὁλόκληρα δὲ καὶ ἁπλᾶ καὶ ἀτρεμῆ καὶ εὐδαίμονα φάσματα μυούμενοί τε καὶ ἐποπτεύοντες ἐν αὐγῇ καθαρᾷ).
62
Trans. Harmon (1913) (=LCL 14), 105. For Socrates as a doctor in the Platonic dialogues, see Charm. 155d; Grg. 475d; Phd. 89a; cf. Leg. 720aff (where the lawgiver is compared to a doctor); cf. the role of Eryximachus, the doctor, in the Symposium, esp. 176a-c; 185d-e; 214b. Eryximachus understands health in Hippocratic terms, as the result of balancing opposite elements in the body. For Plato’s familiarity with the medical symptoms of insanity, especially as discussed in the Hippocratic Regimen, see (Jouanna 2012, 2013). On the continuing interest on the treatise and Galen’s thorough knowledge of it, see Bartoš (2015), pp. 3, 92, 95, 102–10.
63
Cf. the adjective γαῦρος in Caec. Cal. fr. 86 (Ofenloch 1967, 68 = ps.-Long. Subl. 7.2; L199: 178–179): φύσει γάρ πως ὑπὸ τἀληθοῦς ὕψους ἐπαίρεταί τε ἡμῶν ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ γαῦρόν τι ἀνάστημα λαμβάνουσα πληροῦται χαρᾶς καὶ με|γαλαυχίας, ὡς αὐτὴ γεννήσασα ὅπερ ἤκουσεν (by nature our soul is somehow uplifted by true sublimity, and acquiring a kind of lofty stature, it is filled with joy and pride as if having created itself what it has heard).
64
For the use of the adjective μετέωρος to allude to both Aristophanes’ Clouds and Plato’s Phaedrus (269e6–270a7 on Anaxagoras), see Peterson (2010), pp. 292–5.
65
On whether Lucian is critical only of the student or of Nigrinus too, see Clay (1992), pp. 3420–25; Peterson (2010), pp. 254–65, 274–6; cf. Anderson (1978), 372-373n18.
66
See Tarrant (2005), pp. 226–8 with DL 4.16-20.
67
See Peterson (2010), pp. 145–7 and Tarrant (2005), 229 for Lucian’s allusions to the Platonic Phaedrus. Also, see Bis. Acc. 5 for a reference to the Apology, where Justice describes those who condemned Socrates thus: παρὰ τοσοῦτον ὑπερέσχον οἱ κατήγοροι τἀναντία περὶ τῆς Ἀδικίας φιλοσοφοῦντες (his accusers superior to him by so much were since they practiced contrary to him philosophy about Injustice; trans. based on Harmon (1921) = LCL 130, 95). Cf. Peterson (2019), 102–103 who claims that Lucian takes up the episode where Aristophanes left off in the Clouds. For Lucian’s Fisherman and its debt to the Apology, see Whitmarsh (2001), pp. 263–4 (also cited by Peterson 2019, 83n5). Cf. Laird (2003) and Ní Mheallaigh (2014), pp. 73–83, esp. 88–89 discussing Lucian’s adaptation of Socratic ecstasy in the Symposium in his Philopseudes, where Eucrates, the character corresponding to Socrates, who relying on his “august outer appearance conceals his truly ludicrious nature.”
68
Tarrant (2005), pp. 230–2.
69
Bis. Acc. 15: “Oὐ δύναμαι,”φησί, “τὸν ἀγῶνα εἰπεῖν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀκράτου τὴν γλῶτταν πεπεδημένη, μὴ γέλωτα ὄφλω ἐν τῷ δικαστηρίῳ.” Note that here Hermes reports on behalf of Drunkenness that she is unable to speak, in line with our observations above about the speech impairment observed in both the insane and drunken.
70
Cic. Brut. 292 for definitions of Socrates’ irony.
71
Lane (2010), pp. 239–42 and 247–9 with n.25; cf. Arist. EN 1127b23-26. Based on the similarities in the speeches of Lysias and Socrates in the Phaedrus, Bryan (2021), pp. 5–9 and 18–21 claims that Socrates responds to Lysias’ attempt to engage with Socratic ethics (which he misrepresents dangerously).
72
Cf. Strauss (1964), p. 51 (cited by Lane 2010, p. 242) who understands Socratic irony as part of an allegorical strategy against those “capable of understanding neither the irony nor the philosophy which it protects.”
73
Peterson (2010), pp. 145–7; Tarrant (2005), p. 228: “the story presents a comic caricature of the effect of both Xenocrates’ Academy on Polemo and Polemo on the Academy.”
74
Cf. Weissenberger (1996), pp. 9, 47, 73. Also, see Bis. Acc. 34.
75
On Lucian’s Fisherman, especially, and its protagonist, Parrhesiades, see Peterson (2010), 129 who notes: “Through the Fisherman’s focus on parrhesia, a virtue that bridges the divide between Old Comedy and Philosophy, Lucian merges the parrhesia of comedy with that of the Cynics and in doing so, argues for its place in society.” Also, see Holland (2004), p. 263 and Branham (1989), esp. 33 (both cited by Peterson (2010), pp. 111–2 and 129 respectively).
76
Cf. Fish. 25 (with Peterson 2010, p. 127), where Parrhesiades attacks the Cynics for making Philosophy ridiculous and encouraging people to laugh at it; the text reads: φύσει γὰρ τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν ὁ πολὺς λεώς, χαίρουσι τοῖς ἀποσκώπτουσιν καὶ λοιδορουμένοις, καὶ μάλισθ’ ὅταν τὰ σεμνότατα εἶναι δοκοῦντα διασύρηται, ὥσπερ ἀμέλει καὶ πάλαι ἔχαιρον Ἀριστοφάνει καὶ Εὐπόλιδι Σωκράτη τουτονὶ ἐπὶ χλευασίᾳ παράγουσιν ἐπὶ τὴν σκηνὴν καὶ κωμῳδοῦσιν ἀλλοκότους τινὰς περὶ αὐτοῦ κωμῳδίας (L130: 40–41: The common people are such by nature; they delight in jesters and buffoons, and most of all when they criticize what is held in high reverence. Just so in the past they took delight in Aristophanes and Eupolis, who brought Socrates on the stage to make fun of him and got up monstrous farces about him); cf. Dem. Eloc. 170 and Eunap. Vit. Soph. 462 (L134: 380, 382) repeating the view vis-à-vis a plot again the philosopher Sopater.

