μέρος + ἔπειμι+ ῥοή
Word
Validation
Word-form
Word-lemma
Transliteration (Word)
English translation (word)
Transliteration (Etymon)
English translation (etymon)
Century
Source
Ref.
Ed.
Quotation
[251c5–7:] ὅταν μὲν οὖν βλέπουσα πρὸς τὸ τοῦ παιδὸς κάλλος, ἐκεῖθεν μέρη ἐπιόντα καὶ ῥέοντ’ – ἃ δὴ διὰ ταῦτα ἵμερος καλεῖται
[255b7–c4:] ὅταν δὲ χρονίζῃ τοῦτο δρῶν καὶ πλησιάζῃ μετὰ τοῦ ἅπτεσθαι ἔν τε γυμνασίοις καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις ὁμιλίαις, τότ’ ἤδη ἡ τοῦ ῥεύματος ἐκείνου πηγή, ὃν ἵμερον Ζεὺς Γανυμήδους ἐρῶν ὠνόμασε, πολλὴ φερομένη πρὸς τὸν ἐραστήν, ἡ μὲν εἰς αὐτὸν ἔδυ, ἡ δ’ ἀπομεστουμένου ἔξω ἀπορρεῖ
Translation (En)
[251c5–7:] Whenever, then, gazing at the boy’s beauty, it [sc. the lover’s soul] receives from there merē “parts” that epionta “come upon it” and reont’ “flow”—those which, for this very reason, are called himeros “yearning”
[255b7–c4:] But when he persists in acting this way and even comes into physical contact, both in the gyms and on other occasions of intercourse, then at last the source of that rheuma “flow”—which Zeus, when he sexually desired Ganymede, named himeros “yearning”—is set in motion in great force toward the lover: some of it sinks into him, some flows back out again as he becomes filled.
(transl. B.W.)
Other translation(s)
[251c5–7:] So, whenever a soul looks at a boy’s beauty she is watered and warmed from this as she takes in these in-flowing and invading draughts of beauty—that’s why it’s called “desire”
[255b7–c4:] When the lover continues over time to be kind and to remain by his side, even to the point of touching in the gymnasium and other places of companionship, a spring, from that flow which Zeus in love with Ganymede called Desire (Himeros), gushes over the lover, part of its waters entering into him and part of it overflowing when he has become full.
(transl. Scully 1993, 32 and 37)
[251c5–7:] But when it looks upon the beauty of the boy and takes in the stream of particles flowing into it from his beauty (that is why this is called ‘desire’) …
[255b7–c4:] After the lover has spent some time doing this, staying near the boy (and even touching him during sports and on other occasions), then the spring that feeds the stream Zeus named ‘Desire’ when he was in love with Ganymede begins to flow mightily in the lover and is partly absorbed by him, and when he is filled it overflows and runs away outside him.
(transl. Nehamas & Woodruff 1995, 40 and 46)
[251c5–7:] And when looking at the beauty of a boy and receiving particles from there coming in a rush—which indeed for this reason are called desire …
[255b7–c4:] When he perseveres in doing this and draws close to him with physical contact in the gymnasia and other meeting places, at that point the source of that stream which Zeus, in love with Ganymede, called desire is carried along in floods toward the lover, some sinking into him, some flowing away outside as he brims over
(transl. Emlyn-Jones & Preddy 2022, 431 and 443)
Parallels
Hermias of Alexandria, in Phdr. 184.14–16 Couvreur = 192.26–9 Lucarini/Moreschini (ἐνταῦθα δὲ ἵμερος εἴρηται παρὰ τὴν ἀπορροὴν τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ κάλλους, ἀπὸ τοῦ εἰσρεῖν, ὅταν τὰ μέρη τοῦ κάλλους τὰ ἐπιόντα εἰσδεξάμενος διὰ τῶν ὀμμάτων ἄρδηται καὶ θερμαίνηται καὶ αὔξηται καὶ τρέφηται ἡ ψυχή)
Bibliography
Abbate, M. (tr.) 2017. Proclo: Commento al Cratilo di Platone. Florence / Milan: Bompiani.
Ademollo, F. 2011. The Cratylus of Plato: A Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aguilera, J.L.B. 2025. Animismo y literature: Una investigación histórica (de Platón al tecno-animismo). Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter.
