Introduction

Chapter � Introduction 1 “Diegesis through mimesis”: Classification of Narrative Genres in Republic 3 In Book 3 of the Republic, Plato introduces the first-ever classification of forms of narrative discourse (diēgēsis). He proposes the three following categories: (a) the “plain” discourse (haplē diēgēsis), which works “through the report (di’ apaggelias) of the poet himself” and is best exemplified by first-person cho- ral poetry; (b) the mimetic discourse (hē dia mimēseōs), which works through impersonation and is best exemplified by dramatic poetry; (c) the “mixed” discourse (di’ amphoterōn), which employs both mimesis and the voice of the poet himself and is most adequately represented in Homer.1 Plato’s classification, in the form of an opposition between diegesis and mimesis, has been enthusiastically embraced by contemporary literary theory. Since the Greek diēgēsis roughly corresponds to what we today call “narrative,”2 the opposition in question has been widely used to highlight the distinction between narrative genres (such as the novel) and the non-narrative (such as drama). Paul Ricoeur seems to have been the first to point out that reading Republic 3 in terms of an opposition between mimesis and diegesis issues from misconstruction of Plato’s original meaning: To avoid any equivocation, however, it should be recalled that in the Republic, iii, 392c, Plato does not oppose diegesis to mimesis. Diegesis is the only generic term discussed. It is divided into “plain” diegesis when the poet narrates events or discourse with his own voice or diegesis “by 1 Resp. 392d5–6, 394b9–c5. The discussion of mimesis in Book 10 of the Republic addresses both verbal and non-verbal forms of mimesis (such as painting and sculpture), and pursues a different agenda: while Republic 3 treats mimesis from the perspective of narrative voice ad- opted by different forms of discourse, Republic 10 explores the ontological status of mimetic art as a whole. For a discussion of Republic 10 see Chapter 7. 2 Cf. Halliwell 2009: 18: “I shall employ ‘narrative’ to designate what Plato’s text, at 392d and sub- sequently, treats as the genus diēgēsis, roughly equivalent to temporally plotted discourse.” © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��9 | doi:�0.��63/97890043900�7_00� <UN> � Chapter � imitation” (dia mimēseōs) when the poet speaks as if he were someone else …3 Rather than being opposed to diegesis, mimesis is unambiguously identified by Plato as its subcategory, that is, as a form of narrative. Although in the con- text of Republic 3 the identification is applied to mimetic poetry, it obviously bears on the way Plato’s own mimetic compositions should be approached.4 As for the mode of presentation, Plato’s dialogues fall into three groups: (a) the narrated dialogues, presented as first-person narratives (the Lysis, the Charmides, the Republic, with the Parmenides forming a special case); (b) the dramatic dialogues, presented as direct speech exchanges (the major- ity of the corpus); (c) the so-called mixed dialogues, cast in both direct and reported speech; in these dialogues, the first-person narrative is preceded by a direct speech exchange between the prospective narrator and the prospective narratee (the Protagoras, the Euthydemus, the Phaedo, the Symposium, with the Theaetetus forming a special case). Although this grouping of the dialogues bears no relation to the triple classification of narrative genres Plato introduced in Republic 3, it has often been approached as such.5 But the identification is misleading, for Plato never speaks for himself in his dialogues. As L.A. Kosman put it, “in each of them [Plato’s dialogues] the narrative voice is itself mimetic.”6 This would eliminate both the “plain” and the “mixed” narrative as classificatory options. Indeed, as Plato’s narrator is never identical with the author, his narrated and mixed dialogues should be considered as no less mimetic than the dramatic ones. At the same time, considering that, as we have seen, Plato unambiguously classi- fies mimetic genres as a subcategory of diēgēsis, his dramatic dialogues should be approached as no less diegetic than the narrated ones. Therefore, as far as Plato is concerned, all his dialogues should be identified as belonging to a 3 Ricoeur 1985: 180 n. 39. See also de Jong 1987: 3; Halliwell 2002: 54 n. 42; Morgan 2004: 357–59; Hunter 2004: 24; Halliwell 2009: 18–19. 4 Cf. Halliwell 2009: 21. Mime and the Socratic dialogue were the only genres of prose fiction to exist at the time; both are subsumed under “poetry” in Aristotle’s Poetics; see further Section 3 below. 5 This tendency can be traced to ancient classifications, see Clay 1992: 116. 6 Kosman 1992: 82. According to Genette (1990: 764–67), dissociation between author and narrator is the primary criterion whereby fiction is distinguishable from non-fiction; cf. Schaeffer 2013: 1 [2]. On the dissociation between author and narrator as “touchstone of fictionality” see also Cohn 1990: 791–800. Cf. Schur 2014: 31, on “the literary face of Plato’s discourse – defined as the obverse of authorial discourse, which is a sine qua non for philo- sophical interpretation,” and Schur 2014: 70–73. <UN>.

Load more