References

  1. Adler, Ada. 1967. Suidae Lexicon. Stuttgart: Teubner, Volumes 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  2. Anagnostou-Laoutides, Eva. 2020. Drunk on New Wine (Acts 2:13): Drinking Wine from Plato to the Eucharist Tradition of Early Christian Thinkers. In Eastern Christianity and Late Antique Philosophy. Edited by Eva Anagnostou-Laoutides and Ken Parry. Leiden: Brill, pp. 81–109. [Google Scholar]
  3. Anagnostou-Laoutides, Eva. 2021. Sócrates el sátiro sobrio y la posición de Platón respecto a la risa. In Humor y Filosofía en los Diálogos de Platón. Edited by Jonathan Lavilla de Lera and Javier Aguirre Santos. Barcelona: Anthropos and UAM-Iztapalapa. [Google Scholar]
  4. Anagnostou-Laoutides, Eva, and Andrew Payne. 2021. Drinking and Discourse in Plato. Méthexis 33: 57–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Anagnostou-Laoutides, Eva, and Bart Van Wassenhove. 2020. Drunkeness and Philosophical Enthusiasm in Seneca. Scripta Classica Israelica 39: 15–34. [Google Scholar]
  6. Anderson, Graham. 1978. Lucian’s Nigrinus: The Problem of Form. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 19: 367–74. [Google Scholar]
  7. Asmis, Elizabeth. 2017. The Stoics on the Craft of Poetry. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 160: 113–51. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bartoš, Hynek. 2015. Philosophy and Dietetics in the Hippocratic On Regimen: A Delicate Balance of Health. Leiden and Boston: Brill. [Google Scholar]
  9. Belfiore, Elizabeth. 1986. Wine and Catharsis of the Emotions in Plato’s Laws. The Classical Quarterly 36: 421–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Belfiore, Elizabeth. 2006. Dancing with the Gods: The Myth of the Chariot in Plato’s ‘Phaedrus’. American Journal of Philology 127: 185–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bernabé, Alberto, and Ana Isabel Jiménez San Cristóbal. 2001. Instrucciones para el más allá. Las laminillas órficas de oro. Madrid: Ediciones Clasicas. [Google Scholar]
  12. Blondell, Ruby, and Sandra Boehringer. 2014. Revenger of the Hetairistria: The Reception of Plato’s Symposium in Lucian’s fifth Dialogue of the Courtesans. Arethusa 47: 231–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bompaire, Jacques. 1958. Lucien écrivain. Imitation et creation. Paris: E. de Boccard. [Google Scholar]
  14. Branham, Bracht. 1989. Unruly Eloquence: Lucian and the Comedy of Traditions. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  15. Bromberg, Jacques A. 2017. A Sage on the Stage: Socrates and Athenian Old Comedy. In Socrates and the Socratic Dialogue. Edited by Alessandro Stavru and Christopher Moore. Leiden: Brill, pp. 31–63. [Google Scholar]
  16. Bryan, Jenny. 2021. The Role of Lysias’ Speech in Plato’s Phaedrus. The Cambridge Classical Journal. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Carpenter, Thomas H. 1986. Dionysian Imagery in Archaic Greek Art: Its Development in Black-Figure Vase Painting. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  18. Clay, Diskin. 1992. Lucian of Samosata: Four Philosophical Lives (Nigrinus, Demonax, Peregrinus, Alexander Pseudomantis). Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt II 36: 3406–50. [Google Scholar]
  19. Dodds, Eric Robertson. 1960. Euripides: Bacchae. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [Google Scholar]
  20. Dorandi, Tiziano. 1991. Filodemo. Storia dei filosofi. Platone e l’Academia (PHerc. 1021 e 164), La Scuola di Epicuro, Collezione di testi ercolanesi diretta da M. Gigante. Napoli: Bibliopolis. [Google Scholar]
  21. Druckman, Daniel, and Robert A. Bjork. 1994. Learning, Remembering, Believing: Enhancing Human Performance. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. [Google Scholar]
  22. Fowler, Ryan C. 2018. Variations of Receptions of Plato during the Second Sophistic. In Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity. Edited by Harold Tarrant, Danielle A. Layne, Dirk Baltzly and François Renaud. Leiden: Brill, pp. 223–49. [Google Scholar]
