Copyright Ergon 2004 – Issue II 1

Author: Benjamin Gorman

Article: “The Meaning of Plato’s Ion”

Ergon – 2004
The Student Journal of Philosophy at the University of South Carolina
Article: “The Meaning of Plato’s Ion”
Author: Benjamin Gorman

“The Meaning of Plato’s Ion”

Plato’s dialogue Ion has been interpreted in many different ways. Some argue

that it is the beginning of Plato’s attack on poetry.1 Others suggest that it is Plato’s

defense of poetry.2 Others still see Ion as a comic dialogue without philosophical

substance.3 It is my position that Ion is an important dialogue of substance, and that it

deals with Plato’s true opinion of the poets and poetry.

I will begin with a brief synopsis of Ion. This will lay the groundwork for

further discussion of different interpretations of Ion. Subsequently, I will discuss two

articles, each from opposing viewpoints regarding this dialogue. The first article I shall

consider is Gene Fendt’s article “Ion: Plato’s Defense of Poetry,” in which Fendt argues

for the idea that Ion should be interpreted as a pro-poetry poem. The second article I

shall consider is Nickolas Pappas’ article “Plato’s Ion: The Problem of the Author,” in

which Pappas argues that Ion should be interpreted as an attack on poetry. He suggested

that the “romantic readers of Plato”4 were wrong in using the Ion as a defense of poetry.

Finally, I will argue that Ion should be interpreted as Plato’s proof for Homer’s

ignorance. This, in my opinion, is the most illuminating interpretation.

1.
Copyright Ergon 2004 – Issue II 2
Author: Benjamin Gorman
Article: “The Meaning of Plato’s Ion”
The dialogue begins with a greeting from Socrates to Ion. Ion has just come to

Athens after having won a rhapsody contest in Epidaurus (530a).5 Socrates tells Ion that

he is envious of the rhapsode’s profession: they must dress in fine clothing, keep the

company of poets, and know the thoughts of these poets (especially Homer) (530b-c).

Ion agrees with this description of his profession, and suggests that the Sons of Homer

should give him a golden crown (530d).

The next series of questions is key to the progress of the dialogue. Socrates gets

Ion to admit that he knows only the works Homer, but not Hesiod or Archilochus. Ion

also admits that a professional would be more capable of explaining where Homer and

Hesiod agree and disagree on a given subject, as, for example, a charioteer would be

better at discussing chariot driving than Ion would (531b). Socrates gives several

examples of subjects covered by Homer, and asks Ion if other poets write about the same

things. Ion answers affirmatively, but suggests that Homer wrote about these topics in a

much better way than the other poets did. After this, Socrates gets Ion to admit that a

professional would be better at determining which poet wrote better than the other on a

given subject (531c-532b).

By this point in the dialogue, Ion has begun to get anxious, and asks Socrates why

it is that when other poets are being discussed he is bored and goes to sleep, but when

Homer is discussed, he is wide awake and full of things to say (532c). To this Socrates

gives a two-part answer. He begins by explaining that Ion is not a master of a profession,

but instead he is divinely inspired. In order to explain divine inspiration Socrates

suggests that divine inspiration is analogous to a magnet and iron rings that are

magnetically drawn to it. In this analogy Socrates compares a magnet to the poet’s Muse.

The iron rings attached to the magnet are compared to the poet, the rhapsode, and the
Copyright Ergon 2004 – Issue II 3
Author: Benjamin Gorman
Article: “The Meaning of Plato’s Ion”
audience. The Muse gives inspiration to the poet, the poet gives inspiration to the

rhapsode, and the rhapsode in turn inspires the audience. This happens in the same way

that a magnet attracts iron rings (532c-535a).

After describing the magnet and the rings, Socrates proceeds to get Ion to admit

that he is not in his right mind when he is reciting before a crowd. Socrates uses this

admission to help prove that Ion is divinely inspired. Socrates once again refers to the

magnet and the rings to reinforce his point. Ion admits only that Socrates is a good

speaker, but he will not admit that he is possessed while speaking about Homer (535b-

536d).

