Self-Censorship in Plato's Republic

Author(s): Mary Whitlock Blundell

Source: Apeiron: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science, Vol. 26, No. 3/4, Virtue
love & Form: ESSAYS IN MEMORY OF GREGORY VLASTOS (September/December 1993), pp.
17-36
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40913724
Accessed: 07-02-2023 23:43 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40913724?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Apeiron: A Journal
for Ancient Philosophy and Science

This content downloaded from 44.229.162.106 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 23:43:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 inPlato'sRepublic
Self-Censorship
MaryWhitlockBlundell

In theRepublic, Socratessketchesan ideal ofthephilosophiccharacter

throughhis accountof the nature,attributes and educationof the
guardians,thebestofwhomwilleventually developintophilosopher-
rulers.1Fromearlychildhood,theireducationis designedto fosteran
appropriate phusis(374e),oneendowedwiththetwonormally antitheti-
cal qualitiesof gentlenessand spirit(375a-e).2These traitsare to be
instilledthroughtherightkindofpoetryand story-telling, whichwill
mouldtheguardians'characters by habituation and emotional identifi-
cation.3
Thesamecomplementary qualitiesare tobe inculcated through
thecorrect musicalmodes:theDorian'imitates'a bravemaninbattle,4
thePhrygian a good maninpeacetime(399a-c).Theapprovedrhythms
arelikewisethoseofa lifebothorderlyand brave(399e).
Thisblendingofspiritand gentleness appliesto intellectual as well
as moralqualities.Earlyeducationthrough poetry is directedprimarily
towardsmoralcharacter and physique,rather thanintellectas such,but

1 For therequisitequalitiescf.455b,485a-7a,490c,494b,503c,535a-6b.I use 'Socrates'

in thispaper to referto thenarratorof the Republic.
2 Cf. 410b-12a,441e-2a,503b-d;also Tht144a-b,Pol 306a-llc, Laws 773a-e.
3 Cf. 377c,378d-e,395c-d,401b-d,409b,424d-5a,522a, 603c-4a,605c-6c.
4 For theconnectionbetween spiritand courage cf.375a-b.

© Mary WhitlockBlundell

This content downloaded from 44.229.162.106 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 23:43:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
18 MaryWhitlockBlundell

theyoungguardiansarealreadybeingpreparedtorecognizeand love
reason(401e-2a;cf.498b-c).Evenat an earlystage,gentleness is said to
requirea 'philosophical'nature(375e-6c),5 and the guardians'phusis
mustbe 'philosophical' as wellas 'spiritedand swiftand strong'(376c).
The Phrygian moderesemblesin manywaysa good philosopher: per-
suading,teaching,learning,rational,notarrogant, sophron,moderate
and contented (399b).And as theyoungguardiansdevelop,itis clear
thatthequalitiesestablished through childhoodeducationremainfun-
damentaltotheirmaturephilosophical character.6
By thestandards of thisphilosophical ideal,twomemorable charac-
tersfromBookI aredismalfailures. Cephalus and Thrasymachus polar-
ize ratherthanunitethetwoantithetical aspectsoftheidealcharacter.
Cephalusis moderateand orderly(an important aspectof thephilo-
sophicalnature), but caves in at the whiff
first of argument. He thus
demonstrates a becominggentleness,7 buta completelackofphilosophi-
cal spirit.His feebleness ofbodyand mindare theconverseofwhatis
calledforinthevigorousyoungguardians.He is,tobe sure,well-mean-
ing,and evenvirtuousin a limitedway,buthe is a commonplace soul
whose faultsbecomeincreasingly apparent as the Republicproceeds.
Thrasymachus' ontheotherhand,areimmediately
failings, obvious.He
is a vigorousand enthusiastic arguer- atleastwhenitsuitshim- but
also rude,undisciplined and hostile.He has a superabundance ofthu-
mos,buta seriousdeficiency The
ofgentleness.8 guardians, bycontrast,
are to be spirited, butnotcrudelyand excessively spirited(as Thrasy-
machusis),andgentle, butnotpusillanimously gentle(as Cephalusis).9

5 On the two stages of education and theirrelationshipsee C. Gill, Tlato and the
educationofcharacter7, derPhilosophie
Archivfir Geschichte 67 (1985) 1-26.

6 On theneed forphilosophicalspiritsee R. Patterson,Tlato on philosophiccharac-

oftheHistoryofPhilosophy
ter',Journal 25 (1987) 339-49.

7 Metriosand kosmiosare key words forCephalus (329d5, 331bl) as well as forthe

philosophicalnature(399b8,ell, 500c4,9, 503c4).
8 Wild animal imageryis repeatedlyused forThrasymachus(336b, d, 341c, 358b),
thusassociatinghimwithboththumos(e.g. 41le, 440c-d,589b) and desire(e.g. 439b,
572b,573a, e).
9 Polemarchus,who fallssomewherein between,is poised at an earlystage ofa more
hopefulphilosophicaldevelopment.

This content downloaded from 44.229.162.106 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 23:43:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 in Plato'sRepublic 19
Self-Censorship

Ifthesetwocharacters failtoliveup tothestandardsrequiredofthe

Republic's guardians- standardsembodiedin a carefully controlled
educationalprogram- itis plausibleto supposethattheirown defec-
tiveeducationis at leastin parttoblame.Conventional Athenianedu-
cationwas based largelyon traditional and
myths poetry, and in Book
II Adeimantus- a well educatedyoungAthenian- will complain
abouttheviewsthatheandhisfellowshaveimbibedfromsuchsources.
Thecensorship programofBooksII and III confirms thatthesetalescan
exerta seriouslycorrupting effecton thecharacter ofthelistener. We
may thereforeexpectCephalus's characterto have been shaped the
for
worseby thepoetshe likesto quote(329b-c,331a),and thetraditional
muthoi he believesin (330d).10Thrasymachus, by contrast, does not
mentionhis own formative culturalinfluences. But the speechesof
Glauconand Adeimantus at thebeginning ofBookII makeitclearthat
intheirview,at least,hisideasarepartand parcelofa generalcultural
outlookforwhichpoetsand mythologers musttakea largeshareofthe
responsibility. Theyregard themselves as expandingand defending
Thrasymachus's point of view (358b2,cl, 367c2),and are particularly
concerned- especiallyAdeimantus- about the role of poetryin
fostering suchideas.
Socratestacitlyacknowledgesthat many of the deficienciesof
character displayedin Book I maybe caused by education,whenhe
proposesexpungingfrommythand literature any passage thatpro-
duces such characteristics.Thus Cephalusrecallsthepassionateand
tyrannical desiresofhis youngerdays (329b-d);butpropereducation
is to eliminatesuch'manic'desiresevenfromtheyoung(402e-3c),for
exampleby forbidding poets to portrayscenes of divineseduction
(390b-c).The word 'manic' (manikos403a6, 10) echoes Cephalus's
description of his own frenzieddesires(mainomai 329dl), and fore-
shadowsthoseofthetyrant (573b-c).Cephalusthinksthegods can be
appeasedby sacrifice (331b),and is dramatically portrayedin therole
of sacrificer(328c,331d);but Socratescensorstheidea thatthegods

10 Polemarchus, his son,explicitly

deriveshis viewofjusticefrompoeticauthority
(331d).WithSocrates'shelp,he beginstochallengethesepoeticinfluences.
Yethe
displaysa disturbingly
easyacquiescence toSocrates's
arguments,whichseemsto
hisunthinking
replicate deference topoeticauthority.