  23. Frede, Dorothea. 1989. The soul’s silent dialogue: A non-aporetic reading of the Theaetetus. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 215: 20–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Graf, Fritz, and Sarah Iles Johnston. 2007. Ritual Texts for the Afterlife. Orpheus and the Bacchic Gold Tablets. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  25. Green, Peter. 1979. Strepsiades, Socrates and the Abuses of intellectualism. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 20: 15–25. [Google Scholar]
  26. Halliwell, Stephen. 2001. Between Ecstasy and Truth. Interpretations of Greek Poetics from Homer to Longinus. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  27. Halliwell, Stephen, W. Hamilton Fyfe, Doreen C. Innes, and W. Rhys Roberts. 1995. Aristotle, Longinus, Demetrius. Poetics. Longinus: On the Sublime. Demetrius: On Style. Revised by Donald A. Russell. Loeb Classical Library 199. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hamilton, John T. 2008. Music, Madness, and the Unworking of Language. New York, Chichester and West Sussex: Columbia University Press. [Google Scholar]
  29. Harmon, Austin Morris. 1913. Lucian I. Nigrinus. The Carousal (Symposium) or The Lapiths. Loeb Classical Library 14. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  30. Harmon, Austin Morris. 1921. Lucian III. The Double Indictment or Trials by Jury. Loeb Classical Library 130. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  31. Harmon, Austin Morris. 1936. Lucian V. Lexiphanes. Loeb Classical Library 302. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  32. Hedreen, Guy Michael. 1992. Silens in Attic Black-figure Vase-painting: Myth and Performance. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. [Google Scholar]
  33. Herrero de Jáuregui, Miguel. 2010. Ancient Conversion between Philosophy and Religion: Conversion and Its Literature. In Anthropology in the New Testament and its Ancient Context. Edited by Michael Labahn and Outi Lehtipuu. Leuven, Paris and Walpole: Peeters, pp. 135–50. [Google Scholar]
  34. Hirzel, Rudolf. 1895. Der Dialog. Ein literarhistorischer Versuch (2 vols.). Leipzig: Verlag S. Hirzel. [Google Scholar]
  35. Holland, Glenn A. 2004. Call Me Frank: Lucian’s (Self-)Defense of Frank Speaking and Philodemus περὶ παρρησίας. In Philodemus and the New Testament World. Edited by John T. Fitzgerald, Dirk Obbink and Glenn S. Holland. Leiden: Brill, pp. 245–67. [Google Scholar]
  36. Hunter, Richard. 2012. Plato and the Traditions of Ancient Literature: The Silent Stream. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  37. Innes, Doreen C. 2002. Longinus and Caecilius: Models of the Sublime. Mnemosyne 55: 259–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Jiménez, San Cristóbal, and Ana Isabel. 2002. Rituales Órficos. Ph.D. thesis (ed. on CDRom 2005), Universidad Complutense Madrid, Madrid, Spain. [Google Scholar]
  39. Jiménez, San Cristóbal, and Ana Isabel. 2009. The Meaning of βάκχος and βακχεύειν in Orphism. In Mystic Cults in Magna Graecia. Edited by Patricia A. Johnston and Giovanni Casadio. Austin: Texas University Press, pp. 46–60. [Google Scholar]
  40. Jouanna, Jacques. 2012. The Theory of Sensation, Thought and the Soul in the Hippocratic Treatise Regimen: Its Connections with Empedocles and Plato’s Timaeus. In Greek Medicine from Hippocrates to Galen: Selected Papers. Edited by Philip van der Eijk. Leiden and Boston: Brill, pp. 195–228. [Google Scholar]
  41. Jouanna, Jacques. 2013. The typology and aetiology of madness in ancient Greek medical and philosophical writing. In Mental Disorders in the Classical World. Edited by William V. Harris. Leiden: Brill, pp. 97–118. [Google Scholar]
  42. Karamanolis, George. 2020. Plutarch. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by E. N. Zalta. Available online: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/plutarch/ (accessed on 25 September 2021).
