Platos Phaedrus 237c

Greek Learning Greek
1

I am very very slowly making my way through the Phaedrus and I go stuck recently at 237c.

[237c] …ἐγὼ οὖν καὶ σὺ μὴ πάθωμεν ὃ ἄλλοις ἐπιτιμῶμεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ σοὶ καὶ ἐμοὶ ὁ λόγος πρόκειται πότερα ἐρῶντι ἢ μὴ μᾶλλον εἰς φιλίαν ἰτέον, περὶ ἔρωτος οἷόν τ᾽ ἔστι καὶ ἣν ἔχει δύναμιν,…

I don’t understand the “ἐρῶντι ἢ μὴ μᾶλλον εἰς φιλίαν ἰτέον”.

Does it mean " Therefore I and you, lest we suffer what we rebuke others for, but since for you and I the speech has been proposed by those in love or not in love, one ought to go into friendship."?

The first part seems pretty clear but the “εἰς φιλίαν ἰτέον” almost seems like an idiom of some sort.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

2

πότερα means “whether (out of two)”, so S. is laying down two possibilities of pursuing the argument.

Should we go to the lover? (ἐρῶντι, dative participle)
or should we rather (ἢ μὴ μᾶλλον)
go “towards friendship”? (εἰς φιλίαν)

The notion of “should we go” is, as you suspected, communicated by the verbal adjective “ἰτέον”. The key is to understand that it is πότερα ἰτέον that we’re looking for. The possibilites are analyzing the problem from the lover’s side, or from the friend’s side. For that they will have to understand what is love (περὶ ἔρωτος οἷόν τ᾽ ἔστι) and what is its power (καὶ ἣν ἔχει δύναμιν).

3

Excellent, I often seem to confuse πότερα with πρότερον. This makes much more sense now.

Thank you!

4

Isn’t it rather “whether one should rather enter into friendship with a lover or with a non-lover”? εἰς φιλίαν ἰτέον ἐρῶντι ἢ μὴ (sc. ἐρῶντι). “Enter into friendship” is euphemistic.
“Since the question that lies before you and me is whether one should rather consort with someone who ερᾷ (has sexual desire) or someone who doesn’t, …”
As you’ll know, the conventional pairing is between the ἐραστης or ὁ ἐρῶν, the “lover,” on one side and ὁ ἐρώμενος, the “beloved” or object of desire on the other.

The following clause, περὶ ἔρωτος οἷόν τ᾽ ἔστι καὶ ἣν ἔχει δύναμιν,… will depend on the continuation, which will be something like “first we have to reach agreement". “(first we have to reach agreement) concerning ερως, both what sort of thing it is and what power it has” (i.e. agree “on the nature and effect of ερως”). They have to define the thing before they can meaningfully talk about it. Standard Socratic MO.

5

This adds even more clarity mwh, thanks again. I noticed the use of a simple “μὴ” for “μὴ ἐρῶντι” throughout the dialogue.

6

mhw is evidently correct. I probably wouldn’t have missed it if I had gone back to the content of the speech itself, and its amoral overtones. Sorry for the confusion.