Ast, F. (ed.) 1829. Platonis quae exstant opera, vol. X. Leipzig: Reimer.
Babiniotis, G. (Μπαμπινιώτης, Γ.). 2002. Dictionary of Modern Greek (Λεξικό της νέας ελληνικής γλώσσας), 2nd edn. Athens: Κέντρο Λεξικολογίας.
Baltzly, D., & M. Share (trs.) 2023. Hermias On Plato Phaedrus 245E–257C. London / New York / Oxford / New Delhi / Sydney: Bloomsbury.
Beekes, R. 2010. Etymological Dictionary of Greek, 2 vol. Leiden / Boston: Brill.
Burnet, J. (ed.) 1900–1907. Platonis opera, 5 vol., Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cairns, D. 2013. ‘The Imagery of Erôs in Plato’s Phaedrus.’ In: Sanders, E., C. Thumiger, C. Carey, & N. Lowe (eds.), Eros in Ancient Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 233–50.
Calame, C. 1999. The Poetics of Eros in Ancient Greece. Transl. J. Lloyd. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Calame, C. 2016. ‘The Amorous Gaze: A Poetic and Pragmatic Koinê for Erotic Melos?.’ In: Cazzato, V., & A. Lardinois (eds.), The Look of Lyric: Greek Song and the Visual. Studies in Archaic and Classical Greek Song, Vol. 1. Leiden / Boston: Brill, 288–306.
Chantraine, P. 1999. Dictionnaire de la langue grecque: Histoire des mots. Paris: Klincksiek. [= DELG]
Cobb, W.S. (tr.) 1993. The Symposium and The Phaedrus: Plato’s Erotic Dialogues. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Cooper, G.L. (post K.W. Krüger) 1998. Attic Greek Prose Syntax, 2 vol. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Couvreur, P. (ed.) 1901. Hermiae Alexandrini in Platonis Phaedrum scholia. Paris: Émile Bouillon. [= in Phdr.]
Davidson, J. 2007. The Greeks & Greek Love: A Bold New Exploration of the Ancient World. London: Phoenix.
De Vries, G.J. 1969. A Commentary on the Phaedrus of Plato. Amsterdam: Hakkert.
Diels, H. (ed.) 1951–52. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 6th edn., rev. W. Kranz, 3 vols. Berlin: Weidmann. [= DK]
Diels, H. 1884. ‘Gorgias und Empedokles.’ Sitzungsberichte der königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 49, 343–68.
Ebert, Th. 1993. ‘A Pre-Socratic Philosopher behind the Phaedrus: Empedocles.’ Revue de philosophie ancienne 11(2), 211–27.
Emlyn-Jones, C., & W. Preddy (eds., trs.). 2022 Plato: Lysis. Symposium. Phaedrus. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
Ferrari, G.R.F. 1987. Listening to the Cicadas: A Study of Plato’s Phaedrus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fowler, H.N. (ed., tr.) 1914. Plato: Euthyphro, Apology Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, & London: Heinemann.
Frisk, H. 1960–72. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
García Gual, C., M. Martínez Hernández, & E. Lledó (trs.) 1986. Platón: Diálogos III: Fedón, Banquete, Fedro. Madrid: Gredos.
Gaisford, Th. (ed.) 1848. Etymologicum magnum. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gil Fernández, L. (tr.) 2009. Platón: Fedro, 2nd edn. (1st edn.: 1957, Instituto de Estudios Políticos). Madrid: Colección Clásicos Dykinson.
Gordon, J. 2012. Plato’s Erotic World: From Cosmic Origins to Human Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hackforth, F.B.A. (tr.) 1952. Plato’s Phaedrus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hamilton, W. (tr.) 1973. Plato: Phaedrus & The Seventh and Eighth Letters. London: Penguin.
Heindorf, L.-F. (ed.) 1802. Platonis dialogi quatuor: Lysis. Charmides. Hippias Maior. Phaedrus. Berlin: Nauckische Buchhandlung.
Heitsch, E. (tr.) 1997. Platon: Phaidros, 2nd edn. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Jowett, B. (tr.) 1892. The Dialogues of Plato, 5 vol., 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, & London: Milford.
Lebeck, A. 1972. ‘The Central Myth of Plato’s Phaedrus.’ Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 13, 267–90.