  43. Kazantzidis, George. 2019. Pseudo-intellectualism and Melancholy. The Poetics of Black Bile in Lucian’s Lexiphanes. Araucaria. Revista Iberoamericana de Filosofía, Política y Humanidades 21: 289–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kihlstrom, John F. 1984. Conscious, subconscious, unconscious: A cognitive perspective. In The Unconscious Reconsidered. Edited by Kenneth S. Bowers and Donald Meichenbaum. New York: Wiley, pp. 149–211. [Google Scholar]
  45. Kilburn, Kenneth. 1959. Lucian VI. Hermotimus, or Concerning the Sects. Loeb Classical Library 430. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  46. Laird, Andrew. 2003. Fiction as a discourse of philosophy in Lucian’s Verae Historiae. In The Ancient Novel and Beyond. Edited by Stelios Panayotakis, Maaike Zimmerman and Wytse Hette Keulen. Leiden and Boston: Brill, pp. 115–27. [Google Scholar]
  47. Lamb, Walter Rangeley Maitland. 1925. Plato. Lysis. Symposium. Gorgias. Loeb Classical Library 166. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  48. Lane, Melissa. 2010. Reconsidering Socratic Irony. In The Cambridge Companion to Socrates. Edited by Donald Morrison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 237–59. [Google Scholar]
  49. Männlein-Robert, Irmgard. 2021. Between Conversion and Madness: Sophisticated Ambiguity in Lucian’s Nigrinus. In Strategies of Ambiguity in Ancient Literature. Edited by Martin Vöhler, Therese Fuhrer and Stavros Frangoulidis. Berlin, Munich and Boston: DeGruyter, pp. 237–50. [Google Scholar]
  50. Millet, Paul. 2005. The Trial of Socrates Re-visited. European Review of History 12: 23–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Neef, Eberhard. 1940. Lukians Verhältnis zu den Philosophenschulen und seine μίμησις literarischer Vorbilder. Phil. Diss. Greifswald, Berlin = Beiträge zur Sprach-, Stil- und Literaturforschg, Abt. Antike. H. 15. Berlin: Nicolai. [Google Scholar]
  52. Ní Mheallaigh, Karen. 2014. Reading Fiction with Lucian: Fakes, Freaks, and Hyperreality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  53. Nock, Arthur Darby. 1933. Conversion: The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [Google Scholar]
  54. Ofenloch, Ernest. 1967. Caecilius Calactinus Fragmenta. Stuttgart: Teubner. [Google Scholar]
  55. Pelosi, Francesco. 2010. Plato on Music, Soul and Body. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  56. Peterson, Anna I. 2010. Laughter in the Exchange: Lucian’s Invention of the Comic Dialogue. Ph.D. thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. Available online: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ (accessed on 25 September 2021).
  57. Peterson, Anna I. 2018. Pushing Forty: The Platonic Significance of References to Age in Lucian’s Double Indictment and Hermotimus. The Classical Quarterly 68: 621–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Peterson, Anna I. 2019. Laughter on the Fringes: The Reception of Old Comedy in the Imperial Greek World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  59. Roskam, Geert. 2009. Educating the young ... over wine? Plutarch, Calvenus Taurus, and Favorinus as convivial teachers. In Symposion and Philanthropia in Plutarch. Edited by José Ribeiro Ferreira, Delfim Leão, Manuel Tröster and Paula Barata Dias. Coimbra: Centro de Estudos Clássicos e Humanísticos da Universidade de Coimbra, pp. 369–84. [Google Scholar]
  60. Roth, Marty. 2005. Drunk the Night Before: An Anatomy of Intoxication. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press. [Google Scholar]
  61. Rouget, Gilbert. 1990. La musique et la Trance. Paris: Gallimard. [Google Scholar]