This content downloaded from 44.229.162.106 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 23:43:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
20 MaryWhitlockBlundell

can be persuadedby gifts(390e).nCephalushas spenthis lifemaking

money,whichhe regardsas essentialto virtueand equanimity (330b-
lb); butcensorshipis to eliminatefromliterature bothany desirefor
money(390d-la),12 and anysuggestion thata good manis notself-suf-
ficient forhappiness.13Cephalusbelievesthestories(muthoi) aboutthe
afterlife,whichinstillterrorintothosewitha guiltyconscience (330d-e);
but Socratescensorsout the traditional view of the underworldas
inducingfearof death and general'softness'(386a-7c;cf. 381d-e).
Finally, Cephalusrepresents divinepunishment as something dreadful
tobe avoidedat all costs(330d-e);butSocratessaysdivinepunishment
shouldbe represented as good and beneficial(380b).
It is truethatSocratesdoes not specifically expurgatethekindof
underworld talesthatCephaluspresumably has in mind,suchas the
punishment ofTantalusor Sisyphus.He confineshis strictures to the
generalmisery oftheunderworld, which induces a fearofdeath as such.
And Cephalusdoes notfeardeathas such,sincethepoetshave also
givenhimhopethatvirtuewillbe rewarded(331a).On theotherhand,
Adeimantus willcomplainexplicitly aboutverbaldepictions ofthegods
the
rewarding good and punishing the bad in thisworld and thenext,
whicharecommonly usedtoencourage just behavior These
(363a-e). are
precisely the kind of muthoi from which Cephalus has learned to be
virtuousformerelyconsequential reasons.Cephalusthusrepresents
justtheoutlookthatAdeimantus urgesSocratestorebut- a taskwhich
Socrateswillingly undertakes.
WhythendoesSocratesnotonlyfailtoexpurgate suchtales,buteven
hintthattheymayservea legitimate moral function, through theprom-

11 Cephalus does not tellus thepurpose ofhis sacrifice,thoughhe speaks of sacrifice

in generalas somethingone can 'owe' to thegods (331b). Buttheidea ofreligionas
a quid pro quo would be taken forgrantedby any ordinaryGreek,and fitswith
Cephalus's materialisticoutlook.
12 In theideal state,money-makingis a distinctactivityincompatiblewiththeguardi-
ans's trainingand tasks(397e). The guardianswill have nothingto do withmoney
(416a-17a),and retailingis theprovinceofthefeebleand otherwiseuseless (371c-d).
13 The good man is not perturbedby theloss of a friend,son, brother,money/orany
othersuch thing' (387d-e). Such a fatebefellCephalus and his familyunder the
ThirtyTyrants.

This content downloaded from 44.229.162.106 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 23:43:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 in Plato'sRepublic 21
Self-Censorship

ise of posthumousblessings(386b8-10, 387c9)?14Platohas placed his

protagonist in a delicatepositionhere.He is presumably unwillingto
censorsuchideas,sincehe is reserving themforhisownuse later(inthe
mythof Er). On the otherhand,he does not wantto endorsethem
explicitly at thispoint,sincetheysuggesta consequentialist view of
virtueand pietyofjustthekindthathe hasbeenchallengedtorebut(cf.
392a-b).15ThemythofEris postponeduntilSocrateshas demonstrated
to his own and his interlocutors' satisfactionthatvirtueis its own
reward,and viceitsownpunishment (612a-c).
LikeCephalus,Thrasymachus embodiesmanyofthecharacter traits
and attitudesthatSocratescensorsout of literature. He too, in a
different and moreobviouslyoffensive way,is materialistic,refusing
to participate in thediscussionwithoutpayment(337d),and valuing
all thatmoneycan buy (343b-4e;cf.362a-c,364a-b).He glorifiesthe
theft,violenceand injusticeofthetyrant (344a;cf.360b-d)- behavior
whichis,ofcourse,to be censoredfrommythand legend(cf.377e-8b,
391b-d).He condonessacrilegeand temple-robbing (344a-b);butAchil-
les' defianceofthegods is to censoredfromtheIliad(391a-b).16 He is
nothing if not quarrelsome; but the quarrels of the gods are to be
censoredas settinga bad example(378b-c).He and thoselike him
considerthe unjustto be happierthan the just,but in an obvious

14 Theymayalsoserveas a deterrent, ifwe followJowettandCampbell'sinterpreta-

tionofSocrates'sremark
thatsuchtalesmaybe 'goodforsomeotherpurpose'(B.
Jowett and L. Campbell,eds, Plato'sRepublic
[Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press,
1894],on 387c).ButAdamthinks itrefers
topoeticpleasure(J.Adam,TheRepublic
ofPlato[Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress,2nded. 1963],ad loc).
15 Cf.381d-e,wherehe censorstheidea ofdivinedisguise,withoutmentioning that
in Homerthegods behavelikethisto enforcehumanmorality (cf.Jowett and
Campbell,ad loc.).He apparently wishesto avoideitherendorsing or rulingout
thenotionthatdivinerewardorpunishment is an appropriate
motiveforvirtue.
16 Thrasymachus showsno signofbeliefin thegods.Thespeakersassociatedwith
himby Glauconand Adeimantus say thatthegods maynotexistor careabout
mortals(365d).Boththeseviewsarecensored a fortiori
bytherequirement thatgods
be portrayed as good and sendingonlygood thingstomortals(379a-80c). Ifthey
do exist,accordingto theThrasymacheans, theysendevilsto mortals, including
good men(364b),butcan be bribed(362c,364b-5a,365d-6b)- twomoreviews
whichmustbe censored(379b-80c, 390e).Cf.also theironicreference
toconven-
tionalreligioninthetaleofGyges'ring(360c).

This content downloaded from 44.229.162.106 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 23:43:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
22 MaryWhitlock
Blundell

allusionto this view, Socratesdeclares(provisionally) thatwriters

shouldnotrepresent theunjustas happyorviceversa(392a-b).Finally,
he manifestly lackspersonalsdphrosurw, and hisideas entaildisrespect
foranyoneotherthanthesuccessfultyrant; but to inducesõphrosunê
in the guardians,Socratesrejectsany portrayalof insubordination,
such as Achilles'abuse of Agamemnonin the Iliad (389e). Thrasy-
machuswould presumably approveofthemighty warrior'sdefiance,
and Achilles'insulting languageprovides an antecedent forthesoph-
ist'sownoutspokenrudeness(e.g.343a).(CallingSocratesa snivelling
childis surelythephilosophical equivalentofcallinga Homericwarrior
a drunkencoward.)According toSocrates,Homer'sAchilles,thegreat
strong-man of epic,suffers from'two oppositemaladies':an ignoble
loveofmoney,and overweening arrogancetowardsgods and mortals
(391c).Thrasymachus seemsto have acquiredboththeworstaspects
ofthisviolentand unrulynature.17
Thrasymachus and Cephalusthusexemplify someofthedangerous
effects of an uncensoredliterary education.But theythemselvesare
literary figuresofPlato'sowndevising.Platodrawsattention tothisby
the
presenting participants in the discussion as themselves self-con-
sciousmakersofmuthoi. Socrates, GlauconandAdeimantus arenotonly
characters in,butcreators of,a workoffiction. Theytoo,likePlato,are
constructing both human characters and a fictionalworld'in thelogos',
as
just poets and do
story-tellers(363c5).18 As Glaucon willlaterremark,
logos is 'a more plasticmedium than wax' for the constructionofmuthoi
(588d).19 The discussion of education itself
is explicitlylikened to the
activity ofthose'myth-makers' (376d9) whose works are to be expur-
gated.
Theparticipants' awarenessofthefictional statusoftheiridealstate
and itsinhabitants drawsattention to theirown fictionality.Thiseffect
is reinforced by varioussimilarities betweenthesePlatoniccharacters

17 Socratesis unfairto Homer's Achilles(cf.below, 27). Buthis own distortedAchilles

providesa morefruitful parallel withThrasymachus.
18 Cf.361b6,d8, 369a6,c9,376dlO,472el, 501e4,534d3,548clO,588blO.When Socrates
says 'we are notat presentpoets,but foundersofa city'(378e-9a),he is notdenying
thispoetic rolebut merelyremarkingthattheyare notjust now composingpoetry
to be used in theideal state.

19 For thesculptureanalogy cf.360e, 361d,420c-d,466a, 540c,588a-e.

This content downloaded from 44.229.162.106 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 23:43:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 in Plato'sRepublic 23
Self-Censorship

and theyoungguardiansoftheircreation.20 One suchresemblance is

especiallypertinent here.Thephilosopher-rulers, liketheinterlocutors
themselves, are 'painters'creatingimagesofvirtuouspeople (484c-d,
SOOc-lc).21 Theyare thusbothartistsand productsofanother'sart,just
as Socratesand hisinterlocutors, theartistsoftheidealstate,arePlato's
ownartistic products.By such means Plato signalsan awarenessofthe
literary status of hisown myth-making, all thepossibleeffects
with that
statusmayentail.
Theseeffects includethepotentialinfluence ofPlato'sowndramatis
personae on the reader. As we have seen, manyofthedeficiencies of
characterdramatizedin Book I are explicitly bannedfromthemyth
and literature oftheideal state.Such representations will 'mouldthe
soul' (377c)of composer,performer, readeror listener, shapingtheir
habits,phusis,body and mind for theworse (395c-d). ifthisis so
But
dangerous, will not Plato'sown literarycharacters exerta pernicious
influence on thesouls ofhis readers?22 In contrast to thecharactersof
BookI, Glauconand Adeimantusdissociatethemselves bothfromthe
corrupting literary traditionand fromThrasymachus. Yet even they
waverinfaceofthesophistand otherslikehim.Thepowerwithwhich
theyspeak as devil'sadvocatesshowstheextentto whichtheyhave
absorbedsuch dangerousideas. How muchmoreof a threatmusta
Thrasymachus pose tothecasualreader,whether inpersonorthrough
dramaticrepresentation? As Adeimantusreproachfully tellsSocrates,
if'all ofyou' had told'us' a different storyfromchildhood,one which
would induce self-generated virtue,then no one would now be
threatened by injustice(367a).
All thisseems to make some characters in thisveryworkprime
targetsforSocraticcensorship.True,Socrates'sfirstconcernis with
therepresentation ofgods and heroesand 'famousmen',who should

20 See further
below, 24-5.
21 Cf. also 431b,472c-d,488a, 588b-e.
22 Note thatprose is to be censored as well as poetry(379a, 380b-c,392a, 392d, 394b,
398b;cf.also 365e). The feltneed to defendPlato fortheinclusionofl?ad' characters
in theRepublicgoes back to theancientcommentators.See AnonProl14.9-23,15.20-9
(Westerink).

This content downloaded from 44.229.162.106 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 23:43:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
24 MaryWhitlockBlundell

be portrayed as superiortoordinary Cephalusand

mortals(cf.391d).23
Thrasymachus presumably do notfallintoanysuchcategory(though
each in his own way is a prominent figurein fifth-centuryAthenian
But
life). it soon becomes clear thatSocrates's do
strictures not apply
exclusively to suchextraordinary figures.The youngguardiansmust
imitatefromchildhoodonlyvirtuousmen (395c),and not women,
slavesor bad men(395e).The qualitiesofthementheymustimitate
- courage,sophrosune, piety,and 'freedom'(eleutheria) (395c)- are
thesamequalitiesaimedat in censoring theliterary treatment ofgods
and heroes.24 And all of themare absentfrom- or deficient in -
eitherCephalus,Thrasymachus, or both.
Twopassagesinparticular willservetobringthishome.First, Socrates
declaresthattheyoungguardiansmustnotimitatemenabusingand
mockingand speakingaischra(395e)- an apt enoughdescription of
Thrasymachus. Second,accordingto Socrates,old people shouldtell
youngchildren, and poetsshouldtellolderones,thatthecitizenshave
neverquarrelled ButBookI oftheRepublic
(378b-c;cf.386a).25 represents
evenphilosophers and
quarrelling, diverging on themostfundamental
ethicaland politicalissues.Worsestill,thesuperiority ofjusticeis not
established tothesatisfaction ofThrasymachus, orevenofGlauconand
Adeimantus. Thisbookclearlysetsanentirely unacceptableexamplefor
theaspiring philosophers oftheRepublic,andbyextension, forourselves.
TherestoftheRepublic willattempt torectifythis,byofferingthenew
kindof storywhichAdeimantusdemanded.Thisappliesmostobvi-
ously to Socrates'snewlypositiveargumentsforthe superiority of
But
justice. itis also carriedthrough on two levelsofrepresentation.For
Platothemyth-maker excludesdangerouscharacter modelsfromthe
remainder ofhistale.He handsovertheconversation tospeakerswho,
bothas characters and as myth-makers in theirown willportray
right,
behaviorworthy ofouremulation. Liketheguardians,Socrates,Glau-
con and Adeimantusare engagedin philosophyand the pursuitof

