Von Aschenbach's self-destructive ascent to Beauty
Death in Venice in relation to Plato's Symposium
Merlijn Geurts (3495744)
Literary Studies
dr. Birgit Kaiser
June 2012
1
Contents
Introduction..........................................................................................................................3
I. The Symposium: a 'double' ascent to Beauty.....................................................................5
II. Death in Venice: a character description in three phases...............................................14
Conclusion..........................................................................................................................22
Works cited.........................................................................................................................23
2
Introduction
It is not the first time that Thomas Mann's novella Death in Venice (1912) is connected to the
philosophy of Plato. The intertextual relationship between this novella and the philosophical
dialogues of Plato has been examined by several scholars. The dialogue at the forefront of this
discussion and research is Plato’s Phaedrus. The connection between the novella and this dialogue
is apparent since Death in Venice literally refers to the Phaedrus twice. The first time Thomas Mann
follows closely Plato's original arguments. The second time, on the other hand, he deviates clearly
from the ideas of Plato. The succession of these two references – the first literal, the second
nonliteral - has induced scholars to examine how the novella relates to Plato's aesthetics.
Two interesting examples are the articles of Van Buren Kelly and Richard White. They both give a
different answer to Mann’s divergence from Plato’s ideas. Van Buren Kelly concludes that Mann's
protagonist abandons Plato's philosophy because he has realized he is not able to accomplish Plato's
demands that according to his philosophy will guarantee success and happiness in life. White, on
the contrary, does not take the second reference as starting point to analyze how the protagonist
fails, but examines instead how Death in Venice brings Plato’s aesthetics up for discussion.
The relationship between Mann's novella and the aesthetics of Plato will also be my research topic.
However, I think that it is more interesting to compare the novella with Plato’s dialogue the
Symposium. A comparison with this dialogue will give us a better understanding how Death in
Venice in a subtle way nuances Plato's ideas about beauty, especially Plato's main point of the
dialogue: 'the ladder to beauty'. A short summary of the novella will show that all important
elements of the Symposium are present in Death in Venice.
The novella's protagonist is Von Aschenbach: a highly educated writer, who, out of dissatisfaction
with his work and life in general, feels the inclination to travel to Venice. There, he sees the
exceptionally beautiful, Polish boy Tadzio. Solely the sight of the boy –Von Aschenbach never
makes real contact with him- makes him realize the beauty of the world and gives him inspiration
for his work. Soon, however, the boy becomes such an obsession that rational thinking is not
possible anymore. When he discovers that Venice is threatened by a plague, he does not leave the
city out of fear to lose Tadzio and finally dies because of an infection.
The Platonic elements of the Symposium in this story are obvious: Central is the love of an old man
for a young and beautiful boy. Besides, the love never becomes physical; Von Aschenbach only
looks at Tadzio's beauty from a distance. Lastly, the beauty of the boy stimulates the protagonist’s
creativity and is used by him to contemplate on an abstract level about the idea of beauty. But how
do we have to understand Aschenbach's obsession for Tadzio in relation to the Symposium?
3
Following White's position I think Death in Venice questions the ideas of the Symposium.
Therefore, my research question is how we could read Death in Venice as a philosophical answer to
the aesthetic ideas of Plato in the Symposium.
It is important to note that if we maintain a strict genre distinction, we have to classify one text
among the literary texts, the other among philosophical texts. We could ask ourselves the question if
a literary text such as Death in Venice with its ambiguous meaning could function as a significant
commentary on a philosophical text? Yet both texts support the idea that this distinction is not as
strict as seems at first sight. Plato's dialogue is far from univocal and contains many literary
features. The Symposium is for example characterized by its complex narratological structure in
which Plato's fictional spokesman, Socrates, recalls a 'tale of love' he heard once from a priestess
Diotima. In other words, Socrates' speech is already an interpretation of another speech. This
structure makes it difficult to decide which ideas could be ascribed to Plato himself. On the other
hand, the fact that many elements in Mann's novella refer to the philosophy of Plato shows that his
novella comes close to philosophy. Furthermore, as we will later see, the difference between
philosophy and literature is also a theme in both texts.
In the first part I will discuss Plato's Symposium concerning the ideas of Eros, beauty and art and
emphasizing those points of discussion on which Mann reacts with his novella. Subsequently, with
an image of Plato's ideal philosopher in mind I will give an analysis of the character development of
Von Aschenbach in Death in Venice.
4
I
The Symposium:
a 'double' ascent to Beauty
In the Symposium, we find all those ideas that play an important role in Plato’s aesthetics in general.
Namely, the speakers within the dialogue consider questions around concepts such as Eros, art,
beauty and their relation to the ethics: to live a good life. If we analyze the Symposium in isolation,
the combination of topics does not seem to be problematic. However, if we place the dialogue in the
broader context of Plato’s philosophy, it will be clear that the Symposium starts with a few ideas
which seem to be incompatible at first sight (on the hand Eros and art and on the other hand
goodness) but are during the dialogue brought into conformity with each other. A combination that
becomes again important in the analysis of Death in Venice because the novella brings exactly this
combination of aesthetics and ethics up for discussion. Although the novella acknowledges the close
kinship between beauty, art and Eros, the desperate end of Mann’s novella makes it hard to see the
connection of these concepts with a good life.
In Plato's best-known work The Republic the narrator Socrates describes in broad outline a – in his
eyes perfect – state. In this republic rationality is entirely emphasized and seen as the key to
success. In order to stimulate human's rational parts, everything that might increase the irrational
desires of men is rigorously banished. A famous example is Plato's denunciation of the poets in
book X. Although he firstly acknowledges the magnificence of Homer compared to other poets, his
final judgement of all poets (including Homer) is exceedingly negative: “Then must we not infer
that all these poetical individuals, beginning with Homer, are only imitators: they copy images of
virtue and the like, but the truth they never reach.” (Plato, Republic 440) According to Plato an artist
bases his 'images' on the sensible world around him. However, the objects in this sensible world are
themselves already imperfect imitations of their ideal prototypes, the Ideas, which are located in a
transcendent world, only accessible with the mind.1 He concludes therefore that the works of artists
hinder men's ascent to the world of Ideas.
