Although they were written centuries apart and in completely different societal conditions, Plato's Phaedrus and several sonnets by William Shakespeare share distinct similarities. The most obvious superficial correlation is that each describes a relationship (sexual or otherwise, depending on one's reading of Shakespeare) between a young boy and an older man. The type of bond described in Phaedrus falls under the category of ancient Greek pederasty: Simply put, pederasty was a mutually beneficial relationship between an older man and a younger boy, in which the boy was mentored intellectually by the man in exchange of sexual indulgence. Although it may seem strange today, this practice was surprisingly common among Athenian scholars like Plato and his peers. Although the relationship Shakespeare describes would not be considered pederasty, it is important to note that in its own way it involved an older, educated man and a young boy. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay Aside from the fact that both articles revolve in part around same-sex relationships, a second similarity emerges. Both Shakespeare and Plato use the image of the mirror (or “glass” in Shakespeare) to describe their relationships. While this may at first glance seem like a positive and romantic comparison, a closer analysis of each work reveals that this concept can also have harmful implications. In sonnet XXII, Shakespeare begins: “My drink will not persuade me that I am old, while youth and thou art of the same date” (10). Here the narrator is essentially asserting that although his mirror shows his age, he feels young because his beloved is young. This sentiment is commonly found in more contemporary artistic professions of love, from Frank Sinatra's "You Make Me Feel So Young" to The Cure's "Lovesong" ("you make me feel young again every time I'm alone with you). However, in this sonnet, Shakespeare takes the analogy even further. He suggests that the reason he feels so young is not only because of his beloved's age or the strength of their love, but also because they actually exchanged hearts. If he indeed now has the heart of a young boy, “[how] can I be older than you? » » he asks, rhetorically of course (10). So in this case the older lover is rejuvenated not only because his beloved's youth rubs off on him, but because the beloved has actually given a part of himself to his lover. The last verse of the sonnet ends with Shakespeare proclaiming the permanence of this exchange of hearts, saying “[thou] gave me thine, never to return it again” (11). By affirming the purpose of this trade, Shakespeare insinuates that he and his lover are linked forever. The lines that separate lover from beloved begin to blur; if one has the heart of the other, is he really himself? Or is he simply a combination of two beings, two souls living in one body? Through this use of the poetic metaphor of the mirror, Shakespeare begins the dissolution of any sense of separation between lover and beloved, something he continues in several other sonnets about this particular beloved. This unification of lovers continues in sonnet XXIV, where Shakespeare declares that his beloved's "true image" resides in "the store of his bosom" (11). Stating that the only true representation of his beloved is not in the boy himself, but in him,Shakespeare pushes the lack of separation between the two even further. Although another possibility is not explicitly mentioned in the sonnet, one could assume that the same phenomenon occurs in reverse: the only true image of the poet-lover exists in his beloved. So neither is complete without the other. Additionally, the last word of the poem, "heart", seems to intentionally recall the mention of hearts in sonnet XXII. This is perhaps a subtle reminder that the two lovers still possess each other's hearts. The lack of separation between lover and beloved is both its most complete and most problematic state in sonnet XLII. Shakespeare begins the poem in a state of grief because he believes that his lover and his mistress have also become lovers. But, in the fifth line, he decides to “excuse” their actions (19). His reasoning for this seemingly strange forgiveness is that the boy only loves the woman because he himself loves her, and that the woman "suffers" the boy only so that he "approves" of her (19). Although we could consider this part of the poem as evidence of extreme narcissism, a more nuanced reading, reminiscent of the two previous sonnets discussed in this article, supports a different conclusion. It seems that, in Shakespeare's mind, he and the boy have become so intrinsically linked that they even have the same desires, not only for each other, but also for other individuals outside of their relationship. The final verse again evokes a feeling of narcissism, which may well be present, also contains an outright declaration of the unity of lover and beloved in the phrase: "my friend and I are only 'one' (19). While this idea has obviously been hinted at before, Shakespeare never said it in such clear terms. But complete unity brings problems: Shakespeare is certainly jealous of the boy's relationship (whether real or not) with the woman. This feeling of jealousy can be felt in the preceding sonnet, XLI, in which the narrator accuses the boy of committing “wrongs,” “going astray,” and “being false” (18, 19). So it seems that the fact that the lovers are reflections of each other can lead to problems in the relationship, as well as a potential identity crisis. The boy, after all, only seems to desire the woman because Shakespeare desires him, not because he is truly interested in her. In Phaedrus, Plato uses the mirror metaphor in a way that both converges and diverges from Shakespeare's usage. When he mentions the mirror, it is in Socrates' second speech, when the philosopher speaks of a young boy's budding desire for an older man. The boy can “see himself in his lover as in a mirror” (255d). Thus, the boy's love for the man allows him to see a part of himself in the man, just as Shakespeare is able to see his lover's youth in him in sonnet XXII. Plato also states that “the image of love…dwells in him [the boy]” (255d). So not only can the boy see himself in the man, but he can also see the man in himself. This is quite similar to the scenario of sonnet XXIV, in which Shakespeare has a metaphorical painting of his lover in his bosom. Here, Plato uses the image of the mirror to show how a man and a boy in an ideal pederastic relationship are intrinsically linked. Despite these similarities, there is an important difference in how this metaphor is implemented. Unlike Shakespeare's setup, the two are united before their relationship even fully begins. Even though the boy sees himself in his lover, he “is not conscious of it” at first (255d). The boy is deeply confused as to what is happening; he is “in love” but does not know “how to.