Lucarini, C.M., & C. Moreschini (eds.) 2013. Hermias Alexandrinus: In Platonis Phaedrum scholia. Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter. [= in Phdr.]
Marchant, E.C. (ed.) 1921. Xenophontis opera omnia, vol. 2, 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Martini, E. (tr.) 1935. Platone: Fedro. Torino: G.B. Paravia & C.
Méridier, L. (ed., tr.) 1931. Platon: Œuvres complètes, tome V – 2e partie: Cratyle. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Moreschini, C. 1966 (ed.). Platonis Parmenides. Phaedrus. Athens: Edizioni dell’Ateneo.
Nehamas, A., & P. Woodruff (trs.) 1995. Plato: Phaedrus. Indianapolis / Cambridge: Hackett.
Nichols, J.H. (tr.) 1998. Plato: Gorgias and Phaedrus: Rhetoric, Philosophy, and Politics. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.
Nussbaum, M.C. 1994. ‘Platonic Love and Colorado Law: The Relevance of Ancient Greek Norms to Modern Sexual Controversies.’ Virginia Law Review 80(7), 1515–1651.
Nussbaum, M.C. 2001. The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy, revised edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Olson, S.D. 2012 (ed., tr.) The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite and Related Texts. Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter.
Paulsen, T., & R. Rehn (trs.) 2019. Platon: Phaidros. Hamburg: Meiner.
Pasquali, G. (ed.) 1908. Procli Diadochi in Platonis Cratylvm commentaria. Stuttgart / Leipzig: Teubner. [= in Crat.]
Peponi, A.-E. 2002. ‘Mixed Pleasures, Blended Discourses: Poetry, Medicine, and the Body in Plato’s Philebus 46–47c.’ Classical Antiquity. 21(1), 135–60.
Ponce, E. 2019. ‘Empédocle dans la palinodie du Phèdre.’ Les Études philosophiques 131(4), 623–61.
Provencal, V. 2013. ‘Glukus Himeros: Pederastic Influence on the Myth of Ganymede.’ In: Verstraete, B.C., & V. Provencal (eds.), Same-Sex Desire and Love in Greco-Roman Antiquity and in the Classical Tradition of the West, New York: Harrington Park Press, Journal of Homosexuality 49(3/4), 87–136.
Reale, G. (tr.) 1998. Platone: Fedro. Rome: Fondazione Lorenzo Valla.
Reeve, C.D.C. (ed.), 2006. Plato on Love: Lysis, Symposium, Phaedrus, Alcibiades with Selections from Republic and Laws. Indianapolis / Cambridge: Hackett.
Robin, L. (ed., tr.) 1933. Platon: Œuvres complètes, tome IV – 3e partie: Phèdre. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Rowe, C.J. (ed., tr.) 1986. Plato: Phaedrus. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.
Ryan, P. 2012. Plato’s Phaedrus: A Commentary for Greek Readers. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Sansone, D. 2007. ‘An Ingenious Etymology in Plato, Phaedrus 266D7–9.’ The Classical Quarterly (New Series) 57(2), 753–8.
Scully, S. (tr.) 2003. Plato: Phaedrus. Indianapolis / Cambridge: Hackett.
Schleiermacher, F. (tr.) 1804. Platons Werke: Ersten Theiles erster Band. Berlin: Realschulbuchhandlung.
Schleiermacher, F. (tr.) 1855. Platons Werke: Ersten Theiles erster Band, 3rd edn. Berlin: Reimer.
Sedley, D. 1998. ‘The Etymologies in Plato’s Cratylus.’ The Journal of Hellenic Studies 118, 140–54.
Sissa, G. 2013. ‘Phusis and Sensuality: Knowing the Body in Greek Erotic Culture.’ In: Hubbard, T.K. (ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Sexualities. Malden (MA) / Oxford / West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell, 265–81.
Stallbaum, G. (ed.) 1857. Platonis opera omnia Vol. IV Sect. 1: Platonis Phaedrus, 2nd edn. Gotha / Erfurt: Hennings’sche Buchhandlung, & London: David Nutt.
Thompson, W.H. (ed.) 1868. The Phaedrus of Plato. London: Whitaker & Co.
van Thiel, H. (ed.) 1996. Homeri Ilias. Hildesheim / Zürich / New York: Georg Olms.
Verdenius, W.J. 1962. ‘Der Begriff der Mania in Platons Phaidros.’ Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 44(2), 132–50.
Waterfield, R. (tr.) 2002. Plato: Phaedrus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weiss, M. 1998 ‘Erotica: On the Prehistory of Greek Desire.’ Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 98, 31–61.
West, M.L. (ed.) 1966. Hesiod: Theogony. Oxford: Clarendon.
Yunis, H. (ed.) 2011. Plato: Phaedrus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Comment
Commentators broadly agree that Plato’s etymology of himeros in the Phaedrus is problematic. It has been described as “fanciful” (Thompson 1868, 63; Nehamas & Woodruff 1995, 40 n. 99; Nichols 1998, 56 n. 111), even “extremely fanciful” (Waterfield 2002, 93), “fantastic” (Verdenius 1962, 147n.68; De Vries 1969, 174), “extravagant” (Ferrari 1987, 155), “complicated” (Nussbaum 1994, 1573n.240), “ad hoc” (Peponi 2002, 142), “bold” (Scully 2003, 127), “whimsical” (Ryan 2012, 255), “spurious” (Cairns 2013, 248), “fictitious” (Ponce 2019, 632 and 652), and “obscure” (Emlyn-Jones & Preddy 2022, 431n.73). Despite this shared judgment, commentators disagree over what, precisely, Plato’s etymological proposal is meant to be.
At Phaedrus 255b7–c4, the term is explicitly grounded in a single etymon, rheuma (“flow”), identifying himeros as the name of a powerful psychic current. In the earlier passage at 251c5–7, however, the explanation is more complex. The relative pronoun ha in ha dē dia tauta himeros kaleitai (“which, for these reasons, is called yearning,” 251c7) is formally assimilated in gender and number to the emphatic antecedent merē (“particles”) (cf. Cooper 1998, ii, 994, 61.7.8.B); thus, mere … ha directs attention to the concrete “parts” or emanations that “come upon <the lover’s soul> and flow” (merē epionta kai reont’, 251c6–7). The demonstrative tauta, moreover, is plural and anaphoric, thereby licensing multiple contributing features. On this basis, most commentators interpret Plato’s etymology of himeros as implying a tripartite motivation, grounded in epienai + meros + rhoē (e.g., Schleiermacher 1804, 379; 1855, 256; Thompson 1868, 63; Méridier 1931, 18n.2; 105; Robin 1933, 45n.1; Martini 1935, 52n.1; Lebeck 1972, 279; Ferrari 1987, 155; García Gual & al. 1986, 356n.75; Rowe 1986, 71; Nehamas & Woodruff 1995, 40n.99; Heitsch 1997, 36n.33 and 246; Nichols 1998, 56n.111; Reale 1998, 226; Sedley 1998, 142; Nussbaum 2001, 231; Peponi 2002, 142; Waterfield 2002, 93; Reeve 2006, 116; Sansone 2007, 755; Gil Fernández 2009, 78; Ademollo 2011, 254; Yunis 2011,153; Provencal 2013, 131; Paulsen & Rehn 2019, 91; Ponce 2019, 632; Emlyn-Jones & Preddy 2022, 431n.73; Baltzly & Share 2023, 195; Aguilera 2025, 162n.478). This reading is also supported by the only extant continuous commentary on the Phaedrus, where Hermias of Alexandria explicitly derives himeros from epienai + meros + rhoē (in Phdr. 184.14–16 Couvreur = 192.27–8 Lucarini/Moreschini). By contrast, other scholars restrict the etymology to a bipartite derivation from meros + rhoē (e.g., Fowler 1914, 489n.1; Nussbaum 1994, 1573n.240; Calame 1999, 189; Scully 2003, 32n.78 and 127; Gordon 2012, 209; Sissa 2013, 266), although this risks leaving the initial syllable of himeros without a clear motivation. Abbate (2017, 584) instead suggests an assonantal play between himeros and erōs, yielding an interpretation in terms of erōs + rheuma. This, however, goes beyond Plato’s explicit motivation in the passage at 251c5–7. A poetic association between himeros may nevertheless already be suggested by Hesiod (Theogony 201 West).
While himeros is standardly translated as “desire” or “yearning,” some translators have attempted to reproduce Plato’s etymological motivation by rendering himeros as “emotion” (Jowett 1892, i, 458, construing rhoē as “motion”)––a translation which Fowler (1914, 489n.1) rightly criticizes as “too weak a word for himeros”)––or as “flood of passion” (Hackforth 1952, 105; Cobb 1993, 108), “stream of longing” (Hamilton 1973, 64), or “wave of desire” (Calame 2016, 304).
At Phaedrus 255c1–2, Plato has Socrates remark that the name himeros was coined by Zeus, thereby implying that not all acts of name-giving are of human origin (cf. Proclus, in Crat. 20.7–13 Pasquali). This mythological gesture has a further implication: the etymology of himeros is traced back to the notorious episode of Zeus’s abduction of Ganymede (Homer, Iliad XX.231–5 van Thiel; Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite 202–17 Olson)—the only male beloved among Zeus’s many mythological loves. Plato’s choice of Zeus and Ganymede is suggestive for the etymology, since himeros is conceptualized as a copious rheuma, a “stream” that pours forth and overflows back again. The myth of Ganymede as divine cupbearer naturally evokes imagery of pouring and liquid abundance, so Plato’s erotic “flow” may allude to the nectar and ambrosia served to Zeus (Davidson 2007, 7). In this way, the divine coinage of himeros is anchored in a mythic tableau of reciprocal overflow that matches the dialogue’s etymological motivation. Since homosexual intercourse is condemned earlier in the Phaedrus as “contrary to nature” (para phusin, 251a1; cf. Laws I.636c6 and VIII.835c5), several commentators (e.g., Ast 1829, 488; De Vries 1969, 174; Paulsen & Rehn 2019, 94) have argued that Plato is alluding not to Homeric mythology but to Xenophon’s Symposium (8.30.1–2 Marchant), where Zeus’s love for Ganymede is spiritual rather than sexual. However, quite apart from the uncertainty surrounding the relative dating of Plato’s Phaedrus and Xenophon’s Symposium, this interpretation is difficult to sustain, since Plato himself explicitly calls Zeus’ desire for Ganymede erōs (Phaedrus 255c1–2), which primarily means sexual desire.
Another literary and philosophical background crucial to Plato’s etymology of himeros is pre-Socratic thought, especially Empedocles (on Empedocles’s importance for the Phaedrus more generally, see Ebert 1993). As has often been noted, Plato here advances a physicalist model that combines traditional poetic imagery with Empedocles’ optical theory (DK 31 A86, B84, B89), according to which effluences (aporrhoai; cf. Phaedrus 251b2) from visible objects enter the body through the eyes (e.g., Thompson 1868, 62; Diels 1884, 358n.10; De Vries 1969, 154–5; Rowe 1986, 184; Nichols 1998, 56n.111; Cairns 2013, 247–8; Ponce 2019, 632 and 652). In the Phaedrus, Plato playfully appropriates this pre-Socratic framework: particles of the boy’s beauty flow into (merē epionta kai reont’) the lover, producing heat, melting, nourishment, and himeros (intense desire).
A similar etymology appears in the Cratylus (420a9–b4), where Plato derives erōs (“sexual desire”) from esrein (“to flow in”). In the same dialogue (419e3–420a4), Plato also proposes an alternative etymology that partially overlaps with Phaedrus 251c5–7, again associating himeros with rhein (“to flow”), but also with hiesthai (“to rush on”) and ephiesthai (“to rush toward”), rather than with meros and epienai. In light of this difference, Heindorf (1802, 266) and Ast (1829, 453) explicitly reject the analysis of himeros into epienai + meros + rhoē at Phaedrus 251c5–7 as the result of later editorial corruption. However, the best manuscripts record the words epienai, meros, and rhoē at c6–7 in one way or another (Thompson 1868, 64). In any case, Plato’s etymologies of himeros in the Phaedrus and Cratylus may both be exegetically correct even if they are mutually inconsistent (Stallbaum 1857, 112–3; Sedley 1998, 142).
Plato’s etymologies of himeros are not preserved in the Byzantine etymological lexica. The Etymologicum Magnum (470.275–80 Gaisford) offers a different derivation, explaining himeros as a compound of i + meros (“part”). Although this may appear superficially similar to Phaedrus 251c5–7, the underlying conception is fundamentally different: in the Etymologicum Magnum, to experience yearning desire is to become part of the desired object, whereas in Plato’s Phaedrus desire consists in parts of the desired object flowing into the soul of the desiring subject.