This specific example presents a few important opposites that are relevant not only for the Republic,
but for all of his works: abstract Ideas above observable objects, reasonable thinking above sensory
perception and rationality above irrationality. His general assumption is that a true philosopher, who
understands the importance of distinguishing the eternal Ideas such as Goodness or Courage from
1 Plato describes the creative process of artists as follows: taking the example of a painter who wants to paint a tree.
For him, not the ideal Idea of a tree serves as a model for his work, but a concrete tree, seen right before his eyes.
The painter's work is, therefore, doubly removed from reality, is an imitation of an imitation.
5
their concrete examples in the sensible world (all those things in the world around us we call brave
or good), acquires a higher degree of understanding than those people who do not focus their
attention on the world of Ideas. (Kraut) Above all, because Plato sees reason as the most valuable in
life, a person with a high-developed mind will also have a good life.
To Plato it is thus clear how a man should behave to be a good human, in other words, a
philosopher. The problem although is that humans beings are not in essence completely reasonable
beings. According to Plato the soul is composed of three parts, one of them rational, the two others
irrational. In another dialogue, the Phaedrus, Plato gives us a remarkable image, known as the
chariot allegory, by which he makes the abstract concept of the 'soul' understandable for human
beings. We can compare the soul with a chariot, consisting of two winged horses and a charioteer.
One horse is noble, the other innoble which makes the driving necessarily troublesome. (Plato,
Phaedrus 109) In this allegory the innoble horse represents the irrational 'appetitive' desires of men
such as the craving for food or sex. The 'spirited' desires of men, for example the love for honor or
victory, are represented by the noble horse. These desires are of higher value than the appetitive
desires, but as long as they are not kept under control by human reason, the ‘noble’ desires are also
irrational and therefore dangerous. The charioteer, the symbol for human reason, has the difficult
task to keep both horses under control.
The idea that human life is a constant struggle - an attempt to keep both horses in check - is
perfectly illustrated by the protagonist Von Aschenbach in Death in Venice. The readers get to know
Von Aschenbach as a man with a well-developed reason who seems to have his physical desires,
emotions and irrational thoughts under control. Soon already his apparent control is lost and in the
end of the novel the situation is reversed: his irrational thoughts and feelings control him. Does this
development make Von Aschenbach a bad 'charioteer' or does it reveal the inaccuracy of Plato's
ideal?
With a few of Plato’s fundamental ideas and his chariot allegory in mind it seems logical to think
that the concept of Eros or love has a complicated position within his philosophy. Namely, at first
sight we connect love with the irrational parts of men which Plato despises so hard. Men and
women in love are not longer in control of themselves, are unreasonable, and do irrational things in
the name of love. Secondly, love is mainly something physical. People fall in love because they are
physically attracted to each other. Love takes therefore place in the passing sensible world and not
in the world of the eternally Ideas upon which men's mind must be focused. Besides, in the
dialogues of Plato Eros is also linked to artistic creation. As we have seen above, in the Republic
Plato does not value the artist very high. Notwithstanding, Eros takes an important place in his
philosophy, above all in the Symposium in which a sequel of speeches are given in praise of love.
6
Therefore, the Symposium can be read as a philosophical essay that argues what can be the function
of Eros in a philosophical system that is so much oriented towards a rational and transcendent
world.
More specifically, all the speeches, some direct other indirect, are about homosexual relationships.
The goal of the speakers is to defend love between homosexuals, in particular the (erotic)
relationship between an older and wise man and a young attractive boy. Precisely this kind of love
can be found in Death in Venice in the 'relationship' between Von Aschenbach and Tadzio.
Although the speech of Socrates is considered to be the most important argument of all speakers,
(and mostly read as the ideas of Plato himself) the other speeches also form a part of his philosophy.
They exemplify the idea, put forward in the speech of Socrates, that truth can only be approached
through a gradually ascent. So to understand beauty in its most valuable form, the idea of Beauty,
you also have to understand beauty in all its lower manifestations, including beauty in the sensible
world. Only if you exert yourself to understand those lower forms of beauty you could take them to
a higher level. Could we also attribute this broad understanding of beauty to Mann's Von
Aschenbach? We have to consider if Von Aschenbach simply denies those aspects of life he does
not think of as being of great significance or if he already has surpassed those stages just as
Socrates. Because despite the fact that Socrates' speech refutes the previous argumentations, his
eulogy of love includes elements from all foregoing speeches, although they are adapted to his own
philosophy. In Plato and the question of beauty Hyland argues that we could see this process as a
proto-Hegelian aufhebung (Hyland, 43). A term that covers the overtones because it implicates the
incompatible notions of ‘preserving’ as well as ‘changing’. By the aufhebung of the previous
speeches Plato preserves, cancels, and lifts up the ideas of the other speakers. In sum, the speech of
Socrates cannot be analyzed in isolation. Hence, I take two earlier speeches into consideration to
examplify how Plato uses these previous arguments in is own philosophy (although in a slightly
different form).
The second speaker, Pausanias, holds a relativist view of Eros. He underlines the idea that Eros is
not inherently beautiful, but that its beauty is dependent by the way it is performed: “For actions
vary according to the manner of their performance. (…) and in like manner, not every love, but only
that which has a noble purpose, is noble and worthy of praise.” (Plato, Symposium, 148) While in
Pausanius' speech these words are used to praise homosexual relationships above heterosexual
relations, in the light of Socrates' philosophy, these same words get a totally different meaning.
Praiseful love must have a purpose, is in other words no end in itself ('bad' lovers make on this point
the mistake), but has to be used as a means to acquire a higher degree of knowledge. How this goal
7
is achieved is later described in the climax of his own speech, the ascent to ultimate Beauty.
Also the speech of Aristophanes that at first sight seems to be rather a bizarre myth than a
philosophical argument, is taken into consideration by Socrates. The element of the myth that
explains why people fall in love -the idea that people are in some way incomplete and therefore by
nature try to be a whole again by searching for their other half 2- is transformed by Socrates. Eros is
in the first place a longing for something we do not have ourselves, but is found in the person we
love. Secondly, Eros is not seen as an incidental aspect of life, but as a desire that is natural to the
human condition. Different from Socrates, Aristophanes' view is very pessimistic if we realize that
the love can never end successfully. Because only by chance we can find the other half of our
primeval body and we can never be – no matter how hard we try – a whole again.
In sum, before Socrates has spoken himself his praise of love, several relevant thoughts are already
brought up for discussion by the previous speakers. In his own speech, he repeats the words of
Diotima, a wise woman whom Socrates sees as his instructress in the art of love. In other words,
Socrates describes to his audience – and to us as readers – how he is convinced by the priestess
Diotima in the hope to convince us in the same way.
First Socrates defines the concept of Eros as having an intentional character. It is a situation in
which humans are oriented toward another object of person. In other words, if we are in love we are
always in love of something else. Eros must thus be seen as a relationship between the lover and the
object of his love, the beloved. However, we could directly doubt this argument. As we shall see
later in his speech the right lover starts indeed with the love for another person, but uses this love
primarily to improve himself as a person. Besides, Von Aschenbach, as a lover, resembles in many
respects Socrates' image of the right love. Nevertheless, he has almost no contact with his beloved
at all. They never speak a word with each other nor touch each other. To what extent could we still
see the philosophical ideal of love as a relationship between two people when contact does not
seem to be necessary?
Subsequently, Socrates claims that the two objects involved in love are not the same. Therefore, the
lover does not have to be confused with the beloved. The beloved is the one who is beautiful and
that is exactly the reason he is beloved by the lover who himself does not have the same amount of
beauty. This does not mean that a beautiful person cannot fall in love. Namely, he desires to be
2 According to Aristophanes' myth in the beginning the primeval human was 'double'; he had four arms, four legs, two
faces, two genitals and so on. Their strength and confidence were so great that they tried to rival the powerful gods.
As punishment for their recklessness each human being was divided in two parts by the gods. Ever since all people
search by nature their other half. The realization of human's incompleteness and their longing to become a whole
again is called love. (Plato, Symposium, 155-158)
8
beautiful in the future. In this argument we recognize the idea of Aristophanes' myth that Eros
follows from human's incompleteness. However, this idea is directly modified. A lover who desires
beauty does not completely lack this beauty himself. He is rather 'in the middle', between beauty
and ugliness. These first two statements are important for the rest of his argument. First of all it
gives Socrates the opportunity to divide bad love from good love. The intermediate position of Eros
makes love, just as Pausanius' relativistic definition of Eros, not inherently good or bad. Unlike
Pausanius, Socrates explains clear how we should make this distinction. Secondly, Socrates makes
already the connection between Eros and philosophy. If we take the word philosopher is his literal
meaning as a 'lover of wisdom', we see that in fact a philosopher takes the same middle position –
between ignorance and wisdom - as somebody who loves beauty. Both strives for something that
they do not entirely lack, but only have in some degree.
After defining the concept of Eros, Socrates is taught about the function of love. To illustrate the use
of love Diotima changes the idea of 'love for the beauty' for 'love for the good'. Somebody who
loves the good wants to possess the good because this will bring him a good and happy life.
Similarly, a person who strives for the beautiful in a right way, will lead a good life. Diotima seems
to suggest with this illustration that the concepts of beauty and goodness are very close to each
other. She adds next two important elements: Human beings do not only strive to just possess the
good/beautiful, but to possess it forever. In fact, because people are not immortal - both human
body and soul are not eternal, but always in motion – they strive to reach a sort of immortality.
Secondly, this desire for everlasting goodness is natural to the human condition; it is common to all
men. Eros is a broader concept than seems at first sight. As Eryximachus already argued, Eros
includes much more than just love between two people. According to Diotima we could also see
warriors, politicians, artists and philosophers as lovers. All these different people, stimulated by the
sight of physical beauty, share the same desire to get access to beauty/goodness. Only the way
people try to achieve this goal differs.
On this point in her argument Diotima introduces the element of creativity. In order to gain the good
forever people “give birth in beauty” (Plato, Symposium, 169) because (pro)creation gives the
maker a sort of eternity and immortality. Love is inextricably connected to creativity since people,
in the presence of beauty, naturally feel inclined to create something. The products, resulting from
the urge to creativity, determine the value of the love. Eros in its lowest manifestation is the
physical love between men and women. When two people are sexually attracted to each other, their
love can result in the birth of children. To a certain extent, to become a mother or a father gives
humans immortality. On the moment we die, a part of us will live on because in our children we
9
leave behind something of ourselves.3
In addition to this bodily creativity Diotima speaks of mental creativity, 'pregnancies in soul'. The
examples she gives are poets such as Homer who create beautiful works and politicians such as
Lycurgus who gave Sparta its law. These manifestations of Eros are of higher value because their
creative products are more long-lasting and give their makers more immortality than those of
physical lovers. We still read the works of Homer or speak of the laws of Lycurgus more than 1000
years later, but we have forgotten the names of children, born around that time.4
At this point the two irrational parts of the soul –the earlier considered noble and innoble horse- are
discussed. The first form of Eros, the striving for sex and childbirth, corresponds to the 'appetitive'
part. The human desire for honor (and the corresponding creative products that deserve this praise)
can be linked to the 'spirited' part. The last most important part, the rational soul, also has its
specific form of Eros and is discussed by Diotima. This last category includes people who desire
wisdom and their orientation towards beauty results in a live devoted to philosophy, the best life
humans could wish according to Plato. Nevertheless, before a person is able to dedicate his life to
philosophy, he must pass through a few different stages. This famous ascent, 'the ladder to love', is
the climax and main point of Socrates' speech:
For he who would proceed rightly in this matter should begin in youth to turn to beautiful forms; and
first (…) he should learn to love one such form only – out of that he should create fair thoughts; and
soon he would himself perceive that the beauty of one form is truly related to the beauty of another
(…) and will become a lover of all beautiful forms; this will lead him on to consider that the beauty
of the mind is more honorable than the beauty of the outward form. (…) Until [he] is compelled to
contemplate and see the beauty of institutions and laws (…) [then] the sciences, (…) until at length
he grows and waxes strong, and at last the vision is revealed to him of a single science, which is the
science of beauty everywhere. (…) Beauty only, absolute, separate, simple and everlasting. (Plato,
Symposium,172)
Any person who is able to complete this complicated process, will have in the end a completely
other idea of what beauty is. On the first level we find an idea of beauty that will sound common to
most of the people. It is the physical beauty of a person (in this case the appearances of a young
boy). This is a form of beauty that is subjective, temporary and partial. The beauty is dependent of
the beholder; some consider a person attractive, others do not see this same beauty. Besides, this
It is remarkable that even Eros in his lowest form is called already a “divine thing” (Plato, Symposium, 169). Plato's
supposed aversion to the body should be modified if we also take the Symposium into consideration.
4 On this point the Symposium nuances Plato's negative description of the artist in the Republic. Instead of simply
mirroring the sensible world around them, artists create products of the soul that are of everlasting value decades
after their dead.
3
10
physical attractiveness will not last forever. It is not without a reason Socrates speaks of young boys
in the prime of their lives. The beauty is partial in the sense that no human person can be beautiful
in all respects. If a wise man will realize that in fact everyone, somehow or other, partakes of the
same beauty and thereupon that the mind is more beautiful (and everlasting) than the body, he
approaches 'ultimate beauty'. The Idea of Beauty of which all 'lower' forms of beauty are just an
inferior image, is no longer comprehensible and can only be spoken of in a negative way; it is not
temporary beauty, subjective or relative beauty or partial beauty. Insight in the essence of Beauty is
however not the end. If a human being sees real beauty, he will not only bring forth images of this
beauty (such as poetry or law), but realities. In other words, he will live a beautiful and good life.
In the Symposium Plato presents this path to the Idea of Beauty as a hard, but practicable process
with logical, hierarchic levels. Nonetheless, the text contains several gaps, raising questions for the
readers. Furthermore, these gaps are used by commentators to point to the weaknesses of Plato's
aesthetic philosophy. Finally, we have to consider if Thomas Mann's novella reacts to the
obscurities in his philosophy.
The first important question we must ask ourselves is what brings a person, enjoying physical
attractiveness on the lowest stage, from the first to the second and higher levels? Plato seems to
suggest that, as the philosopher comes closer to ultimate beauty, the element of reason becomes
more important. Far from being only an irrational state, Eros or the experience of beauty is infused
with reason, even at its lowest level (Hyland, 54). A detailed suggestion for this gap is given by
Alexander Nehamas. In his opinion a lover of wisdom, on seeing an attractive boy, not only enjoys
his beauty, but also wants to understand the beauty. The desire for knowledge is exactly what
distinguishes the philosophical lover from the lower, earlier mentioned, lovers. The philosopher will
examine what makes the boy beautiful and will find out that what makes this specific boy beautiful
is that which makes all other objects in the sensible world beautiful. If he then asks what can be the
explanation of all these beautiful objects, he will come to the soul. But only in a perfect society with
good laws and institutions are people able to develop a good soul. However, a perfect society is
established on the basis of knowledge. Lastly, the philosopher will understand that the Idea of
Beauty is the ultimate source or origin for all the beauty, both in the sensible world as in the
intellectual world. (Nehamas, 10-12) On the moment a philosopher realizes the world is organized
in the best and most beautiful way possible, he will fall in love with the world itself.5
5 In Plato's philosophy the form of Beauty/Goodness is not one of the forms, but the ultimate principle. It is not on the
same level as for example the form of Courage or Honesty, but illuminates all the other forms like the sun. (Plato,
Republic, 357) Namely, if we consider all the different forms we see that they all share in perfection, goodness and
11
The second question is as follows: if a philosopher has reached the Idea of Beauty and, as a result,
has fallen in love with the whole world, what remains of his first love, the love for a particular boy?
Many scholars have thought Plato's message is that when a lover realizes one kind of beauty is of
higher value than the other, he leaves this lower beauty behind. In my eyes these scholars have not
understand the importance of the ascent (both the literal ascent to beauty and the more abstract
ascent: the succession of different speeches). Both ascents illustrate that a philosopher who wants to
gain a clear understanding of beauty must see beauty in all its manifestations, including the low
appearances of beauty. It is not without a reason Ditioma argues that “he who would proceed rightly
in this matter should" (Plato, Symposium, 171 emphasis mine) start with love for physical beauty
instead of directly turning to intellectual beauty. Therefore, as a lover proceeds on the ladder to
beauty, he will not stop loving his first boy, but will give the boy’s beauty a place in the world. If we
understand the beauty and our love for a particular boy, we no longer see this boy as an end in itself,
but use our love and his beauty to acquire more knowledge.
However, we may ask ourselves if we could still call the higher stages on the ascent 'love’. Vlastos
thinks not. He famously argued that the Symposium does not provide us a theory about 'real' love,
only of ‘functional’ love. According to Vlastos human beings can never be beautiful in every
possible way; No single person is wholly free of ugliness. Therefore, Vlastos argued: “What we are
to love in persons is the ‘image’ of the Idea in them. We are to love the persons so far, and only
insofar, as they are good and beautiful.” (Vlastos, 31) The climax of the ascent - the insight in
Beauty itself for which all earlier loves are used as ‘steps’ – is a condition in which a person is far
removed from love for an individual person. What is left in this highest state of the irrational side of
love (a part that in the image of the chariot was an essential element of love)?
According to Nussbaum we find the irrational side of Eros in the last speech of Alcibiades, often
ignored in analyses of the Symposium. After Socrates has ended his eulogy on the most abstract
form of Eros, Alcibiades starts a praise of love of a particular person: Socrates himself. His speech
shows that he is, in his own words, "hopelessly enslaved" (Plato, Symposium, 179) by Socrates.
Although he knows Socrates does not return his love, he cannot stop himself loving him and does
irrational things out of love. His whole appearance - drunk, with passionate outbursts - illustrates
his irrational condition. Although the condition of Alcibiades is anything but desirable, we can see
his speech as a negation of Socrates philosophy. In the course of Ditioma's ascent some aspect of
Eros is lost; exactly that part of love that is represented by Alcibiades.
beauty. This form must therefore be seen as the cause and beginning of everything else in the world whereas
Goodness/Beauty itself has no cause, but is a beginning in itself. If a person falls in love with the ultimate form, he
will necessarily love the whole world.
12
On some moments in Mann's novella, particularly towards the end of Death in Venice, the
protagonist Von Aschenbach shows similarities with the figure of Alcibiades. He is also 'enslaved'
by his love for Tadzio and this condition, just as Alcibiades' condition, denies Socrates' praise of
love. However, -and I think that this point makes Death in Venice a more interesting and exhaustive
reply than the speech of Alcibiades- Von Aschenbach sometimes resembles the ideal lover, as
described by Socrates, and seems to succeed in his ascent to Beauty. How should we interpret this
ambivalent position towards the aesthetics of Plato?
13
14
II
Death in Venice:
a character description in three phases
The reader's first acquaintance with the protagonist of Death in Venice will probably result in an
image of Von Aschenbach that meets the requirements of the ideal philosopher according to Plato.
We get to know Von Aschenbach who is characterized by his exactness, perseverance and
discipline. The devotion to his work -the writing of difficult and great pieces of literature- is so
great that he has curbed his feelings (Mann, 201) because his work demands of him great caution,
highly intellectual powers and precision. (Mann, 197) He focuses rather on his mind than on his
body. Instead of indulging his body, he for example starts every day early by dousing his body with
splashes of cold water (Mann, 204). His aversion to ostentation is displayed when he sees on the
boat to Venice an older man, gaudy dressed like the young people around him and wearing make-up
and a wig to mask his symptoms of old age:
With a spasm of distaste Aschenbach watched him as he kept company with his young friends. Did
they not know, did they not notice that he was old, that he had no right to be acting as if he were one
of them? They seemed to be tolerating his presence among them as something habitual (...), they
treated him as an equal, reciprocated without embarrassment when he teasingly poked them in the
ribs. How was this possible? (Mann, 211)
Nevertheless, despite his earlier disapproving attitude towards external care, in the final stage of his
life he changes his mind. The youthful beauty of his beloved makes him aware of his own old age.
Out of fear to be rejected by Tadzio he colors his grey hair, uses perfume and starts wearing jewels
and colorful and youthful clothes.
If we set those two images of Von Aschenbach side by side we understand that a complete inversion
of his morality has taken place. The morality that Von Aschenbach propagates in the end of the
novella – his obsession with his own physical appearances and those of Tadzio – is completely
opposed to the moral life that, according to Plato, would be the best result of Eros or the sight of
physical beauty. If we compare the character development of Mann’s protagonist with a person who
successfully passes through Plato’s ascent to Beauty, we have to conclude something has gone
wrong. The question is how we have to interpret Von Aschenbach’s ‘mistake’. Do we have to
conclude that Von Aschenbach is not capable to complete the difficult ascent Plato prescribes? In
that case we have to see Von Aschenbach’s miserable end as a consequence of his own behavior
because, as van Buren Kelly concludes: “Von Aschenbach has strayed from the path set forth by
Plato” (van Buren Kelly, 240). Or is Von Aschenbach’s failure of greater significance? In that case
15
Mann by writing this personal story indirectly comments on Plato’s beliefs and questions Plato’s
idea of beauty as a means to reach the ultimate Good/Beauty (White, 53).
The Platonic idea of the three-sided soul -one part rational, the two other parts irrational- plays an
important role in the novella. From the first meeting with Von Aschenbach, the narrator emphasizes
how his character is influenced by both powers. In this light the history of his descent is symbolic
because characteristics of both parents, each representing one of the forces, come together in the
personality of Von Aschenbach. He has inherited his mother’s fiery impulses and from his father’s
side –a family of officials, all in service to the state- plain meticulousness (Mann, 202-203). He is
therefore just as Eros in the speech of Ditioma in a middle position.6 Although by nature Von
Aschenbach has a rational just as an irrational part, this does not mean that he considers them being
of the same value. His whole life he is inclined to the rational side of his father’s family. Initially it
seems as if we could see, keeping Plato’s image of the charioteer in mind, Von Aschenbach as a
good driver who is able to keep both irrational horses under control.
If we, however, turn our attention to his novels and on basis of his creative products determine the
quality of the mental condition of its maker (just as Plato does when he uses the creative products to
distinguish different kind of lovers), we have to realize that his condition is far from preferable. The
essence of his work is that it is created ‘despite of things’, such as sorrow, pain and loneliness
(Mann, 205). In this image, precisely the element that in Plato’s aesthetics inspires the poet to create
beautiful work, the love of beauty, is not present. The rational part of human life that dominates his
life, similarly dominates his work. Nonetheless, this does not mean that the physical beauty is
totally absent. His oeuvre has already gone through an important development on the moment Von
Aschenbach became conscious of his limited knowledge. After this revival, an intensified sense of
beauty could be observed in his work: an increased interest in style and form above rational
knowledge. (Mann, 207) In the eyes of van Buren Kelly this change already illustrates the problem
of Von Aschenbach. She thinks that in his arts we see that Von Aschenbach is not able to bring both
sides of his character in harmony, in the same way the charioteer keeps both horses under control.
Although in the form and style of Von Aschenbach's novels the element of beauty is found, this
beautiful form is just at the disposal of the content. As van Buren Kelly concludes: “Even when
denying knowledge in favour of feeling, he manages to detach feeling from its roots in his
6 Von Aschenbach’s parentage shows conspicuous similarities with the myth of Eros’ birth that is told by Ditioma in
the beginning of her speech. (Plato, Symposium, 166-167) According to this myth Eros is a child of the gods
‘Poverty’ and ‘Plenty’ and this combination of parents explains his philosophical nature. As a consequence of his
middle position -between beauty and ugliness, between ignorance and wisdom- he is always searching for
something he does not have himself and is, in other words, a lover of beauty and wisdom.
16
subjective instinct and graft it onto his mind where it becomes merely another aspect of the
intellect.” (Van Buren Kelly, 232)
On the other hand, if we realize how in the eyes of Plato an ideal philosopher would deal with
feelings (of love) and beauty in the sensible world, how could we then see Von Aschenbach’s
attitude as a mistake? Namely, he does exactly what Socrates recommends in his speech: seeing
love and physical beauty as just an inferior image of the more valuable and everlasting intellectual
beauty and love, and making those lower manifestations of love and beauty subservient to those of
more value. To put it briefly, the novels of Von Aschenbach demonstrate that the writer is already on
one of the higher stages of the ladder to beauty.
In my opinion van Buren Kelly is wrong in locating the mistake in Von Aschenbach’s incorporation
of feelings and beauty in his works. This does not mean he has made no mistake at all. His work
indicates in another way that in some way Von Aschenbach’s attitude is wrong because, despite his
earlier achievement to bring form and content in harmony, the writer himself cannot be satisfied
with his own novels. His art does not seem to be ‘inspired’. (Mann, 60) Von Aschenbach has missed
another important issue of Plato’s aesthetics: any person, who wants to get a clear understanding of
beauty, has to go through all stages, beginning with the love of a single person. Von Aschenbach, on
the other hand, has been focused from childhood on his intellect and with this mentality has missed
a few crucial stages: “Ever since his boyhood the duty to achieve -and to achieve exceptional
things- had been imposed on him from all sides, and thus he had never known youth's idleness, its
carefree negligent ways.” (Mann, 203: emphasis mine) In the novella Von Aschenbach’s attitude is
perfectly symbolized by the following image: “'You see, Aschenbach, has always only lived like
this' -and the speaker closed the fingers of his left hand tightly into a fist- 'and never like this' -and
he let his open hand hang comfortably down along the back of the chair.” (Mann, 203)
By directly turning to intellectual beauty instead of starting with the love of one body and
subsequently of all beautiful forms, he has not overcome those elements that by nature stimulate
irrational behavior. He has never exerted himself to first experience those more irrational parts of
life and afterwards give them a place within the rational world such as Plato's ideal philosopher, but
has simply denied them. Besides, Von Aschenbach has never experienced the gradual understanding
of concepts such as Eros and beauty, which in the Symposium is illustrated by the succession of
different speeches about Eros, if he has denied all forms of beauty and Eros that do not fit in his
intellectually oriented life.
The missing element, the element that will change his novels from ‘good’ into ‘brilliant’, is Eros in
its lowest form: the love for physical beauty. And Von Aschenbach -conscious of his shortcoming,
but not able to define it in detail- feels suddenly the need to travel to unknown places, to interrupt
17
his day-to-day worries. His intuition brings him to romantic Venice, the place where he will
experience Eros for the first time in his life. It is no coincidence that Von Aschenbach at this
moment of his life feels this dissatisfaction with himself and his work and this longing for beauty.
Having turned fifty, he has the most time of his life behind him and the idea of death confronts him.
His old age makes Von Aschenbach who has always been focused on his mind, aware of his own
physical body that is declining. Realizing that the beauty of his body has disappeared, he will seek
this beauty in others around him. Here we recognize the Platonic idea of Eros, as a longing for
something we do not have ourselves.
That Venice will have, besides the experience of Eros, negative consequences is clear to the reader
from the beginning. Along his way to Venice Von Aschenbach meets several figures with demonic
features. They all have reddish features, noticeably big teeth, red eyes and a terrifying appearance.
In contrast to earlier visits, the sky is grey and cloudy. Besides, the gondola on which he travels,
reminds him of death because of its pitch-black color, its shapes of a bier, especially in the
environment of the deathly quiet and deserted lagoon. (Mann, 214-215) These bad portents make
Von Aschenbach from the first moment doubtful about his decision to depart for Venice.
However, on the first moment he sees one of the other present guests of the hotel all his doubts
disappear because with amazement Von Aschenbach sees that one of the guests, a young Polish boy,
is perfectly beautiful. Directly afterwards he looks at the boy with the detached, disinterested look
of an artist. He compares the beauty of the individual boy several times with the beauty of works of
art: “His countenance (…) recalled Greek sculpture of the noblest period” (Mann, 219), “Like that
of the Boy Extracting a Thorn it [=hair] fell in curls over his forehead, over his ears, and still lower
over his neck.” (Mann, 220) “It was the head of Eros, with the creamy lustre of Parian marble, the
brows fine-drawn and serious, the temples and ear darkly and softly covered by the neat rightangled growth of the curling hair.” (Mann, 223)
The aesthetic look of Von Aschenbach marks the transition from one beautiful form to all beautiful
forms, the first important ascent in Plato’s ladder to beauty. For his aesthetic look is not only
emotional and personal, but involves already some degree of rationality. He restricts the beauty he
sees not only to the body of the boy, but includes also other examples of beauty in his positive
judgment. This transition makes the beauty of Tadzio also less subjective and relative. If Von
Aschenbach speaks of the beauty of the boy, other people could argue that his judgment is
subjective. Maybe the boy is beautiful to him, but not to others. If he compares Tadzio's beauty with
the beauty of famous works of art, his beauty becomes more objective because the fame of those
works of art already proves that many people over the years have considered them as beautiful. In
18
sum, the boy is not seen as an individual, but rather as an example of a broader beauty in which also
sculptures participate.
After days of sitting on the beach and watching the boy Tadzio, playing at the waterside, he is also
able to transfer Tadzio's physical beauty to the intellectual sphere. While considering in detail the
beauty of Tadzio's body he reaches the conclusion that a beautiful mind has to be seen as the cause
of beautiful forms such as the boy before his eyes. With this idea in mind he sees the boy Tadzio as
an expression of precise thoughts. From that moment he thinks of beautiful forms in the sensible
around him as sculptures and mirrors of mental beauty. (Mann, 237) Sculpture in the sense that it is
a sensible form in which beautiful thoughts are made visible. The comparison with the mirror can
be understood in the sense that the beholder sees the mental beauty in the physical beauty.
