Parody as Pedagogy in Plato’s Dialogues Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Joseph Robert Danielewicz, B.A., M.A. Graduate Program in Greek and Latin The Ohio State University 2015 Dissertation Committee: Bruce Heiden, Advisor Richard Fletcher Tom Hawkins Copyright by Joseph Robert Danielewicz 2015 ii Abstract This dissertation is a study of parody in Plato’s dialogues. In it I argue that parody is not merely a literary, aesthetic, or rhetorical feature of his texts, but a part of his philosophical program and pedagogy. Plato humorously represents the ideas of other intellectuals to show the reader things about them which they might not have seen before such as their hidden assumptions and unintended consequences. In the Introduction I contrast my position with that which sees Plato’s philosophy as equivalent to some number of doctrines or philosophical positions. Often we try to square what Socrates is saying with what we think Plato believes, instead of seeing that what he says is actually a critical parody of someone else’s views. Here I situate my argument within larger schools of Platonic interpretation and discuss the history and theory of parody. In Chapter One I argue that we can better understand Plato’s use of parody by looking at his dramatic predecessor, Aristophanes. The comic playwright not only humorously represents and subjects to criticism many of the same ideas and habits of thought and speech Plato does, but he too does so in order to educate his audience. He uses humor and the (mis)representation of parody to paradoxically show them the truth. In Chapter Two I analyze Agathon’s speech in Plato’s Symposium, arguing that it serves as a parody of the views of the sophist Gorgias. This recognition allows the reader to see that Agathon’s eros is actually an external, physical, compelling force, something not apparent on the surface of his encomium. It is this underlying assumption about desire that Plato is exposing through the humor of parody. In Chapter Three I show that the theory of music education in the Republic is not representative of Plato’s views, but a parody of the theories of Damon, an intellectual in Pericles’ inner circle. Plato is showing his readers what happens when one adopts Damon’s ideas which, like Gorgias’, rest on materialist principles. In Chapter Four, I argue that Socrates’ etymological demonstration in the Cratylus, far from harboring Plato’s theory of language, is actually a parody of contemporary views about words. In this dialogue, Plato shows how one’s ideas about language go hand in hand with a metaphysics and ethics. He uses parody to show what a materialist view of language means for one’s conception of virtue, reality, and the self. ii Dedication To Joey Lipp συναισθάνεσθαι ἄρα δεῖ καὶ τοῦ φίλου ὅτι ἔστιν, τοῦτο δὲ γίνοιτ' ἂν ἐν τῷ συζῆν καὶ κοινωνεῖν λόγων καὶ διανοίας· (Nicomachean Ethics 1170b) iii Acknowledgements I must express my deepest gratitude first and foremost to my advisor, Bruce Heiden without whom this project would not have been possible. After long conversations in his office, I would leave with new resolve, inspired by his profound respect for the text and author. His continued support and guidance through time, distance, and choppy waters was essential to my success and I owe as much to him as I do to any Muse. I would also like to thank my committee members Richard Fletcher and Tom Hawkins. Richard’s intellectual exuberance and passion for philosophy and/in/as literature fanned my own. Tom was a phenomenal teacher and by offering help at a critical moment has strengthened his well-deserved reputation as a model professor. Anthony Kaldellis and his seminar on Plato was also an integral part of my candidacy and early stages of this dissertation. His ability to cut through muddled notions by asking the perfect piercing question has helped me avoid pitfalls and hone my arguments. The Classics Department at The Ohio State University, including both my fellow graduate students and the faculty, provided an excellent environment in which to pursue this research. I could never fully know or recount the ways in which I benefited from them. I am also glad that I took classes with Alan Silverman in the Philosophy Department. His Socratic mannerisms helped humanize abstruse discussions of akrasia and the metaphysical mathematics of the Timaeus. I would finally like to thank my family and friends for their unflagging faith and encouragement, Ben McClosky for the hours spent together in coffee shops bouncing ideas off one another, and lastly Joey Lipp. After moving and taking a job that separated me from the community of scholars and the intellectual currents of campus life, he was my life-line back. iv Vita 2006…………………... B.A. Philosophy, B.A. English Literature, The Barrett Honors College at Arizona State University 2006-2012…………….. Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of Greek and Latin, The Ohio State University 2008…………………… M.A., Greek and Latin, The Ohio State University 2012-Present…………... Latin teacher at Northwestern High School, Springfield, OH Fields of Study Major Field: Classics v Table of Contents Abstract…………………………….……………………………………………………...ii Dedication ………………………………………………………………………………..iii Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………………iv Vita ………………………………………………………………………………………..v INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………….1 I. Thesis…………………………………………………………………………....1 II. Interpreting Plato’s Philosophy…….………….…………..…………................3 III. Materialism.…….…..…...…………………...………………...…………….10 IV. Parody….….….….….….….……….….….….….….….......…..................…16 CHAPTER I: ARISTOPHANES……………………………………………….......…20 I. Introduction……………………………………………………………………20 II. Parody as Pedagogy: Aristophanes stages Euripides’ Telephus….….........….22 III. Sophists and Persuasive Speech………………….…….……….……………27 IV. Cosmological Speculation…………………………………………………...39 V. Education in Frogs ……………………….……….…..…….…….…………………47 VI. Mimesis, Materiality, and Education…….…….……….……………………58 VII. Conclusion: Aristophanic Mimesis and Recognition……………………….63 CHAPTER II: AGATHON…………………………………………………….......…..67 I. Introduction……………………………………………………………………67 II. Agathon’s Encomium of Eros…………………………….…….…….………68 III. Recognizing the ‘Platonic’ Aspects of Agathon’s Speech…………………..73 IV. Agathon’s Style: a Gorgianic Matter………………………………………...75 V. Agathon’s Eros: Gorgianic Materialism…….……...…….…….…….………80 VI. Agathon in Aristophanes: Corroborating Evidence………………………….83 VII. Gorgias’ Materialism………………………………………………………..86 VIII. Conclusion…………………..….……….…….…….….………….………92 CHATPER III: DAMON………………………………………………….........……...94 I. Introduction…………………………………………..………………………..94 II. The City’s Material Foundations……………………………………………...97 III. Mythopoetic Education in Kallipolis……………………………………….103 IV. Music Education in Kallipolis……………….….….…….….….…….……107 vi V. Damon in the Republic………………………………………………………114 VI. Damon outside the Republic………………………………………………..122 VII. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………128 CHAPTER IV: CRATYLUS…...………………………………………….......……..134 I. Introduction: the Problem of the Cratylus……………………………………134 II. The Etymologies…………………………………………………………….140 III. The Etymologies as Parody…………………………………………….......154 IV. Conclusion..….….….….….….…........................…...........................……..180 CONCLUSION……....….….….….….….….….….….……….….….….….…..…….187 BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………..192 vii INTRODUCTION I Thesis While the relationship between a text’s meaning and its author is always the source of interpretive disagreement, Plato has made this an unavoidable issue for his readers. Plato wrote philosophy in such a way that the disparity between what the text says and what Plato means becomes an issue. Because Plato’s philosophy – the texts he left for future generations – is a corpus of fictional prose dramas, we are presented with a number of ideas and viewpoints, various philosophical positions in dialogue with one another. This prevents the reader from fixating on a single authorial voice and identifying it as Plato’s. Nevertheless, it is tempting to assume that the character Socrates’ statements and positions are a thinly veiled disguise for Plato’s own philosophy. Socrates’ ideas so baffle his interlocutors that, if taken as literal presentations of Plato’s doctrines, the reader must account for their ambiguous reception within the dialogues – why would Plato present his own ideas as strange and hard for Socrates’ conversation partners to grasp? One way to answer this question is that Plato’s philosophy is itself bizarre and problematic. With this conclusion, the reader may relegate these strange ideas to a moment or, perhaps, tradition in the history of philosophy. The finer points of his metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics can be haggled over, but they ultimately belong on a dusty shelf to be occasionally praised for their novelty, faulted for their naiveté, or both. This rather bleak view is not one I share. Beyond the mistaken idea that Socrates’ arguments are Plato’s own, the more fundamental assumption is that Plato has some 1 number of positions which he is trying to persuade his readers to adopt. It is easy for scholars of Plato to grant this assumption this because it is our job to analyze, explicate, and clearly communicate Plato’s philosophy. I believe, however, we must find a way to understand Plato’s philosophy without attributing Socrates’ arguments to Plato.