Zdenek Lenner

Alors que l’unité et la définition du platonisme antique demeure problématique, de nombreux et divers « platonismes » ont progressivement été identifiés et étudiés, que l’on peut regrouper sous la distinction entre un « platonisme doctrinal » (platonisme ancien, médioplatonisme, et néoplatonisme) et un « platonisme diffus » (notamment dans les Rhapsodies Orphiques, les Oracles Chaldaïques, et le gnosticisme). Or de Platon au Pseudo-Denys l’Aréopagite, en passant par Plutarque, Plotin et Proclus, ce qui réunifie selon nous l’ensemble de ces platonismes, ce n’est pas tant un accord doctrinal les érigeant en système définitif qu’une dynamique dialectique propre faisant de toute réflexion philosophique une aspiration vers son principe : Éros. C’est que sa nature intermédiaire et synthétique lui octroie une remarquable flexibilité conceptuelle (éros psychique, éros cosmique, voire éros divin), laquelle se manifeste aussi dans sa grande polymorphie linguistique (erōs, epithumia, philia, hormē, ephesis, orexis, agapē…). Ainsi, notre hypothèse de recherche est double. D’un point de vue conceptuel, Éros – en tant que désir du Bien – est selon nous la puissance (dunamis) fondamentale de contemplation et production, conversion et procession, réunion et multiplication ; en ce sens il est l’âme de tous les platonismes. D’un point de vue historique, l’Éros-daimōn à puissance conversive depuis Platon s’est progressivement métamorphosé en un Éros cosmique à puissance démiurgique sous l’influence orphique, chaldaïque, et gnostique, voire en un Éros divin à puissance providentielle par concurrence ou syncrétisme avec le christianisme. Au travers de l’étude de ces dynamiques platoniciennes d’Éros, nous aimerions parvenir à mieux comprendre le phénomène du platonisme antique dans son unité philosophique tout en reconnaissant ses diverses mutations historiques durant près d’un millénaire.

This paper aims at a global study of the main metaphor of the Sophist, namely hunting, in order to solve the problem of the identity of the Stranger from Elea, by defining what kind of hunter he is. To do so, we distinguish successively three kinds of hunters emerging from the text: the dialectician, the sophist, and the lover, with their respective prey, means, and hunting grounds. First, the Stranger and Theaetetus appear to be dialectically hunting the sophist as a beast incessantly fleeing into the dark and indefinite realm of non-being. This is because the sophist himself primarily appears to be rhetorically hunting young men, just as a lover hunting his beloved, governed as he is by the epithumetic, monstrous, and irrational part of his soul. A comparison with the Phaedrus shows finally that in trying to define and catch the sophist, by means of the best divisions and collections they can, the two protagonists reveal themselves as being a divine dialectician leading the young mathematician towards philosophy and contemplation of the beauty of the intelligible realm. By displaying such a complex hunt, led by a mysterious Stranger trying to catch the most elusive sophist, Plato the writer was at pains to make the reader himself participate in the hunt, believing that only through this agonistic and erotic process he will both overcome the sophist and become the philosopher.

This paper traces the sources of Pseudo-Dionysius’ “Spiral of Love” (Divine Names IV, 10) to a single Neoplatonic origin. It demonstrates that all four modes of Erôs between the different beings, namely the reversive, the communal, the providential, and the conservative, go back to Proclus himself, who has explicitly coined and conceptualized all four of them in different contexts of his extant works. Nevertheless, Pseudo-Dionysius adapted this Proclean quadripartition to his own Christian and creationist system.

The very unique appearance of anterōs in the Phaedrus (255e1) has for a long time puzzled many readers and commentators, both ancient and modern, of Plato’s sublime dialogue. Some have translated it by “counter-love”, strengthening the theme of rivalry; others prefer “love-in-return” and its cognates, focusing on its reciprocal dynamics; still others understand it as “reflected love”, highlighting its qualification as an “image of love” (εἴδωλον ἔρωτος). The aim of this paper is to propose a comprehensive understanding of anterōs, encompassing these three lines of interpretation and translation, both by giving maximum coherence to the difficult passage in which it appears and by replacing it in the movement of the whole dialogue. To do so, we first analyse the complex entwining of the similes in which anterōs seems to have a pivotal role: erōs being successively described as himeros within a physiological simile, as anterōs within an optical one, and as soul’s struggle within the psychic simile of the winged chariot (255b7-256a6). Then we conceptualise this correction of the successive similes in view of the eschatological passage about the three different kinds of lives immediately following: paiderastic erōs, by desiring a physical and asymmetric contact with the beloved, can only trigger rivalry; whereas honour-loving erōs, by desiring something beyond the beloved, can foster emulation and reciprocity; but only philosophical erōs, by reflecting intelligible beauty to the beloved, can truly guide to its recollection (256a7-b7). Finally, we see in this passage a kind of nub of the analogical unity of the dialogue, between the erotic brothers and the discursive ones: anterōs being qualified by Socrates as an eidōlon of erōs just as written logos will be qualified by Phaedrus as an eidōlon of spoken logos (276a9). Thus, the very ambiguity of anterōs is not only due to the polysemy of the prefix anti- but also to its qualification as an eidōlon of erōs. We think that it is only by acknowledging this profound complexity of the text that we both recognise the merit of Plato’s comprehensive theory of love and the unity of surely his most beautiful dialogue.

Plutarch’s Dialogue on Love (Erōtikos), certainly one of his most sublime and intriguing masterpieces, has for a long time puzzled many readers and commentators, concerning both its attitude towards Plato and its precise political and metaphysical scope. At a first level, some have argued that the main theme of the dialogue, from beginning to end, is the praise of conjugal love, and that Plutarch’s revolutionary conception of marriage departs from Plato’s one. At a second level, some have objected that the main point is rather the central praise of the god of Love, which ensures the possibility for true human love, by rekindling the Thespian tradition of the Erōtideia. As regards politics and religion, Plutarch seems therefore to distance himself from Plato. Still, at a third level, many have noticed the great literary and philosophical debt of the Chaeronean towards his acknowledged model, for the dialogue is constantly borrowing from the Symposium and the Phaedrus. Whilst the reference to the latter is clearer, the influence of the former is much more problematic. All scholars have then struggled with the extraordinary absence in the text of the well‑known Erōs‑Daimōn, especially since Plutarch makes direct use of and explicit allusions to Diotima’s speech. How can we plainly explain such an enigmatic absence? And does it necessarily mean any departure from the essence of Platonic philosophy? We propose an entirely new reading of the Dialogue on Love based upon the general hypothesis that it dramatically and symbolically represents the birth through the text of the Erōs‑Daimōn. The whole dialogue reveals itself as being a staging of the locus classicus of Plato’s Symposium, the familial triad Plutarch‑Timoxena‑Autoboulos reflecting the philosophical triad Socrates‑Diotima‑Erōs‑Daimōn, which is further supported by the harmonization of the Egyptian triad Osiris‑Isis‑Horus with the Platonic triad Poros‑Penia‑Erōs in the Isis and Osiris. Thus, the birth of the philosophical love in the soul of the reader is finally happening.

El Banquete de Platón escenifica una subversión lúdica de la paiderastía por parte de la philosophía a través de sucesivos discursos interconectados. Fedro y Agatón elogian a Érōs como un dios que preside las relaciones homoeróticas, ya sea en la guerra o en la paz. Pausanias y Erixímaco distinguen entre dos Érōtes, ansiosos por supervisar estas comunidades pederásticas e incluso la armonía cósmica. Pero Aristófanes subvierte su perspectiva al introducir al Andrógino, una combinación de hombre y mujer, el cual, siendo expuesto por Sócrates-Diotima, dará finalmente a luz al Érōs-Daímōn. Solo él nos asegurará una verdadera comunidad humana al permitirnos una verdadera comunión con lo divino, como atestigua el elogio final de Alcibíades a Sócrates.