The philosophical attitude of Von Aschenbach is really clear when the reader becomes acquainted
with his thoughts and understands that even the last phase of the ascent is achieved:
His eyes embraced that noble figure at the blue water's edge, and in rising ecstasy he felt he was
gazing on Beauty itself, on Form as a thought of God, on the one and pure perfection that dwells
in the spirit and of which a human similitude and likeness had here been lightly and graciously set
up for him to worship. (Mann, 237)
His reflections resemble the words of Diotima very closely and contain several important Platonic
ideas. The idea that ultimate beauty is a divine Idea that is only approachable with the mind. This
Idea of beauty is perfect and eternal while its 'inferior' beautiful images on earth are human, just
temporary beautiful. In this quotation of Mann it is even more clear than in Plato's Symposium that
in the last stage of the ascent the beauty of the first boy, the starting point, is not left behind. Only
with his eyes turned towards Tadzio's body, he gets an insight into Beauty itself. And even in this
moment of contemplation the rapturous delight that belongs to Eros is still present. In this way
Thomas Mann's novella reacts on the earlier mentioned obscurities in the dialogue of Plato.
It is also important to notice that Von Aschenbach is very conscious of his completed ascent. He
understands that the spiritual can only be made comprehensible and visible by means of physical
beauty, in his personal case the appearance of Tadzio. Von Aschenbach himself makes the
connection between his individual development and the aesthetics of Plato by referring to Plato's
dialogue Phaedrus. (Mann, 238-239) According to Richard White this explicit reference to Plato is
of great significance. It makes clear that Von Aschenbach believes in the truth of Plato's dialogues.
He has accepted Plato's account of beauty as a means to achieve “a higher order of Being” and with
this philosophy in mind justifies his interest in the boy Tadzio. (White, 61) The ideas of Plato are,
however, already slightly altered by Von Aschenbach, not only repeated. In opposition to Socrates
19
he emphasizes expressly that beauty is only the way, a means to the spirit. (Mann, 239) I think this
addition must be seen as the first indication that Von Aschenbach questions the ideas of Plato.
Finally, the last important element of Plato's aesthetics is present: the creative urge of lovers. The
writer, who for a long time has struggled with the production of novels and had the idea that
'something' is missing, suddenly feels inclined to write. And with the lines he writes in presence of
Tadzio -taking the beauty of the boy as example for his work- he is capable to put his experience of
beauty over to the public because: “its limpid nobility and vibrant controlled passion was soon to
win the admiration of many.” (Mann, 239) It is striking that Von Aschenbach, contrary to Plato's
ideal philosopher, produces a work of art after he has reached the top of the ascent. It seems as if
Mann wants us to attach another value to literature than the Plato of the Symposium. Although in the
Symposium literature is considered a product of men with fully developed minds and not as
products of deceivers as in the Republic, writers are only halfway the ladder of beauty. Plato's
ultimate goal is of course the production of philosophy. Yet, Von Aschenbach development shows
that a great writer first must have a complete understanding of his subject and his own activity of
writing, before he can create beautiful art. Death in Venice therefore gives literature even more
importance than philosophy. In Von Aschenbach's piece of literature the tension between abstract
philosophy and the Eros and attraction of concrete, beautiful objects is tangible for the readers. It
illustrates in other words more the long and complicated process of which it is a result than the
rational language of philosophical works. The fragment illustrates that something of the starting
point of this process, the more irrational love, has to be preserved in the artwork to make it brilliant.
This explains why Von Aschenbach who has never created in this way a work of art afterwards feels
exhausted and shattered. He already realizes that this irrational element is necessary for his novels,
but is hard to keep under control.
How then, if great works need Eros as a source of inspiration, do we have to understand the
narrator's comment that it is better for the beholders of a work of art not to know this source of
inspiration? Why would it “confuse readers, and shock them” and why would “the excellence of
the writing be of no avail”? (Mann, 239) I think we have to analyze these words as follows: artist's
sources of inspiration are just 'normal' human people with good and bad characteristics, but artists,
by looking at them with an aesthetic eye, only see their beautiful qualities. In this context we could
repeat the words of Vlastos that people who follow Plato's ascent, have “to love people so far, and
only in insofar, as they are good and beautiful”. (Vlastos, 31) This is exactly what artists do with
their muses. However, when the beholders of art see muses as normal people and not as aesthetic
objects, they realize the discrepancy with the artworks themselves. Since the sources of inspiration
are humans, they can never be beautiful in all respects. On the other hand, the creative products
20
that derive from them, could be perfectly beautiful. In this field of tension, between humans seen as
aesthetic objects and humans seen as 'real' people, we have to understand the turning point of the
novella. For the beginning of Von Aschenbach's decay starts when Tadzio changes before his eyes
from a sculpture into a real human.
As we have seen Von Aschenbach is capable to reach the end of Plato's ascent. The final end is on
the other hand never achieved: to fall in love with the whole world and consequently have a good
life. In opposition to Plato's philosopher, his completed ascent does not bring him happiness, but
misfortune. If we look at the first signs that indicate Tadzio has become an obsession, we see that at
these moments Tadzio is no longer an aesthetic object, but a human: Von Aschenbach observes that
Tadzio has an unhealthy, yellowish skin (Mann, 220) or sees his serrated, unhealthy teeth. By seeing
these imperfections, Von Aschenbach becomes conscious of the human, imperfect nature of his
beloved. But the real turning point is the moment Tadzio actually 'comes to life' by smiling at Von
Aschenbach. (Mann, 244) He is no longer capable to maintain his aesthetic gaze and really falls in
love. From that moment on he starts to follow the boy and his family everywhere without fearing
his passion becomes noticed by others. His passion even motivates him to stay in Venice, although
he discovers the city is stricken by a deathly plague, which in the end will entail his own death. In
this way the novella reacts to a shortcoming in Plato's philosophy by illustrating, just as Alcibiades,
that there is no place for real love in his aesthetics. But in my eyes, Death in Venice spreads another
message: namely, each person who lives by Plato's philosophy of Eros risks to end just as miserably
as Von Aschenbach.
Plato asks of philosophers to live an inward life, above all focused on the mind. Society, other
people and even your own body do not have to influence your life. A philosopher has to live a
complete self-sufficient life based upon the strength of his inner life. At the same time, Plato
demands of the philosopher to search for a source of inspiration -a catalyst to come to real
philosophy- in the outside world. Precisely this combination is dangerous since the object of love
confronts the philosopher, detached from society, with reality.
In first instance Von Aschenbach is capable of keeping these two opposite expectations in balance.
In this way he could admire Tadzio and yet maintain his distance in such a way that he is able to
write an essay while watching him. But Von Aschenbach's awareness of the boy's 'reality' changes
his disinterested artist's look into an overpowering passion. Yet, the self-sufficient Von Aschenbach
fails to cope with his feelings and completely internalizes his love. His love is subjective and only
involves his own inner love, not the beloved's individuality. In fact, his attraction is not to a real
person, but to his own idea that is projected on the boy.
However, as Braverman and Albert argue in 'The dialectic of decadence': “love cannot remain
21
entirely subjective for long, at least not without disastrous consequences.” (Albert, Haverman, 296)
In the first place because the object of love is part of the outside world. And in the special case of
Von Aschenbach because he does not allow himself to publicly expose his feelings of passion. He
for example refrains to speaking to him, fearing that the real Tadzio does not live up to his selfcreated image of the boy. (Mann, 240) In all respects, Von Aschenbach's fails to come into grip with
his own body. Throughout the novella Von Aschenbach sees his own feelings of love as a disease
that afflicts his body, just as the city Venice is infested by a plague. Albert and Haverman conclude
that “Death in Venice present the dialectical working out of the perils of any development which is
estranged from the world and the body.” (Albert, Haverman, 297) I want to add that this
estrangement is caused by Von Aschenbach's own belief in the ideas of Plato, which have served as
a guiding principle of his life.
In this light we should understand his correction of Plato's words on the moment he realizes that
Plato's philosophy has not brought him happiness at all. Just before he dies he alters the words
Socrates speaks to Phaedrus in Plato's dialogue Phaedrus:
But do you believe, dear boy, that the man whose path to the spiritual passes through the
senses can ever achieve wisdom and true manly dignity? Or do you think rather (I leave it to you to
decide) that this is a path of dangerous charm, very much an errant and sinful path which must of
necessity lead us astray? (Mann, 264)
With these words Von Aschenbach argues that his own decline must not be seen as a personal
failure, but as an inevitable outcome of any person who follows Plato's advice, aiming for
perfection. Although he has found the inspiration that has resulted in the creation of one brilliant
work, the consequences for his own person were disastrous. Therefore, he asks himself the question
if it would not be better to reject the whole philosophy of Plato. This question remains unanswered.
Death in Venice does not give any answer, nor gives it an alternative or solution for the problem.
Nevertheless, Mann seriously challenges Plato's aesthetics by giving a counter-example that
challenges seriously his philosophical model of Eros, beauty and art.
22
Conclusion
Thomas Mann's Death in Venice relates in a complex way to the aesthetics of Plato. In some
respects the novella seems to confirm Plato's ideas in the Symposium, as put forward by Socrates in
his speech of Eros. Several arguments are, however, questioned in Mann' story about Von
Aschenbach.
Just as the Symposium the novella illustrates the idea that, in order to create a genius work, its
maker has to understand beauty in all its manifestations. Furthermore, both texts argue that the
beautiful appearance of a human being could function as the perfect catalyst to achieve this
knowledge. Nonetheless, while the Symposium presents the ascent to the ultimate understanding of
beauty as a hard, but achievable path, the personal story of Von Aschenbach makes the same path
appear as an inevitably self-destructive ascent. The story emphasizes strongly -and in this respect
the novella already reacts to the obscurities in Socrates's speech- that in Von Aschenbach's genius
work of art a part of the irrational side of love and of Tadzio's physical beauty is still present.
Furthermore, Mann's texts actively criticizes Plato's philosophy by showing that an impossible task
is asked of the artist by Plato. On the hand he has to leave behind daily life to focus entirely on the
mind. Precisely in this life, however, the indispensable source of inspiration is situated. The
character Von Aschenbach shows what the combination of these incompatible demands does with
men. In sum, Plato's path may be fruitful for the quality of art, for someone's life it is devastating.
Finally, Mann seems to question with his novella Plato's supposed superiority of philosophy. Von
Aschenbach namely writes his brilliant piece of prose after philosophizing about the nature of beauty.
Literature reflects better the preparatory ascent because it includes the beginning as well as the final
stage of the ascent, the rational as well as the irrational side of life. In other words, Thomas Mann
gives with the personal story of Von Aschenbach -a man who follows Plato's path and experiences
its consequences- a philosophical as well as a literary reply to the Symposium of Plato.
23
Works cited
Braverman, Albert and Larry David Nachman. “The Dialectic of Decadence: An Analysis of
Thomas Mann's Death in Venice.” Germanic Review 45.4 Nov. 1970: 289-298.
Buren, Kelly, Alice van. “Von Aschenbach's Phaedrus: Platonic Allusion in Der Tod in Venedig.”
The Journal of English and Germanic Philology 75.1 Jan. 1976: 228-240.
Hyland, Drew A. Plato and the Question of Beauty. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2008.
Kraut, Richard. “Plato” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. Edward N. Zalta. Stanford
University, Mar. 2004. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/#PlaCenDoc>
Mann, Thomas. Death in Venice: and Other Stories. Trans. David Luke. London: Vintage Books,
1998.
Nehamas, Alexander. “Only in the Contemplation of Beauty is Human Life Worth Living: Plato,
Symposium, 211d.” European Journal of Philosophy 15.1 Apr. 2007: 1-18.
Nussbaum, Martha. “The Speech of Alcibiades: a Reading of Plato’s Symposium.” Philosophy and
literature 3.2 1979: 131 – 171.
Plato, Plato: Six Great Dialogues. Trans. Benjamin Jowett Mineola. New York: Dover publications,
2007.
Vlastos, Gregory. “The Individual as Object of Love in Plato.” in Platonic Studies. 1973. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1981.
White, Richard. “Love, Beauty and Death in Venice.” Philosophy and Literature 14.1 Apr. 1990:
53-64.
24