  62. Schlapbach, Karin. 2010. The Logoi of Philosophers in Lucian of Samosata. Classical Antiquity 29: 250–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Siikala, Anna-Leena. 2002. Mythic Images and Shamanism: A Perspective on Kalevala Poetry. (FF Communications 280). Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica, 2002. First published as Suomalainen Šamanismi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  64. Stewart, Keith Andrew. 2018. Galen and Black Bile: Doxographical Strategies and Hippocratic Perspectives. Leiden: Brill. [Google Scholar]
  65. Strauss, Leo. 1964. The City and Man. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  66. Tarrant, Harold. 2005. Socratic Synousia: A Post-Platonic Myth? Journal of the History of Philosophy 43: 131–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Tarrant, Harold. 2009. Living by the Cratylus Hermeneutics and Philosophic Names in the Roman Empire. The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 3: 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Teodorsson, Sven-Tage. 1999. Dionysus Moderated and Calmed: Plutarch on the Convivial Wine. In Plutarco, Dioniso y el vino. Actas del VI Simposio español sobre Plutarco (Cádiz, 14–16 de Mayo, 1998). Edited by José Guillermo, Manuel Sánchez Ortiz de Landaluce and Rafael J. Gallé Cejudo. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas, pp. 57–69. [Google Scholar]
  69. Teodorsson, Sven-Tage. 2009. The Place of Plutarch in the Literary Genre of Symposium. In Symposion and Philanthropia in Plutarch. Edited by José Ribeiro Ferreira, Delfim Leão, Manuel Tröster and Paula Barata Dias. Coimbra: Centro de Estudos Clássicos e Humanísticos da Universidade de Coimbra, pp. 3–16. [Google Scholar]
  70. Thumiger, Chiara. 2017. A History of the Mind and Mental Health in Classical Greek Medical Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  71. Tieleman, Teun. 2003. Chrysippus’ On Affections: Reconstruction and Interpretation. Leiden: Brill. [Google Scholar]
  72. Trabattoni, Franco. 2012. Myth and Truth in Plato’s Phaedrus. In Plato and Myth: Studies on the Use and Status of Platonic Myths. Edited by Catherine Collobert, Pierre Destrée and Francisco J. Gonzalez. Leiden: Brill, pp. 305–22. [Google Scholar]
  73. Ustinova, Yulia. 2017. Divine Mania: Alteration of Consciousness in Ancient Greece. London and New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  74. Verhasselt, Gertjan. 2017. Philodemus’ Excerpt from Dicaearchus on Plato in the Historia Academicorum (PHerc. 1021, coll. 1*-1-2): Edition, Translation, and Commentary. Cronache Ercolanesi 47: 55–72. [Google Scholar]
  75. Walsh, George B. 1988. Sublime Method: Longinus on Language and Imitation. Classical Antiquity 7: 252–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Weissenberger, Michael. 1996. Literaturtheorie bei Lukian. Untersuchungen zum Dialog Lexiphanes. Stuttgart and Leipzig: Teubner. [Google Scholar]
  77. Whitehorn, John. 2002. Aristophanes’ Representations of ‘Intellectuals’. Hermes 130: 28–35. [Google Scholar]
  78. Whitmarsh, Tim. 2001. Greek Literature and the Roman Empire: The Politics of Imitation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  79. Whitmarsh, Tim. 2005. The Second Sophistic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Anagnostou-Laoutides, E. Drunk with Wisdom: Metaphors of Ecstasy in Plato’s Symposium and Lucian of Samosata. Religions 2021, 12, 898. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12100898

AMA Style

Anagnostou-Laoutides E. Drunk with Wisdom: Metaphors of Ecstasy in Plato’s Symposium and Lucian of Samosata. Religions. 2021; 12(10):898. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12100898

Chicago/Turabian Style

Anagnostou-Laoutides, Eva. 2021. "Drunk with Wisdom: Metaphors of Ecstasy in Plato’s Symposium and Lucian of Samosata" Religions 12, no. 10: 898. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12100898

APA Style

Anagnostou-Laoutides, E. (2021). Drunk with Wisdom: Metaphors of Ecstasy in Plato’s Symposium and Lucian of Samosata. Religions, 12(10), 898. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12100898

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop