Florida State University Libraries

)ORULGD6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\/LEUDULHV 2020 Not a Tale of Alcinous: A Reading of the Myth of Er Jacob Dvorak Follow this and additional works at DigiNole: FSU's Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCES NOT A TALE OF ALCINOUS: A READING OF THE MYTH OF ER By JACOB DVORAK A Thesis submitted to the Department of Classics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with Honors in the Major Degree Awarded: Spring, 2020 Dvorak 2 The members of the Defense Committee approve the thesis of Jacob Dvorak defended on March 30th, 2020. ______________________________ Associate Professor Svetla Slaveva-Griffin Thesis Director ______________________________ Associate Professor Nathanael Stein Outside Committee Member ______________________________ Assistant Professor Virginia Lewis Committee Member *Signatures on file with the Honors Program Office* Dvorak 3 Table of Contents Iὀtὄὁἶuἵtiὁὀμ “ἦhἷ ἦalἷ ὁf a Stὄὁὀg εaὀ” ...................................................................................... 4 I. Reading the Myth of Er: Political, Mythological, and Allegorical ............................................... 8 IIέ ἦhἷ Juἶgmἷὀt ὁf Sὁulὅμ ἑἷὂhaluὅ’ ἔἷaὄ, ἕlauἵὁὀ’ὅ ἑhallἷὀgἷ, aὀἶ χἶἷimaὀtuὅ’ ἤἷὃuἷὅt ........16 Cephalus’ Fear and the Non-Philosopher’s View of Justice ......................................................16 Glaucon’s Challenge and Adeimantus’ Request ........................................................................20 What Should a Soul Fear?: Punishment in the Myth of Er .........................................................31 III. The Spindle of Necessity: The Philosophical Myth and its Messenger .....................................38 The Allegorical Interpretation of Myth in the Phaedrus .............................................................38 How Can a Platonic Myth have Meaning? ................................................................................41 Everyman and ϊaimὀ: Er as Interpretive Lens ........................................................................44 “Binder of the Heavens”: the Spindle of Necessity and an Ordered Cosmos .............................51 IV. The Lottery of Lives: Day-Dwelling Souls and the Choice of Odysseus ..................................60 “The Divine is Blameless”: Human Choice in the Lottery of Lives ............................................61 The Search for Philosophy and the Choices of Heroes ..............................................................65 The Choice of Odysseus: Katabasis as Allegory for Moral Thought ..........................................72 ἑὁὀἵluὅiὁὀμ “ἦhἷ εyth Waὅ ἠὁt δὁὅt”.........................................................................................81 Bibliography .................................................................................................................................85 Dvorak 4 Introduction: “ἦhἷ ἦalἷ ὁf a Stὄὁὀg εaὀ” Slain in battle, a warrior awakes in a place between the human world and the world of the gods. He approaches four openings in the ground and the sky. Through the chasms pass streams of souls, some headed to be rewarded, some to be punished, and some returning their journeys in heaven and the underworld. Souls are usually judged and sent on their way, but when the warrior approaches the chasms, he is told that he will not be judged, but that he will be a messenger of what he sees in this afterlife. The warrior walks with the souls to see a massive beam of light binding the heavens together. Around the beam turn spheres, like the whorls of a spindle, and atop the spheres sit Sirens singing in harmony. The spheres are turned by the three Fates and sitting silent above them is the goddess Necessity. The souls gather and are given lots. They will choose their next lives and will then return to Earth to live them. Some souls choose well, and some poorly. Some souls choose the lives of animals, some the lives of humans. The last soul to choose is the soul of the hero Odysseus, who chooses a peaceful private life. The souls then drink from the River of Forgetfulness and lie down to sleep. They shoot off into the sky like stars, and the warrior awakes on a funeral pyre, days after he died. He tells his story, and it survives. This myth is how Plato ends his Republic. Why does a dialogue rooted in a historical place, at a historical time, and populated by historical figures, end with this vision of the afterlife, attributed to a fictional character? Does the story have a philosophical meaning, or is it just a poetic flourish at the end of a philosophical work? And why does Plato appropriate characters and imagery from the poets he criticizes? Is he simply reacting to previous authors, or is his relationship to his predecessors more complicated? These are all questions one faces when reading the Myth of Er. Readings that answer them too quickly or dismissively can miss important elements of the Republic, from the dynamics Dvorak 5 between its characters to indications that politics cannot address ethics to a demonstration of the importance of imagination and literature for moral thinking. My thesis will not attempt to discover all of the implications of the Myth of Er, nor will it ἵlaim tὁ uὀἵὁvἷὄ itὅ “tὄuἷ mἷaὀiὀgέ” ἤathἷὄ, I will, by analyzing the literary elements of Platὁ’ὅ wὄitiὀg, aὀἶ ἴy ἷxamiὀiὀg thἷ myth with a fὁἵuὅ on its allegorical meaning, argue that it cannot be dismissed as inconsistent with the Republic, incoherent philosophically, or bluntly anti-Homeric. Rather, the myth complements the dialogue it ends; has a philosophical meaning expressed, not through argument, but through character and setting; and responds to a central moral theme of the poetry before Plato. I do not argue these points for their own sakes, but rather to show the rewards of taking Platὁ’ὅ mythὅ ὅἷὄiὁuὅlyέ I will begin with a chapter on previous reading of the Myth of Er. Chapter I will discuss a political reading of the myth, which argues that its purpose is only rhetorical, as well as a mythological reading of the myth, which analyzes thἷ myth iὀ thἷ ἵὁὀtἷxt ὁf ἢlatὁ’ὅ hὁὅtilἷ criticism of past authors. I argue that these readings miss important elements of the myth, and I propose that an allegorical reading would better reveal the meaning intended for philosophical readers, rather than the reductive reading meant for the non-philosopher. I also note that an allegorical reading would still allow for literary analysis and other methods of criticism which ἵὁulἶ lἷaἶ tὁ thἷ myth’ὅ mἷaὀiὀgέ In Chapter II, I turn to a major set-piece of the Myth of Er, the Judgment of Souls. I will argue that the myth, in showing the punishment of souls who are vicious and the rewards for souls who are just, does not contradict earlier points of the Republic, but rather complements and completes those points. The myth answers concerns raised by Cephalus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus in Books 1 and 2; it responds to the fear Cephalus has of punishment in the underworld, the challenge Glaucon issues to provide an account of justice as desirable in itself, the Adeimantuὅ’ request to find a way of talking about vice in a way that does not encourage listeners to be vicious. Dvorak 6 Chapter III turns to another set-piece, the Spindle of Necessity. Here, I will address the philosophical coherence of the myth. This will require me to address the criticism of allegory presented in the Phaedrus. I will argue that this criticism applies to Homeric myth, but not to Platonic myth. Because the cosmos Plato portrays in the myth is ordered, open to human reason, and impactful on human life, it can be allegorized and can have a philosophical meaning. This mἷaὀiὀg iὅ ὅymἴὁliὐἷἶ ἴy thἷ Sὂiὀἶlἷ ὁf ἠἷἵἷὅὅity, whiἵh, aὅ a thiὀg whiἵh “ἴiὀἶὅ thἷ hἷavἷὀὅ,” also connects the divine to the human. The character of Er is constructed to facilitate the conceptualization of such a cosmos, and is key to understanding how the myth has philosophical meaning. Chapter IV, on the Lottery of Lives, continues the analyὅiὅ ὁf thἷ myth’ὅ ὂhilὁὅὁὂhiἵal meaning, but also introduces the problem of inspiration, in my chapter on the Lottery of Lives. I will analyze how the Homeric heroes that appear in this part of the myth represent different character types based on their roles in the poetic tradition. I will finally focus on the choice of Odysseus, which places ἢlatὁ’ὅ ἶἷὂiἵtiὁὀ ὁf ἵhὁiἵἷ ὁf lifἷ iὀ ἵὁὀtἷxt with ώὁmἷὄ’ὅ tὄἷatmἷὀt ὁf thἷ same theme. Plato is responding to Homer, not solely as a critic, but also as a literary writer who ἶἷὂἷὀἶὅ ὁὀ ώὁmἷὄ’ὅ thὁught tὁ ἷxὂὄἷὅὅ hiὅ ὁwὀέ Iὀ faἵt, if ώὁmἷὄiἵ myth wἷὄἷ ἷntirely banished fὄὁm thἷ ὄἷaἶἷὄ’ὅ miὀἶ, thἷ εyth ὁf Eὄ wὁulἶ ἴἷ lἷὅὅ ἵὁhἷὄἷὀt, aὀἶ thἷ ἵhὁiἵἷὅ ὁf thἷ hἷὄὁἷὅ iὀ particular would mean much less. My reading highlightὅ thἷ ὄὁlἷ ὁf litἷὄaὄy ἷlἷmἷὀtὅ ὁf ἢlatὁ’ὅ wὄitiὀg, iὀἵluἶiὀg ἵhaὄaἵtἷὄ, setting, and myths. These ἷlἷmἷὀtὅ fὄamἷ thἷ aὄgumἷὀtὅ ἢlatὁ’ὅ ἵhaὄaἵtἷὄὅ makἷ aὀἶ at timἷὅ introduce myths as responses to philosophical discourse. That this happens at all necessitates a consideration for the poetic and literary parts of Plato. If a reading discounts the myths of Plato as rhetorical, reactionary, or superfluous to the arguments of the dialogues, it misses out on the roles Dvorak 7 those myths play, not only in the philosophical meanings they provide, but also in the way they ὄἷὅὂὁὀἶ tὁ ἢlatὁ’ὅ ἵhaὄaἵtἷὄὅ aὀἶ ὂὁἷtic predecessors. This reading places the myth in its context as part of the Republic,

Load more