Lover and beloved

Use in the book

Phaedrus makes the role distinction do argumentative work. His Achilles is the beloved and Patroclus the lover; he explicitly disputes Aeschylus’ reversal. The beloved’s response earns greater divine admiration even though the lover is more divine because god-filled. The two comparisons have different subjects and must both be preserved.

Pausanias builds an asymmetrical social account around these roles. The lover pursues and receives license for otherwise servile conduct; the beloved is expected to delay and discriminate. The educational exception is supposed to join the lover’s ability to improve with the beloved’s willingness to respond for virtue’s sake. This is the speaker’s defense of a historical practice, not a model whose every premise the dialogue ratifies. Aristophanes’ wider story includes different attractions and shared longing while still using conventional role-words.

Diotima makes a grammatical correction with larger consequences. Socrates imagined Love as what is loved rather than what loves. The lovely perfection belongs to the desirable object; the subject of desire is needy and resourceful. The neuter expressions at 204c need not refer only to one socially classified person.

Alcibiades’ narrative then unsettles the courtship pattern. He offers himself and lays plans like a lover for a darling. At the end he says Socrates appears to be a lover but becomes the darling instead. This describes the effect of Socrates on his admirers, not a simple correction assigning him one permanent sexual role.

Places to read

1. 178c–180b23The initial relation and the decisive lover/beloved comparison.
2. 181c–185b23456Pausanias’ differentiated roles, tests and educational exchange.
3. 191d–193c23Aristophanes’ broader account of attractions and partners.
4. 204cDiotima distinguishes love’s subject from its object.
5. 217c–218d23Alcibiades pursues and offers an exchange.
6. 222a–bHis concluding warning reverses the apparent roles.

Translation in this edition

The edition deliberately distinguishes “lover”, “beloved”, “darling” and “the one in love”. Paidika should not be counted as several beloveds simply because its morphology is plural. Likewise the neuter participles at 204c are “what is loved” and “what is in love”, not merely gendered social titles.

ἐραστής (erastēs)

erastēs — A lover, commonly the pursuing party in the socially recognized courtship relation; the role is not simply interchangeable with every grammatical subject who loves.

• 178c — ἐραστὴς χρηστὸς. Phaedrus’ decent lover for a youth.
• 180b — ἐραστὴς παιδικῶν. The lover is more divine than the darling in Phaedrus’ explanation.
• 222b — ἐραστὴς. The role that Socrates only appears to occupy, according to Alcibiades.

Read: Lover and beloved.

ἐρώμενος (erōmenos)

erōmenos — The beloved, a substantivized passive participle: the person who is loved. The verbal formation keeps the object-position visible.

• 180b — ὁ ἐρώμενος τὸν ἐραστὴν ἀγαπᾷ. The beloved cherishes the lover, a response Phaedrus judges especially admirable.
• 204c — τὸ ἐρώμενον. Diotima’s neuter expression means what is loved, contrasting with the desiring subject.

Read: Lover and beloved.

ἐρῶν (erōn)

erōn — The one in love, an active participial expression identifying the desiring subject without always assigning the social title of lover.

• 204c — τὸ ἐρῶν. The neuter expression for what is in love, which Diotima contrasts with the beloved.

Read: Lover and beloved.

τὰ παιδικά (ta paidika)

ta paidika — The darling or beloved youth: a neuter plural expression that can designate a single person.

• 179a — τὰ παιδικὰ. A single darling must not be abandoned in danger.
• 222b — παιδικὰ μᾶλλον αὐτὸς καθίσταται ἀντ’ ἐραστοῦ. Alcibiades says Socrates becomes darling instead of lover.

Read: Lover and beloved.