Here Socrates changes gears and asks Ion another question: “On which of

Homer’s subjects do you speak well?” To this Ion answers all of them (536e). It is

through this question that Socrates is able to get Ion to admit that each profession

involves a different body of knowledge. Ion admits that a charioteer will be better able to

discuss the parts of Homer’s poems that deal with chariot driving, and doctors would

better deal with the portions dealing with medicine. He agrees that this is because they

are different professions than that of the rhapsode (537a-539d). Having Ion’s agreement

that different professions better deal with different sections of the poems, Socrates asks

Ion another question. He asks Ion which sections of the poems belong to the profession

of rhapsode. To this question Ion responds that all of the subjects belong to the rhapsode.

Socrates reminds Ion that they had just agreed that different professions deal with

different subjects, and that not all of the subjects could belong to the rhapsode. Ion does

not know everything, and neither would any other rhapsode. No profession’s knowledge

base is all-inclusive (539e-540c).

Copyright Ergon 2004 – Issue II 4
Author: Benjamin Gorman
Article: “The Meaning of Plato’s Ion”
Ion, struggling to make some sort of sense, finally suggests that the rhapsode’s

profession is the same as the general’s profession (540d). In typical Socratic fashion

Socrates asks Ion why, if he is the best rhapsode in Greece, does he go around

rhapsodizing when he could be commanding troops? To this Ion responds that the

Greeks are satisfied with their generals, and would not allow a foreigner to command

their troops. Socrates shows that this too is false, and finally tells Ion that he is one of

two things. He is either withholding information from Socrates and therefore doing

Socrates wrong, or he is divinely inspired. Ion says that it is lovelier to be thought of as

divine, and Socrates agrees (541b-542a). Socrates says, “Then that is how we will think

of you, Ion, the lovelier way: it’s as someone divine, and not as a master of a profession,

that you are a singer of Homer’s praises” (542b).

2.

In his article, “Ion: Plato’s Defense of Poetry,” Gene Fendt writes, “I will here

examine . . . Ion, reading it as a poem should be read, for what it does not say, but

engenders, as much as for what it does say, or in other words noting what it does as much

as what it says.6 Fendt says that by reading the dialogue in this way we could learn its

true meaning. The true meaning of this dialogue, as Fendt sees it, is that Plato was a

friend of poetry, not its enemy.

The first premise of his argument is that Ion was a character created by Plato, and

his rhapsodizing, as well as expounding, was a non-existent feature in Ancient Greece.

Fendt writes,

Ion is a rhapsode, a reciter of Homer, who, in Plato’s

dialogue, has the additional distinction of speaking about
Homer beautifully. This is indeed a distinction, for
rhapsodes were, in Greece, performance artists, not
expounders, and that Plato has Ion make his unusual claim
Copyright Ergon 2004 – Issue II 5
Author: Benjamin Gorman
Article: “The Meaning of Plato’s Ion”
is a sign of what he himself is putting up for question in the
dialogue.7

Fendt suggests that Plato invented the character Ion and that the conflict of the dialogue

would not happen if Ion were a “normal” rhapsode. A “normal” rhapsode would not

expound on Homer’s thoughts, he would only recite his words. Without the added ability

to expound, the dialogue would not exist.

The second premise that Fendt uses to make the case that Plato was a friend of

poetry deals with the very first question asked of Ion by Socrates. That question was, “Is

there any subject on which Homer and Hesiod say the same things?” (531a). Fendt

suggests that this question hides an important and false double premise. According to

Fendt, this question implies that “poetry is about “things” and those “things” fit into a

general area of study and knowledge” 8 (techne) 9. Fendt argues that it is false to say that

poetry is about “things.” He would say that poetry is about “something.” For example,

“The Road Less Traveled” by Robert Frost is not about how to walk down a road, but

rather it is about choosing the course of one’s life.

