This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: • This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. • A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. • This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. • The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. • When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. Plato on Establishing Poetry as Art Gabriele Meloni PhD in Philosophy The University of Edinburgh 2013 1 I declare that this thesis has been composed by myself and that the work carried out is my own and has not been submitted for any other degree or professional qualification. Gabriele Meloni. 2 To my beloved friends, because: Going in tandem, one perceives before the other. Plato, Protagoras, 348d. ‘Let’s go,’ he said. ‘We’ll think about what to say ‘as we proceed the two of us along the way.’ Plato, Symposium, 174d. 3 Abstract: Plato’s attitude on Art has always been hardly debated among scholars, and in recent times the interest on ancient Aesthetics in general and Plato’s attitude in particular has been even increased in the philosophical debate. The problem with Plato’s position is twofold. On the one hand he expresses hard criticism against poetry and he even banishes the poets from the ideal state he envisages in the Republic. That has been usually regarded as an illiberal, totalitarian position. On the other hand, the criticisms he makes of poetry seem to present inconsistencies among the Platonic corpus and they could prima facie appear to the modern reader odd, paternalistic or moralistic. Throughout my work I suggest to adopt a new approach, based both on historical and theoretical grounds, according to which it will be possible to resolve the problems that Plato’s objections to poetry give rise to. The historical and cultural context will be the focus of the first chapter. It consists of the following points. On the one hand I will first focus on different features that characterize Greek poetry, and on the other I will emphasize the pre-literacy of Plato’s contemporaries. I will also highlight how the ethical and political role, along with the educational function, made poetry the privileged source of information and education, and the ultimate reference for everyone in the Athens of the fifth B.C. In the second section of the first chapter I will analyze Plato’s teleologism, which I regard to be a fundamental entity in his stance on art. Such a notion, although not as much emphasized by scholars, plays a pivotal role in Plato’s arguments on poetry, I contend. This is especially evident in 4 the Republic, where Plato’s criticism regards the flaws of poetry in teaching (Resp. II and III) first, and secondly as the main source of knowledge (X). In the third and last section of chapter one, I will face the complex issue of the alleged existence of the concept of beauty in antiquity. In this occasion I argue in favour of the existence of such an entity, both among average Greeks and for Plato, even though in different ways and degrees of awareness. After having provided the historical and theoretical frame of my approach, I will then move to textual examination of the Platonis Opera. In the second and third chapter I will analyse the so-called ‘early dialogues’, in order to single out the recurrent features of Plato’s stance on poetry. In fact, one of the main goals of my study is to retrace an overall, consistent view on art in general and poetry in particular among the Platonic corpus. While the second chapter is mainly focused on the Apology and the Protagoras, a special emphasis deserves the Ion, which is the object of the third chapter. I argue indeed that for the first time in this early dialogue we find a clear theoretical expression of a key-concept of Plato’s stance on art. In fact, Plato bases his criticism toward the eponymous rhapsode pointing out that the rhapsode on the one hand lacks the knowledge of the things he (demands to be able to) talk(s) about. On the other hand, the rhapsode lacks the knowledge of what poetry, as well as his trade, is. Such a ‘twofold ignorance’, as we will see, it is a recurring pattern in Socrates’ pupil. While the fourth chapter is mainly devoted to the analysis and comment of the Symposium, the fifth, sixth and seventh chapter present the detailed examination of the Book II, III and X of the Republic. They are respectively devoted to the analysis and criticism of the ‘middle dialogues’, the Republic and the ‘late dialogues’. 5 Because of its capital importance for the purpose of my argument, I will analyze Plato’s criticism in the Republic in details and I will face different approaches to the subject. Afterwards I will confront them with my own theory in order to show that adopting my approach the apparent discrepancies regarding Plato’s aesthetics within the Republic itself as well as in others Platonic dialogues disappear. (And, on the contrary, this does not happen if the reader accepts the mainstream interpretation on the subject at issue). In essence: I propose to take Plato’s criticism of poetry not as an aesthetic attitude, but rather as a justified concern about the pursuit of truth through poetry, as if it were the main source of teaching, moral value, knowledge and information in the ancient Greek society. That is the core of my argument. The eighth chapter analyses the ‘late dialogues’, in particular The Laws, given the abundant of relevant passages on the matter. Finally, the ninth and last chapter faces Popper’s notorious judgment of Plato as totalitarian scholar. In this section of the study I will contend that Popper’s notorious reading of Plato’s political system is fallacious. Further, I will reveal that Plato and Popper’s stance on mass media essentially correspond. It is my understanding that such a fundamental passage will give the ultimate proof of the rightness of my revolutionary reading of the vexata quaestio of the ancient quarrel between philosophy and poetry in Plato. Finally, the outcome of my investigations will show that Plato does not banish poetry because he is attacking it as a dangerous, free, “fine” Art. On the contrary, I propose to take his attack as the only way to release poetry from its educational and political context and to baptize it into the realm of Fine Art. 6 Contents. First Chapter: What is art and what is poetry in the Ancient Greek Society? p. 13 Introduction. 1. 1. 0. Historical context: Oral culture and Archaic Greek poetry. p. 15 1. 1. 1. Pre-literacy and regular oral practice of poetry. p. 19 1. 1. 2. Homer as the ‘Teacher of all Greeks’ and Iliad and the Odyssey As oral encyclopaedias. p. 26 1. 2. 0. Philosophical Framework: Plato’s Teleologism. p. 33 1. 3. 0. The Very Concept of Beauty. p. 39 1. 3. 1. Plato and Beauty. p. 40 1. 3. 2. What Beauty is for the ancient Greeks and what Beauty is for Plato. p. 42 1. 3. 3. The Nature of Beauty. p. 49 Conclusion. p. 55 Second Chapter: Plato on poetry in the Early Dialogues. Introduction. p. 56 2. 1. 0. The Apology: ‘poets say many fine things, but they lack knowledge’. An ambiguity or a sound argument? p. 57 2. 1 .1. Why Plato’s attack on the poets does not involve a critique of poetry as a whole. p. 62 7 2. 2. 0. Plato on poetry in the early dialogues: A general account. Hippias Minor, Lysias, Euthyphro, Protagoras. p. 65 Lysias: ‘Poets are our father in wisdom’. p. 67 Euthyphro: Plato objects poets’ tales. p. 68 2. 3. 3. Hippias Minor: Plato on poetry and pursuit of the truth, part one. p. 70 2.3.4. Protagoras: Plato on poetry and pursuit of the truth, part two. p. 72 Conclusion. p. 77 Third Chapter: The Ion: Plato on what the poet does (and what the rhapsode does not know). p. 78 3. 1. 0. Introduction (530a-d): Beyond Ion, who is the rhapsode? Ia - (Or what a rhapsode does). p. 80 3. 2. 0. Plato’s first criticism against Ion (531a-534c). IIa - What Ion (does not) know(s)? p. 85 3. 2. 1. The epistemic dichotomy. p. 88 3. 2. 2. Aesthetic value in the Ion. p. 91 3. 2. 3. (Supposed) Wisdom and (True) Knowledge. p. 94 Plato’s second criticism (533d-536d). Divine inspiration as the cause for making good poetry. 3. 3. 0. Socrates’ reductive account of poetic creation. p. 99 3. 4. 0. (536e – 541b): Ion’s failure. (Or what knowledge is). p. 103 3. 4. 1. Rem tene, verba sequentur & verba tene, res sequentur. Poetry now as then. An Appendix. p. 112 3. 5. 0. What is the aim of Plato’s criticism? 541b-542b. p. 115 8 3. 5. 1. Why poetry is art. (For Plato too). p. 119 3. 5. 2. Rhapsodizing. Why Plato (rightly) criticises Ion p.