godsandkings(390e),heroesandchildren
23 Specifically of
ofgods(391d),relatives
men(387d-e,
gods(391e),andotherdistinguished 388e,390d).
24 Foreleutheria
cf.387b5,391c5.
25 Thecensorship is aimedinthefirst
ofliterature placeatyoungchildren
(cf.378d-e),
butalsoappliestoadults(380b-c,387b;cf.also397d-e,424d-e).

This content downloaded from 44.229.162.106 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 23:43:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 in Plato'sRepublic 25
Self-Censorship

virtue,andtheyexemplify manyofthecharacteristics deemeddesirable

at variousstagesof the guardians'development.Socratesexplicitly
admiresthephusisofGlauconand Adeimantus, goingoutofhiswayto
mentiontheircouragein battle(367e-8a).Moreimportantly, theyare
'gentle'but also in
'spirited' argument, that is, compliant,cooperative
and goodhumored, butatthesametimeenthusiastic, brave,andperse-
vering.26Adeimantusis evenequatedwiththerulingclassofphiloso-
phers,in virtueofhisroleas legislator (cf.497c-d).Theinhabitants ofthe
idealcityaretobe as virtuous, unanimousand harmonious as possible;
thedramaticcharacters who construct themare likewisecooperative,
friendly,and unified in their personalities, convictions and philosophi-
cal goals.
Socrateshimselfdisplayssuch desirablequalitiesthroughout the
Republic,but even he changes afterBook I. He becomes less ironicand
elusive - less poikilos- and correspondingly more paternalistic,
didacticand uniformly earnestin tone.In theprocess,he becomesless
provocativeof personalhostility, and as a literarycharacterless
susceptibleto debased imitation,27 divergent interpretations, and other
formsof (mis)appropriation. Thereis a certainhomogenization and
lossofindividuality inall thecharacters. (EvenThrasymachus becomes
themerestshadow of his old sardonicself[cf.450a-b].)As Socrates
says,thetruephilosopher consortswithwhatis tranquil, orderly, just
and divine,and does notindulgein hostileabuse or focuson persons
(500b-d).Plato's own changingdramaticstylein thisdialogue thus
reflectstheview ofliterature exploredwithinit.The verystructure of
thedialoguereproduces Socrates'sconcernabouttheeducationalrisks
inherent in certainkindsofrepresentation, includingtheportrayal of
theSocraticmethodin BookI. Platoseemsto have appliedto his own
literaryproductionthe same ruthlesscensor'spen thathe makes
Socratesapplyto Homer.

26 We maywellaskhowtheygotthisway,aftertheirconventional Athenian
educa-
tion.Socratesdoes allowthatin extraordinary
cases,withthehelpofthegods,a
specialfewmayescapeunscathed(366c,492a,492e-3a,496a-d).Butthisseemsa
desperateexpedient.
27 Forthedangersinherent
insuchimitation
cf.Apol23c,Rep538d-9c.

This content downloaded from 44.229.162.106 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 23:43:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
26 MaryWhitlockBlundell

Atthispoint,itmaybe advisabletoanticipate certainobjections.First,

we ourselvesareobviouslynotyoungguardiansintheidealstate.(Ifwe
were,Plato'sRepublic would notbe on our curriculum.28) ButPlato's
preoccupation withthe influence of language and literatureoncharacter
is obviouslynotconfined tothetraining ofthecitizensinSocrates'sideal
state.A concernwiththeireffects on his own societyis implicitin the
very existenceofthedialogues, unless thesearetobe deniedanyserious
educational function.Suchconcernismanifested moreexplicitly notjust
elsewherein Plato's works,but withinthe Republicitself,especially
through thespeechofAdeimantus, Socrates'scondemnation ofconven-
tionaleducation,and Plato'sown portraits of real Athenianswhose
characters havebeenshapedbypoetryand myth.Moreoverthereis,as
we have seen,a tacitequivalencebetweentheinterlocutors and the
youngguardians. This is made explicit with regard to education. 'We
shallnotbe educated(mousikoi), neither we ourselves nor those guardi-
ans whomwe saywe musteducate(paideuteon), untilwe recognizethe
formsof self-control and courageand liberality and magnificence ...'
(402b-c;cf.504b-e).ItfollowsthatSocrates'sstrictures on educationare
applicablenotonlytotheidealstate,buttoanycorrupt society,whether
Plato'sorourown,whichis tostanda chanceofimprovement.
It mightalso be objectedthatevenin theideal state,theoccasional
portrayal ofbad menis acceptable, so longas itis doneforamusement
cf.
(396e2; 388d3).29 But this is scarcelyan adequateexplanationofthe
prominent roleplayedby inferior charactersin BookI oftheRepublic.
Cephalusisportrayed quiteseriously. SocratesdoestreatThrasymachus
witha certain mockery (e.g.,336d);butoverallthesophistis a fierce and
threatening presence,portrayed as farmore than a figureoffun. More-
overhisroleismuchtoosubstantial tobedismissedas lightrelief (cf.388e).
ItshouldbeclearenoughthatThrasymachus isnojoke.Indeed,todismiss
eitherhimorCephalusas merelyhumorousis toundermine theentire

28 Cf. 379a. Since the Republicdiscusses the deceptionof the people by theirrulers,it
could onlybe used, ifat all,at thehighestand mostselectlevel ofeducation(perhaps
aftersacrificinga pig or somethingelse expensive:cf.378a).
29 Neitherofthesepassages strictly impliesthattheyoungguardianswill 'imitate'bad
men or ignoble actions,merelythattheywill take an amused view of such things
(cf.452d). But the factthatmimesisof inferiormen and women is permittedat all
(387e) suggeststhatthiskind of 'imitation'is allowed as a kind of comedy.

This content downloaded from 44.229.162.106 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 23:43:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 in Plato'sRepublic 27
Self-Censorship

basisoftheRepublic, whichdevelopsinresponsetothedual threat these

charactersrepresent: the threatofthe and
complacent commonplace, and
themoreobviousthreat the
posedby savageenemy justice.of
A moresubstantial objectionis likelyto occurtoa modernreader.It
maybe arguedthatthereis no reason,eveninSocrates'sownterms, to
or
expurgateCephalus Thrasymachus, since theirviews must be inter-
pretedin thecontextoftheRepublic as a whole,wheretheyare thor-
oughlydiscredited through characterisationas wellas argument.
ItisindeedarguablethatPlatoportrays thesecharacters insucha way
as toneutralize theirdangerouseffects. Certainly Socrates, thenarrator,
does all he can to makeus despiseThrasymachus, whichshould(pre-
sumably)discourageus fromidentifying withhim.Butquotingoutof
contextforone's own purposesis standardancientprocedure,30 prac-
tisedby Plato himself, bothelsewhereand in thisverydialogue.If
Euripidescanbe calledimpiousforthewordsofoneofhischaracters,31
ifDemosthenes can quoteSophocles'sCreonforpatriotic ifthe
ends,32
SocratesoftheRepublic can himselfmisrepresent Homer'sAchillesas
greedyand materialistic (390e,391c),33thenwhatis to preventPlato's
readersfromextracting Thrasymachus's views fromthe prejudicial
context inwhichtheyareembedded?34 Worsestill,theremaybe readers
forwhomthiscontext is no deterrent.WeneedthinkonlyofNietzsche's
admirationforCallicles.WithintheRepublic itself,Cleitophon'sbrief
appearance shows thatThrasymachus has defenders despitehisdeplor-

30 An interestingexception is Hippias in Plato's Hippias Minor,who responds to

Socrates'shighlysophisticinterpretation of the characterof the Iliadic Achillesby
interpretingAchilles'swords in thecontextofhis motives(HMin 370e,371d-e). But
Socratesdoes not take his objectionsseriously.
31 Aristotle,Rhet1416a28-34
32 Demosthenes,19.246-50
33 For the injusticeof thiscf.Jowettand Campbell on 390e. Cf. also the treatmentof
Achilles in HippiasMinor (see M.W. Blundell, 'Characterand meaning in Plato's
HippiasMinor',J.C.Klagge and N.D. Smith,eds., MethodsofInterpreting Platoand his
Dialogues,OxfordStudiesin AncientPhilosophy suppl. vol. [1992] 153-4).Othersuch
distortionsin theRepublicincludeGlaucon's Aeschylusquotation(discussed below,
32), and 568a-b,which Adam ad loc. calls 'malicious' and 'perverse'.
34 Cf. Socrates'srejectionofallegoryas a defenceof unsuitableliterature.The young,
he says,cannotdistinguishhidden meanings(378d).

This content downloaded from 44.229.162.106 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 23:43:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
28 MaryWhitlockBlundell

ablemanners(cf.also Cleit410c).EvenGlauconis subjecttotheill-tem-

peredsophist'sinfluence (358c;cf.338a).
Cephaluslooksat first sightmoreinnocuous.Butthisitselfincreases
thethreathe poses in hiscomplacency. He foreshadows thosesoulsin
themythofEr whosevirtueis based on habitratherthanphilosophy,
and who therefore makethedisastrouschoiceoftyranny fortheirnext
life(619c).As modernscholarshipinadvertently but clearlydemon-
strates,Cephalus'scharacter is moreopentointerpretation thanthatof
Thrasymachus, sinceit is much less clearlymarked as 'good' or l)ad'.
He therefore cannotbe reliedon as a model,or evenas an anti-model.
It is thiskind of opennessto interpretation whichrendersliterary
charactersso slipperyand dangerous.
Itfollowsthatèie responsible literary artistshouldnotrepresent such
dramatic characters as Cephalusand Thrasymachus, or spokesmenfor
theirideas,atall.Dramaticcontext evidently lacksthepowertoneutral-
ize thedangerthattheyembody.As Socratesputsit,itmustnoteven
entertheguardians'headstosayordo anything inappropriate (388d).

We have yetto considerSocrates'sstrictures on literaryform,which

followthecensorship ofcontent. He beginswithhis famoustripartite
division.In simplenarrative, the poet speaks in his own voice; in
mimeticnarrative, he 'triesto makeus believe'thatsomeoneelse is
speaking,i.e.rendersthewordsofa character indirectspeech;inmixed
narrative,he uses both types,as Homer does (392e-4c).Itis agreedthat
theguardiansshouldnotbe mimetic, but should do and imitateonly
whatconducestotheirjob and togood character (394e-5c).
Socratesthenproceedstoa ratherdifferent analysis.Thistimethere
are twokindsofstyle:one forthegood man,one forthebad (396b-c).
The approvedspeakerwill 'imitate'in his own personthewordsand
deeds ofa good man,usingdirectspeech;he willbe unaccustomed to
'imitating'bad men or bad actions,and will avoid doing so except
perhapsin jest;he willemploya Homericmix,butwithonlya small
elementofmimesis(396c-e).Thebad style,bycontrast, imitatesevery-
thing,and is mostlymimetic, with if
little any third person narration
(397a-b).Thereis a corresponding use ofpitchand rhythm (397b-c).35

35 Fortheintimaterelationshipbetweengood characterand all aspects ofliteraturecf.

400c-ld.

This content downloaded from 44.229.162.106 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 23:43:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 in Plato'sRepublic 29
Self-Censorship

Boththesestylesareversionsoftheoriginal'mixed'orHomerictype,36
butbothofthemarenowcalled'pure'or'unmixed',incontrast toa new
'mixed'typethatcombinesthemboth(397c).Ofthesethree,theguardi-
ansshouldemployonlythe'unmixed'stylethatimitates thegoodman,
and uses littlemimesis(396b-e,397d).
Despitetheconfusing languageand shifting Socrates's
classification,
generalpoint is clear.'Imitation', i.e.,theuse ofdirectspeech 'takeon'
to
a characterotherthanone'sown,is pernicious, sinceitencouragesemo-
tionalidentificationwitha rangeofcharacters ratherthanjustone.This
willbothdiverttheguardians'energiesfromtheirspecializedtask,and
mouldthemtoa varietyofliterary charactermodels,includinginferior
ones,rather thanthesingle,simple(haplous) character ofthegoodman.37
In recounting thewordsofothers, indirectdiscourseis tobe preferred,
becauseitavoidsplacingthespeakeroraudiencedirectly intotheposition
oftheliterarycharacter, andthusmakesfarlessofanemotional impact.38
Thispointiseconomically andconvincingly conveyedthrough Socrates's
flat'translation'intoindirect discourseofChryses'sconfrontation with
Agamemnon in Book I of theIliad The
(393d-4a).39 preferred styleofthe
goodmanwillincludesomedirectspeech,or'imitation', primarily that
ofgoodmen.Thisisacceptable, sinceidentification witha goodcharacter
is no diversionfromtheguardians'own propercharacter and role.In
'imitating'theirfutureselvestheyare forming theirown characters,
rather thanfragmenting them(cf.395b).Presumably themediating voice
ofthenarrator willhelptocolorand controltheemotionaleffect ofthe
directspeech,especially anyspeechesofbadmenwhichmaybe included
forhumorousorotheracceptablepurposes.

36 I take397d4toimplythattheapprovedkindofpoetryincludesmimesisas wellas
simplenarrative.
37 Cf.J.Annas,An Introduction toPlato'sRepublic(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,
1981),96-8.On mimesisas self-alienating
see H-G.Gadamer,Dialogue andDialectic
(New Haven: Yale University Press,1980),63-6.For Socrates'sdisapprovalof
variety ofethos
(poikilia) inartandlifecf.557c,558c,561e,604e;cf.alsoLaws719c-e.
38 Thisis notexplicitly
stated,butis implicit
inSocrates'streatment
ofmimesis.
39 Itmayseemobviousthatthesubstitution ofproseforpoetryhelpstodeadenthe
impactoftheepiclines.Butwe willlaterdiscoverthatSocrateshasno objection
to
meterperse (399e-400d).
He 'translates'
Homerintoprosesimplybecauseheisnot
adeptatpoetry(393d8).

This content downloaded from 44.229.162.106 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 23:43:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
30 MaryWhitlockBlundell

Socratesobservesthattheoriginalmixedstyleofcomposition, which
usesboth'imitation' andnarrative, is employedinepicand 'manyother
places'(394c).These'otherplaces'happentoincludetheRepublic itself,
along with Plato's other 'reported'dialogues (which onlyrarelyuse
indirect discourse). These dialogues are less 'mimetic'than thepurely
dramaticones,sincetheirdirectspeechesare linkedby a firstperson
narrator intheHomericmanner. Aswehaveseen,thenarrator's rolemay
be exploited tolessenoraltertheemotional impactofthedirectspeeches.
Socrates's'non-mimetic' editorialcomments maythusbe designedin
part to neutralize the dangerous influence of Thrasymachus's direct
the
speeches.Byportraying sophist as bothobnoxious and humorous,
Plato and his Socratesmediateour response,discouragingaudience
identification andthereby distancing us fromthemimetic effect.
YetI arguedabovethatsuchan attempt mustfail,oratleastcannotlie
guaranteed success.Inanycase,comparedtotheapprovedor'pure'style,
eventhereported dialoguesusea greatdealofmimesis, 'imitating' a wide
variety ofcharacters, bad menas wellas good.In formal termsBookI of
theRepublic, withitsmixture ofnarrative anddirectspeech,resembles the
workofHomer,the'first teacher andleader'ofthetragedians (595c),who
istobepolitely escorted outoftheidealstate(398a)-40 TheSocratesofBook
III thusexpelsfromtheyoungguardians'curriculum someofthemost
salientfeatures ofPlato'sown dramaticstyle,as exemplified in BookI.
Whenhe insiststhat,despiteour admiration, we mustexpelthepoet
whosesophia enableshimtobecomemultifarious (pantodapos)andimitate
everything (398a),he seems tobe banishing Plato himself- notjustthe
young Plato who allegedly wrote tragedies,comedies and mimes,41 but
theauthorofBookI ofthe.Republic.42

40 The ancient criticswere well aware of, and sometimesembarrassedby, Plato's

poikiliaand resemblanceto Homer. See Anon Prolegesp. ch. 14-15 (Westerink),
Quintilian,InstOrat10.1.81,Proclus,ComminRemPublicam1.118-19and 161 (Kroll),
and cf.M.W. Haslam, Tlato, Sophron and the Dramatic Dialogue', Bulletinofthe
InstituteforClassicalStudies19 (1972),23, 26.
41 For tragedysee D.L. 3.5. The Anon Prolegadds Aristophaniccomedy, and mime
(3.17-20[Westerink]).
42 Many modernscholarshave claimed thatPlato's own worksconstitutePlatonically
acceptable'poetry',but thisargumentignorestheformalrejectionofmimesisper se
(cf.e.g., Gadamer 70).

This content downloaded from 44.229.162.106 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 23:43:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 in Plato'sRepublic 31
Self-Censorship

AfterBook I, as we saw earlier,Plato seems to pay heed to the

restrictions on literarycharacterization
whichhe placesinthemouthof
his own literarycharacter, Socrates.The same applies to Socrates's
censorshipof form.In thisrespect,as in others,thelong speechesof
GlauconandAdeimantus atthebeginning ofBookII aretransitional.As
devil'sadvocates,Plato'sbrothers makewhattheyconsiderto be the
bestpossiblecase forThrasymachus's views,but theydo so without
dramatizing any offensive and
personalities thereby emotional
fostering
identification withparticularspokesmenforinjustice.Glaucon,who
speaksfirst, purports torestatetheviewsofThrasymachus, butdoes so
in hisown person,without'mimetically' assuming roleofa cham-
the
of
pion injustice. Byreporting suchviewsinindirect speech,he enables
us tolearn'about'bad menwithouthimself them,ormaking
'imitating'
us do so (cf.396a). He objectifies and depersonalizesthe ideas he
represents, by using indirectdiscourseattributed to vague subjects
(358c,358e-9b,359d-60b,360c,361e-2c),less vividconditions(359b-c,
360b-c,360d),and otherdistancing gestures(e.g. 358c6,359b5,360b4,
360d2,361e).43 He ineffect does toThrasymachus whatSocrateswilldo
to Homer when he 'translates'the speech of Chrysesinto indirect
discourse,thereby drainingitofdramaticlifeand emotionalpower.
Glauconappliesthesametreatment tothetaleofGyges'sring(359d-
60b). This story of theft,
adultery,murder and usurpation,all put for-
ward as a model of naturalhumanbehavior(360b-d),is an obvious
exampleofthekindoftraditional talethatSocrateswould erasefrom
theguardians'curriculum. Glauconneutralizesitsmimeticappeal by
recounting itinindirectdiscourse.Gygesis notan individualpersonal-
ity,but a token of human nature,forbetteror worse.Thisprocessof
objectifying and depersonalizing themodelsofvirtueand viceis taken
stillfurther withGlaucon'stwo 'statues'ofthegood and thebad man
(360e-ld).Theseareabstract types,generalizedembodiments ofjustice
and injustice(361d),notindividualportraits or concreteexamplesor
evenemblematic namedheroeslikeGyges.Theidiosyncratic characters
ofBookI arethusreplacednotjustbyGlauconand Adeimantus them-
selves,butby Glaucon'sideal types.Thesetypesprefigure Socrates's
own 'patterns'(472c),or 'statues'(540c),ofthejustand unjustman,the
philosopher and thetyrant.

43 Cf.alsoJowett
andCampbell,andAdam,on 360b4and361c3.

This content downloaded from 44.229.162.106 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 23:43:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
32 MaryWhitlock
Blundell

The onlydirectquotationin Glaucon'sspeechis a passage from

Aeschylus'sSevenAgainstThebes (592-4),employedin sucha wayas to
underlinethe ambiguoususes to whichquotationcan be put. First
Glauconmerelyalludesto Aeschylus, whenhe characterizes thegood
manas 'one who does notwishtoseembutto begood (agathos)' (361b).
He uses thisallusionto draw a different contrastfromthatof the
Aeschyleanoriginal.44 Further on,he allowstheadmirersoftheunjust
man to exploitthepassage fortheirown purposes,thistimethrough
directquotation(362a).Glauconthusdemonstrates theelusivenessof
poetry and its for and
availability interpretation appropriation by all
comers.
Adeimantus's speech,bycontrast, is saturatedwithpoetry, ina way
thatdisplaysitsdangerousinfluence moredirectly.45 LikeGlaucon,he
distanceshimself fromtheideashe expresses(367a),and conveysthem
largelythrough indirect discourseinthemouthsofeitherpoetsorvague
and anonymous subjects(362e-5a).Buthe alsobreaksintodirectquota-
tionofHomerand Hesiod (363a-c,364c-e).Thisbefitshisexplicitcon-
cernwiththeeffect ofliterature on thesoulsoftalentedand educated
young men,who, he says, flitfrom onesayingtoanother, accumulating
opinions about what path in lifeto follow(365a).
At thispointAdeimantus, who is himselfa talentedand well edu-
catedyoungmanwitha wideknowledgeofliterature, startstoidentify
withthoseofhis peerswho have been led astray.Takingon thefirst
personvoiceofsucha youth,he quotesor refersto Pindar,Simonides
andArchilochus, tosupporttheconclusion thatan appearanceofjustice
is all thatmatters(365b).He imaginesan anonymousopponentinter-
veningwitha seriesofprudential objections, ofthekindwe mightexpect
froma Cephalus,46 all quotedindirectspeech(365c,d,366a).Adeiman-
tus respondsto thisobjectorin equallypragmaticterms,usingargu-
mentsderivedfrom myth, poetryandcommonopinion(365e,366b),and

44 See B. Williams,ShameandNecessity of
and Los Angeles:University
(Berkeley
Press,1993),200n.47.
California
45 It has been said (e.g.,by Annas,65) thatAdeimantus'sspeechadds littleto
Glaucon's.Buttheprominence he givestopoetryshowstheenormousimportance
oftheeducational themeandpreparesus forSocrates's program.
censorship
in theafterlife
aboutdivinepunishment
46 LikeCephalus,he is concerned (366a;cf.
330d).

This content downloaded from 44.229.162.106 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 23:43:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 in Plato'sRepublic 33
Self-Censorship

againquotingdirectly fromHomer(365e4).Thethirdoftheseresponses
isputintothemouthofan anonymous youth(366a6-b2). Inthefirst two,
however,Adeimantus identifiesfullywith the cleveryoung men, using
a wholeseriesoffirst personpluralverbstoexpresswhat'we' willsay
inreplytosuchobjections (365dl-6,365d7-6a4). He concludesbyasking
Socrateswhy,underthecircumstances, 'we' shouldchoosejusticeover
injustice(366b),and reproaches Socrates,alongwitheveryoneelse,for
failingtotell'us' youthstherightkindofstoryaboutjustice(367a).
The net resultis a livelylittledialogue betweenthe impersonal
objectorand thecleveryoungmen,whosespokesmanis Adeimantus
himself.Adeimantus's speechthusreintroduces bothdramatic formand
its dangerousimplications foryoungmen likehim.He quotesmore
poetrythanGlaucon,appearsmoreinfluenced by it,is moremimetic,
and is perhapsless firmin his opinionsthanhisbrother. Thisaccords
withotherindications in theRepublic thatdespitethesimilarity ofthe
twobrothers' characters, Glauconhas made greaterphilosophical pro-
Adeimantus's
gress.47 use ofquotationsuggestsonereasonwhyhe may
be lesswellpreparedfordialecticthanhisbrother. Thoughbothshare
thesametalentedphusis(cf.367e),Adeimantus displaysgreater suscep-
tothepoweroftraditional
tibility Ifhe andotherslikehimare
literature.
to profitfromtheirSocraticeducation,itis imperative thatthispower
be neutralized.Itis no accidentthataftersketching thefoundation ofthe
ideal state,Socrates'sfirsttopicwill be educationand in particular
censorship. Noris ita coincidence thatforthispartoftheconversation,
his respondent is Adeimantus(376d-98c).IfSocrates'sstrictures were
heeded,Adeimantus and hispeerswouldbe preservedfromtheperni-
ciousinfluence ofsuchviews.
Afterexpellingtheversatile (pantodapos)andpleasingpoet,48 Socrates
declares, 'we shallmake use of the more severe and less pleasingpoet
and story-teller(muthologos)'', one who willimitatethespeechofgood

47 I cannotdeal withthisissue here,exceptto note thatGlauconis morefully

thanAdeimantus,
characterized and is Socrates'sinterlocutor
forsometwothirds
oftheconstructive ofthedialogue,including
portion manyofthemostphilosophi-
callychallenging
parts.
48 Socratesrepeatedly emphasisesthatl)ad' poetrybringsmorepleasure,especially
to inferior
people,and relatesthispleasureto itsdangerouseffects (387b,390a,
397d).Infact,
tobe 'poetic'seemstobeprecisely
toexertthiskindofinfluence
(387b).