Fendt also thinks that it is important to realize that Socrates does not usually give

such long speeches like the one he gives about the magnet. Fendt sees similarity in this

speech to rhapsodizing, and because of this Fendt proposes that we should “practice

philosophy then, where Socrates becomes a poet.”10 Fendt proposed that there is one

important question that never gets asked by Socrates, “What is Ion’s discipline?” 11

According to Fendt, Ion’s discipline is “words.” Words are what we use to teach.

Without words there could be no techne at all. For Fendt, Ion was correct when he said

that all of the subjects of Homer belong to the rhapsode. According to Fendt, words are

the discipline of philosophers and poets as well.

Copyright Ergon 2004 – Issue II 6
Author: Benjamin Gorman
Article: “The Meaning of Plato’s Ion”
The point of this interpretation, as Fendt sees it, is that Plato meant for the

dialogue to be a reductio ad absurdum. He suggests that Plato meant for us to realize that

poetry deals with more than just techne, and it is more than just divine inspiration. We

should realize that poetry and philosophy are more than just a techne or divine

inspiration. Fendt writes, “The dilemma [of choosing between poetry and philosophy] is

meant to be outrageous; you aren’t supposed to believe either side. The task in ancient

times would be to find out how a person gets stuck in such a dilemma; then go your ways

and sin no more (against philosophy or poetry).”12 According to Fendt, the dilemma of

the dialogue is only possible if we take a “mistaken” view of poetry, and that through all

of this Plato was showing the true value of poetry.

3.

Nickolas Pappas puts forth a much different interpretation of Ion in his article

than Gene Fendt. Pappas begins his article with a brief look at the interpretation put forth

by Percy Bysshe Shelley and “other Romantic readers of Plato.”13 Pappas suggests that

the common interpretation of Plato during the Romantic period was that Ion defined

poetry as a divine activity. Pappas wrote, “They [the Romantic readers of Plato] admit

that Ion is full of criticisms of poetry and its audience. But in the middle of it Socrates

says that the poet has a kind of divine madness; and this is read as a concession to

creative activity.”14 This, according to Pappas, is a misinterpretation of Ion.

In his article Pappas noted that Ion can be broken down into three sections.

According to Pappas, it is in the first section that we learn what it is that Ion knows. We

learn that Ion has a specialized knowledge dealing with Homer only. It is also in this

section that Socrates suggests that Ion has no techne, and therefore no productive

knowledge at all. The second section, as Pappas sees it, gives Socrates’ explanation for
Copyright Ergon 2004 – Issue II 7
Author: Benjamin Gorman
Article: “The Meaning of Plato’s Ion”
Ion’s abilities. Socrates suggests that Ion and the poets get their ability from the Muse.

They are dependent on the Muse for their activities in the same way that the iron rings are

dependent on the magnet for their locomotion. So far this seems like a fairly standard

interpretation. It is Pappas’ interpretation of the third section that is somewhat different.

Pappas asserts, “Certainly this third section reaches the conclusion that Ion is ignorant. It

does not follow that that is the conclusion of the whole dialogue. In the first place, it is

clearly not the only conclusion in the work.”15 In the first section Socrates grants that Ion

knows something. Ion has a very specialized knowledge of Homer. Pappas suggests that

Socrates used the concept of divine inspiration to explain Ion’s relationship to Homer, not

the source of his ignorance. Pappas wrote, “as an explanation of ignorance it is useless,

so ignorance cannot be the only feature of poetry with which the dialogue is interested.”16

What does all this mean? If showing that the poets and rhapsodes are ignorant is

not the conclusion of the dialogue, then what is? Pappas’ answer is that the first section

is more important than we realize. According to Pappas, Socrates was incorrect when he

said that Ion did not have a techne. Ion does have a techne. What Ion knows is not

something about chariot driving, but what Homer says about chariot driving. Ion’s

techne is so specialized that it does not include anything but Homer, and it does not

transfer to Hesiod. Pappas suggests that Ion’s ignorance is “more perverse than the mere

absence of knowledge.”17 Ion looks at the world through his Homer-colored glasses. Not

only does he not know anything else, but also because he knows so much about Homer,

he chooses to reject any other knowledge. Pappas claims, “Perhaps this makes the

accusation of madness more comprehensible. No one can help being ignorant. But the

repeated conscious choice of ignorance over knowledge is another matter . . . Socrates, at

least, has no other explanation for why people would be drawn to ignorance.”18 Pappas
Copyright Ergon 2004 – Issue II 8
Author: Benjamin Gorman
Article: “The Meaning of Plato’s Ion”
suggests that Plato invented the idea of blind attraction, like that of an iron ring to a

magnet, to explain what would make a person behave the way Ion did. Pappas asserts

that the Romantics should not have used Ion as a defense of poetry. Divine inspiration is

not a beautiful explanation for the source of creativity, but rather an explanation for

poetry’s inhumanity.19

4.

As one could see from the previous discussion, there can be diametrically

opposed interpretations of Ion. Unfortunately both of them seem to be wrong. They are

both wrong for the same reason, yet wrong in different ways. Fendt suggests that Ion

shows us that poetry is part of what makes us human (language). Pappas on the other

hand thinks that Ion shows why poetry is inhuman (ignorance). Both of the articles look

at some aspect of the dialogue, and add information that is not there. Gene Fendt

suggests that because Ion was an expounding rhapsode it is obvious that Plato meant to

say poetry is good. Nickolas Pappas added the idea of Ion’s true techne to his

interpretation. Plato suggested that Ion had no techne at all. These articles looked at the

dialogue for what it did not say; I, however, will look at what it does say. This method is

the most illuminating in my opinion.

I do not believe that Plato had intended for us to find some hidden truth in this

dialogue. For Fendt’s interpretation to be sustained, we would have to let two

questionable premises stand. First he said that we should read Ion like a poem, not like

philosophy. It does not seem valid for us to read the Republic like a poem. Why then,

should we read Ion like one? The second premise that we must accept is that an

expounding rhapsode is a Platonic creation.20 There is some question as to whether

Copyright Ergon 2004 – Issue II 9
Author: Benjamin Gorman
Article: “The Meaning of Plato’s Ion”
rhapsodes expounded, but there is not enough concrete information to allow for Fendt to

use this a premise in his argument.

For Pappas’ interpretation to stand we must accept his statement, that Ion does

have a techne and that his techne is Homer. If Plato had wanted us to think that Ion had a

techne, then why did he make it a point to show why Ion doesn’t? Although this article

comes much closer to the correct interpretation of the dialogue, the method used to draw

its conclusion is shaky at best. Again this article assumes too much in its interpretation.

The dilemma of the dialogue rests on the question of the source of Ion’s reciting

and expounding ability. According to the dialogue there are two possibilities. One

possibility is that Ion possesses a techne, or professional knowledge. If Ion possesses a

techne then he would be able to speak about Homer and his poetry because of his

professional knowledge.

The other possibility, and the one that Socrates endorses in this dialogue, is that

Ion is divinely inspired. If this is true, then Ion has no knowledge of what he is saying.

He is inspired by the gods and literally out of his mind when he is performing. The

implications of this theory are great. Not only is Ion inspired, but the poets are inspired

as well. The poets and rhapsodes “are merely instruments through whom the gods

speak.”21

My interpretation needs no other information other than what is found in the

dialogue. Ion suggests that he knows only Homer (531a). If Ion had said that he could

speak about Hesiod as well as Homer, Socrates would not have found fault with Ion.

Socrates did not believe that someone could have true knowledge without techne.

Socrates first shows Ion that if a person can judge the better speaker of a subject, then he

could also judge the worse speaker. Conversely, if one cannot speak about the worse
Copyright Ergon 2004 – Issue II 10
Author: Benjamin Gorman
Article: “The Meaning of Plato’s Ion”
speaker, he cannot speak about the better (532a). Ion obviously can speak about Homer,

and because of this Socrates suggests that Ion is divinely inspired. It is not because of a

techne that Ion can speak of Homer; therefore he is ignorant (532c).

In the course of human history Ion’s ignorance is of little importance. The

dialogue gains its importance when we look at the implication of what it means for Ion to

be ignorant. Socrates says that the Muse inspires Homer. In turn Homer inspires Ion

(534a-e). This is important. Ion gets his “knowledge” from Homer. Socrates shows that

Ion has no knowledge; therefore, Homer has no knowledge either. Put more simply, it is

easy to see that this is a simple modus tollens argument. If Homer has knowledge, then

Ion has knowledge. It is not the case that Ion has knowledge. Therefore, it is not the case

that Homer has knowledge. The ultimate conclusion to be drawn from this dialogue is

that Homer is ignorant. This becomes a particularly important point when we realize that

Homer was considered to be the great teacher of ancient Greece. Plato is suggesting that

the teacher of Greece is ignorant. Plato makes a similar claim in the Republic, but that

shall be left for another discussion.

As philosophers, we must be careful when we interpret ancient texts. We must try

not to mix our twenty-first century knowledge with the real meaning of these texts. If we

mix our modern view of language into a dialogue about an ancient poet, we lose sight of

the meaning of the dialogue. Plato’s point seems to be not so much about ignorance and

poets. He was really suggesting that we should look at who our teachers are, and make

sure that they possess knowledge. If a knowledge-less teacher divinely inspires us, then

how will we ever truly learn anything?

1
Nickolas Pappas, “Plato’s Ion: The Problem of the Author,” Philosophy: The Journal of the
Royal Institute of Philosophy 64 (1989): 381-389. Kenneth Dorter, “The Ion: Plato’s characterization of
Art” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 32 (1973): 65-78.
Copyright Ergon 2004 – Issue II 11
Author: Benjamin Gorman
Article: “The Meaning of Plato’s Ion”
2
Gene Fendt, “Ion: Plato’s Defense of Poetry.” International Studies in Philosophy 29, no. 4.
(1997): 23-50.
3
W. K. C. Guthrie, The History of Greek Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1975): 211.
4
Pappas, 381.
5
All references to Ion come from Plato, “Ion” in Plato: Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper,
(Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1997).
6
Fendt, 23.
7
Fendt, 24.
8
Fendt, 28.
9
See Paul Woodruff, Two Comic Dialogues: Ion and Hippias Major (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1983)
p.7. “The pivot of Socrates’ argument is the concept of techne—the professional knowledge of a
craftsman. A person with a techne has mastered a complete body of knowledge, and can do well any job
that belongs to his profession. But what belongs to one profession may not belong to another…To have a
techne, moreover, is to know what in a given line of work is really good or bad, so that a doctor would be
more likely than a fashionable chef to have mastered the techne of nutrition.”
10
Fendt, 30.
11
Fendt, 30.
12
Fendt, 41.
13
Pappas, 381.
14
Pappas, 381.
15
Pappas, 383.
16
Pappas, 384.
17
Pappas, 385.
18
Pappas, 386.
19
Pappas, 386. Pay special attention to footnote 9.
20
See Guthrie, 200. Woodruff, 6. Pappas, 382.
21
Woodruff, 8.

References

Dorter, Kenneth. “The Ion: Plato’s Characterization of Art.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism (32)
(1973): 65-78.

Fendt, Gene. “Ion: Plato’s Defense of Poetry.” International Studies in Philosophy 29, no. 4 (1997): 23-
50.

Guthrie, W. K. C. The History of Greek Philosophy. Vol. IV, Plato The Man and His Dialogues: Early
Period. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975.

Pappas, Nickolas. “Plato’s Ion: The Problem of the Author.” Philosophy: The Journal of the Royal
Institute of Philosophy 64 (1989): 381-389.

Plato, Ion. Translated by Paul Woodruff. Plato: Complete Works. Edited by John M. Cooper.
Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1997.

Woodruff, Paul. Two Comic Dialogues: Ion and Hippias Major. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing
Company, 1983.