Bril, Alexander. โPlato and the Sympotic Form in the Symposium of St Methodius of Olympus.โ Zeitschrift fรผr Antikes Christentum 9, no. 2 (2006): 279โ302.
In this article, Bril examines Methodiusโ Symposium in light of the Platonic work it imitates. While Platoโs theme is eros, Methodiusโ is the Christian counterpart: virginity (ฯฮฑฯฮธฮตฮฝฮฏฮฑ). Bril argues that these pervasive formal similarities illustrate that Methodiusโ only sympotic model was Plato. Bril asserts that Methodius โhad little understanding of the symposion, and that what little he did grasp, he had imperfectly grasped from Platoโ (281).
Bril begins by comparing Platoโs Symposium to the โrealโ symposion. Although Platoโs aims are primarily literary and philosophical, he does include many sympotic details โ even minutiae like drinking rules, seating arrangements, and garlands. Nonetheless, he omits numerous elements and activities that appear in other symposia. Bril recognizes other characteristics of symposia that are present, though unacknowledged, in the Symposium โ including the fact that โthe male dominance of Athenian society informs the whole setting of the dialogueโ (285). Indeed, Platoโs symposiasts are all aristocratic men (ฯฮปฮฟแฝฯฮนฮฟฮน) who can afford to hire not only flute-girls but also komoi. Furthermore, this environment encourages the intermingling of alcohol and lust, especially in the form of homosexual eros.
Next, Bril discusses Methodiusโ use of the symposion. Methodius imitates Plato in his general โsobrietyโ and โrestricting of entertainment to intellectual conversationโ (291). Some of these characteristics are borrowed from Plato and adapted to the Christian context. For example, the hymn that was dedicated to Apollo in the Classical text is now sung โto the lordโ (ฯแฟท ฮฯ ฯฮฏแฟณ). Other changes were probably made because of Methodiusโ โknowledge, or rather ignorance, of Attic conventionโ (293). For instance, Methodius sets his Symposium outside, under the shade of a plane tree in a garden. In reality, ancient symposia were conducted indoors (in the แผฮฝฮดฯแฟถฮฝ) and at night, when there would be no need for shade. Yet other characteristics of symposia โ including drinking customs, seating arrangements, washing, and unshoeing โ were omitted for no apparent reason, according to Bril. Perhaps the most significant change Methodius makes is to transform an entirely male (and quite sexually charged) institution into a chaste, female gathering. Methodiusโ virgins are educated, enjoy leisurely activities, and lead lives outside the home: in short, they โare completely out of place in a classical settingโ (294). Unfortunately, Bril does not thoroughly probe the significance of Methodiusโ choice to make the Symposium all female.
Bril ends by delivering a โverdictโ on each of the texts. He praises Platoโs Symposium for its โremarkably perfect unity of form, content and techniqueโ (298). His alterations, Bril argues, are always for the sake of broader philosophical and artistic aims. On the other hand, Bril is remarkably harsh on Methodius, whose โabsolute failureโ he deems โpainfully obviousโ as a result of Methodiusโ โmeagre literary talentsโ and โignorance of genuine sympotic customโ (299). Bril particularly castigates Methodiusโ ignorance with a remarkably potent metaphor: โnot only is Methodiusโ sympotic genre dead, but, because of his imperfect understanding of the symposion, the exhumed cadaver has missing bits, hence the resulting monstrosityโ (301). Bril dismisses with little discussion other scholarsโ more positive views of Methodius. In his final section, Bril turns to the question of why Methodius chose the sympotic form, especially given its strong associations with Platonic philosophy. Here, Bril is more open to other scholarsโ opinions. He particularly praises the thesis of M. Benedetta Zorzi, who argued that Methodius in the Symposium attempts to synthesize Platonic eros and New Testament agape.[1]
I think that it would be fruitful to examine the work of other scholars, like Zorzi, who are more sympathetic to Methodius and less likely to lambast him for โgrotesque incongruities and artistic infelicitiesโ (302). Although many of Brilโs points are not inaccurate, they seem to be clouded by an overwhelming dislike of Methodiusโ work. It is particularly illuminating to contrast Brilโs argument that Methodius simply neglects the sympotic form with Kรถnigโs thesis that the seeming neglect is really a self-conscious, purposeful transformation to suit Methodiusโ artistic and philosophical aims.
[1] M. Benedetta Zorzi, โThe Use of the Terms แผฮณฮฝฮตฮฏฮฑ, ฮ ฮฑฯฮธฮตฮฝฮฏฮฑ, ฮฃฯฯฯฮฟฯฯฮฝฮท, and แผฮณฮบฯฮฌฯฮตฮนฮฑ in the โSymposiumโ of Methodius of Olympus,โ Vigiliae Christianae 63, no. 2 (2009): 138โ68, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20474911. The work Bril cites (in Italian) is M. Benedetta Zorzi, โCastitร e generazione nel bello. Lโeros nel Simposio di Metodio dโOlimpio,โ Reportata: Passato e presente della teologia, September 1, 2003, https://mondodomani.org/reportata/zorzi02.htm.