This content downloaded from 44.229.162.106 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 23:43:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Blundell
34 MaryWhitlock

men,and followtherestofthecensorship guidelineslaid downforthe

educationoftheguardians(398a-b).BooksII-XoftheRepublic havetheir
own stylistic charms,butfromthepointofviewofdramaand charac-
terization, theymightwell be describedas less versatile, moresevere
and lesspleasingthanBookI. The speakersarefewerin number, their
characters are notdevelopedin any detail,and theyvarylittleeither
internally or fromeach other.The narrativeformis superficially un-
changed - itis stilla first-person narrative reporting thewords of others
'mimetically', i.e.,in directspeech.Butthereis a significant difference
heretoo.Thevastmajority ofwhatis reported nowconsistsofSocrates's
ideasputforward inhisownvoice.Liketheyoungguardians, he is not
a
onlyimitatingsingle model but imitating a good model, who is,infact,
himself.His 'imitation'of otherpeople is limitedin extent,and is
likewisean imitation ofgood men,orat leastofphilosophically prom-
isingones,namely Glaucon and Adeimantus.Such mimesiswill not
fragment thecharacters ofnarrator, readerand listener, or encourage
themto identify withdangerousmodels;it will ratherguide them
towardsa single,consistent and virtuousethos.
Despitetheprohibition against'imitating' bad men,however,even
theyoungguardiansneed to learnaboutsuchpeople (396a;cf.409a-d,
576e-7a).Thiswillpresumably be accomplished through indirect narra-
tion.Similarly BooksII-XoftheRepublic discussthenon-virtuous, but
withoutusingthedirectmimetic styleof Book I. Instead,Socrates uses
third-person description todelineatesuchflawedfigures as theanony-
mouspuppet-like cave-dwellers (514a-b) and the corruptrulersofthe
corruptstates.49 Inferior characters arethus represented, as inBookI,but
they arenot brought to life or allowed to speak for themselves. Instead
are
they entirely filtered through Socrates's narrative voice. Theyare
as
presented generalizedsymbolictypes, rather thanparticularindi-
vidualswhomight arouse our sympathetic interest. The originalcham-
pionofinjustice, Thrasymachus, is stillpresent(cf.450a-b,498c-d),but
no longerspeaksup on itsbehalf(cf.588e-90a).Bydenyingsuchchar-
actersa voice,Plato seems to be discouragingdangerousemotional
identification on thepartofeitherSocrates'sinterlocutors orourselves.

49 The mythof Er is likewise predominantlyin indirectdiscourse (also noted by

issues whichunfortunately
Gadamer68-9).ButBook X raisesfurther cannotbe dealt
withhere.

This content downloaded from 44.229.162.106 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 23:43:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 in Plato'sRepublic 35
Self-Censorship

form,as well as
In BooksII-X,then,Plato adjustshis use of literary
tofittheprescriptions
content, ofhisSocrates.

It is stillassumedbymanythattheSocratesoftheRepublic is simplya
mouthpiece forPlato himself.In my own view, the dramatic form ofthe
dialogues,along withPlato's habitual self-concealment, is enoughto
invalidate thistraditional
interpretive axiom. Even those who avoid such
assumptions, be
however,may tempted to infer from myargument that
theviewofliterature expoundedby Socrates is also endorsed by Plato.
Thisendorsement isshown,itmight be argued,bythewayinwhichPlato
carriesthrough inhisownliterary practicetheprescriptions ofhispro-
tagonist.If thisis so, thenthechangingstyleof theRepublic maybe
understoodas an attemptto protectthe readerfromthe dangerous
consequencesofPlato'sown earlier,moremimetic manner.Thisargu-
mentmightbe strengthened by appealingto Plato's overallstylistic
development. Sincealmostallscholarsregardtheleastdramatic worksas
latest, theRepublic mightbe construed inpart as a comment on the stylistic
evolutionwhichitexemplifies. On thisview,Platois offering a preemp-
tivedefenceofhisownchanging style,andchallenging anydissenters to
explainjustwhy we shouldreinstate the Homeric Plato.
Tempting thoughitis,thisviewraisesseriousdifficulties. First,any
argumentsupportedby Platonicchronology is hazardous(to say the
least).More fundamentally, if Plato himselfbelieved,at the timeof
the that
composing Republic, highlymimetic writing is pernicious, why
did he composeBookI at all?50
The latterobjectionsuggeststwo possiblelinesof response.First,
Plato mighthave been workingtowardssuch views,but only in a
tentative or exploratoryway.Second,and moresignificantly, we must
remember thatPlatonever speakstous inhisownvoice.51 Whatever the
reasonsforthispractice, as longas Platochoosesto adoptit,theonly
wayhe canrevealperceiveddeficiencies inhisearlierstyleandmethod,
and demonstrate a needforchange,is through dramatization. No other
formofcritiquecouldtranscend thepartialperspective ofa particular

50 I omit fromdiscussion the hypothesisthatBook I was composed earlierthan the

restof the Republic.Even if thiswere true,it would not explain why a Plato who
disapproved ofsuch writingshould choose to incorporateBook I intoa laterwork.
51 I omitfromconsiderationtheletters,which raise a different
set of problems.

This content downloaded from 44.229.162.106 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 23:43:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
36 MaryWhitlockBlundell

character. Platocould,ofcourse,have simplyshifted to a new kindof

dramaticstyle,butthiswould notbe enoughto showthechangeas a
directresponsetopreviousinadequacies.
In fact,however,myargument thatSocrates'sviewson literature in
theRepublic arealsocarriedoutinpractice,doesnotimplythattheseare
Plato's'own'views.One mightargue,forexample,thatthisexperiment
showsnotthesuperiority of Socrates'sviews on literature,but their
impoverishment. Most will doubtlessfind this an improbablesugges-
tion.Yetmanyreadersrespondto Plato'slaterstyle,in contrast to his
moredramatic works,muchas theydo toSocrates'sdull'translation' of
Homer,as comparedtotheoriginal.
It followsthateven if the historicalPlato did at some historical
moment holdtheviewsespousedbySocratesintheRepublic, thisfactis,
or shouldbe, irrelevantto ourunderstanding ofthework.All we can
safelyconcludeis thattheRepublicexploresonthelevelofpracticesome
ofthetheoretical concernsaboutliterature addressedwithinit.Itillus-
tratesthecostsandbenefits, bothliteraryandphilosophical, ofa certain
kindofliterary and
theory practice, and leavesus, as Platoalwaysdoes,
tocarrytheargument forward forourselves.52

52 I am gratefulto audiences at theBerkeleyconference,theUniversityofWashington,

and themeetingof theAmericanPhilologicalAssociationin New Orleans in 1992,
fortheirreactionsto thispaper. Its relevanceto the work of GregoryVlastos may
notbe immediatelyapparent.But Gregoryalways encouraged studentsto go their
own way. It is in thisspiritthatI offerthepresentpaper in his memory.

This content downloaded from 44.229.162.106 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 23:43:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms