Royal Institute of Philosophy

Art in the Republic

Author(s): D. R. Grey
Source: Philosophy, Vol. 27, No. 103 (Oct., 1952), pp. 291-310
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Institute of Philosophy
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3747899 .
Accessed: 19/01/2015 07:42
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
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.

Cambridge University Press and Royal Institute of Philosophy are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Philosophy.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.231.9.1 on Mon, 19 Jan 2015 07:42:35 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PHILOSOPHY
THE JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL INSTITUTE
OF PHILOSOPHY
VOL. XXVII. No. Io3

OCTOBER 1952

ART IN THE

REPUBLIC

D. R. GREY, M.A.
PART I

THE general thesis which I should wish to sustain on this topic is

by no means new. It is, briefly,that even in the Republic, where
the views on art which Plato propounds are notoriouslyunsatisfactoryto the modem mind, this unsatisfactorinessis not due to
any lack of aesthetic sympathyon Plato's part, but on the contrary
to what is almost an excess of it. The position as far as I can understand it is this: the true artist (at least for the period of Platonic
thoughtof which the Republic marks the culmination)is the philosopher, and true artistic insight is episteme.The work of art par
excellence is primarily the philosopher's own life-that is, the
philosopherhimself.This position leads to two consequences. If we
wish to discover what Plato thinks about aesthetic truth and
aesthetic vision, we must turn to what he says about the "philosopher" and about episteme: and, secondly, it comes about that
there is an opposition between what we refer to by "aesthetic
understanding"or some similarphrase, and what Plato refersto by
"philosophy." Because of this, "art" in its narrowsense is relegated
to a lower place precisely because this type of understandingis
exalted to the highestof all. Clearly,the artist is different
fromthe
philosopher; and if we claim aesthetic understanding for the
philosopherand forhim alone, we must give some otherand humbler
account of the artist.We could put the same generalpoint otherwise
by saying that Plato's philosophy as a whole amounts to the first
Greek attempt to produce a theory of aesthetics; and that Plato
apart, there is no Greek aesthetic theory.This paradox is, I think,
true, though its truth is very complicated. We may approach its
29I

This content downloaded from 193.231.9.1 on Mon, 19 Jan 2015 07:42:35 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PHILOSOPHY
complications
by pointingout that the reasonsforthe emphasis
Plato gives to aestheticinsight,and the reasonswhyhe relegates
"art" to a subordinateplace, fall broadlyinto threeclasses. We
have (i) the theoryof eide; (ii) Plato's view of techne;and (iii)the
attitudehe takesto whatwe maycall thetheoriesaboutartcurrent
in his day.
The firstof theseis too special forconsideration
here,although
whatPlato meansin theRepublic
anyseriousattemptto understand
ofwhat
by "philosophy"mustrestin theendon one'sinterpretation
the eidosis. The othertworequiresomepreliminary
which
remarks,
are mainlyconcernedwiththe difficulty
of terminology
and of how
we can tryto conveyin Englishwhat Plato's Greekmeans.And
sincethereis hardlyone important
notionin commonbetweenthe
in
which
Plato
is
his thoughtand the language
language
expressing
in whichwe attemptto comprehend
it, it seemsbest to indicateas
well as I may the main setting
in termsof whichPlato is thinking
is a difficulty
aboutthetopicofart.For theterminological
difficulty
fortwo reasons: on the one hand, thereis no clearlyestablished
technicalvocabularyin Englishfordealingwithaesthetics;on the
otherhand, Plato in discussingart is not talkingabout what we
are talkingaboutwhenwediscussart.
The firsthalfof this difficulty
we may make shiftto surmount
unless
I
use "art" throughout,
a
shall
few
by
arbitraryusages.
otherwisespecified,in its narrowsense of "fineart." And I shall
it from"craft"-i.e. actiontowardan external
intendto distinguish
end-as some modem aestheticiansdo (e.g. Collingwood).This I
do partlybecauseit is a well-established
use, thoughnot altogether
ethicsfrom
a lucid one, and partlybecauseit servesto distinguish
In
I
think
we
do
aesthetics. general,
thoughwe would
distinguish,
it may be that
the
and
connections
between
allow
two;
normally
fusetogether,
of
to
would
have
in an adequate theory beautythey
avoid
all commitPlato.
But
so
far
as
I
wish
to
as theydo for
possible
would
be
mentto any modernview, since I thinkthis
violently
Plato. Accordingly
I shalluse "modern
prejudicialto understanding
aesthetictheory"and so forthin broadcontrastto Plato, intending
and difference
whichmakesomedistinction
to implybyit all theories
betweenthe notionsof "morallygood" and "beautiful."I cannot,
to one
I think,avoid a doubleuse of "aesthetic,"whichcorresponds
betweenPlatonicthoughtand our own.
of the primarydifferences
In a contextsuch as "modem aesthetictheory,"it will mean
connectedwith,about,or derivingfrom,beauty." In a
"primarily
contextlike "Greekaesthetictheory"it willmean the nearestthat
theGreekscometo any discussionabout "art" in themodernsense.
In general,in such a context,and alwaysin a Platoniccontext,it
will mean "connectedwithbeauty" wherebeautyis to be taken,
292

This content downloaded from 193.231.9.1 on Mon, 19 Jan 2015 07:42:35 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ART

IN

THE

REPUBLIC

in accordancewith the Republicand the Symposium,eitheras

identicalwithGood,or as an aspectof Good; but in any case with
an extremelyclose connectionbetweenthem,so that the one is
notto be thoughtofwithouttheother.Theyarenotquitecorrelative
notions,likeconcaveand convex,becausethisimpliessomeopposition.Noraretheyrelatedlike"square" and "quadrilateral."Perhaps
we may paraphrasePlato, and say that the connectionis like that
betweenheat and light,wherebothare to be regardedas the essence
ofthesun.
I shall try to meet by making
The otherhalf of the difficulty
what must appear as dogmaticremarks.Theirjustification
would
lie in an expositionofthetheoryofeideas it appearsin theRepublic,
ifthatexpositionwereitselfsustained.I willlay it down,then:
(a) That for the Greek there is no distinctionbetween"the
beautiful"and "the morallygood": or better,that thereis no
distinctionbetweenaestheticgood and ethicalgood. "Ethical" is
used here as a widernotionthan "moral"; to cover what Plato
meansby arete.This is a verywide notionindeed: in Rep. 6oiD
he speaks of the aper?j EKacrrovaKEVOVSKOCa coovKal TrpatewO.
The
areteof a tree or a stone and that of a man are not different
in
kind,althoughthe one is a moralcreatureand the othersare not.
Insofaras anythinghas arete,it exhibitsaestheticgood and ethical
good (you cannothave the one withoutthe other,althoughthey
maybe developedto different
degrees);althoughtheethicalconnotation may varyenormously
fromthe case wheremoralgoodnessis
as with the tree,to the maximalcase
negligibleor non-existent,
wheremoralgood is co-extensive
withaestheticgood, and thetwo
becomeone.Thereis so faras I can seeno Greekwordfor"beautiful,"
at any rate by Plato's time: kalos,like agathos,is a fluidnotion
which is susceptibleof different
kinds of
degreesand different
But
where
we
have
or
some
kalos,agathos
emphasis.
equivalent
seems always to be suggested,as it were by innuendo.It is not
an accidental collocation when Plato writes aperrj Kcal KaAA'OSKc

The point is that "good" and "beauty" are notseparable:

op8On6S.
thedifferences
therangeofapplicationare differences
in
throughout
onerange.They are mediatedand unitedby arete,withits shifting
meaningsaccordingto context. Oftenenough,the predominant
notionis thatof function(as in Xenophon'swheelwhichis dikaios,
and Homer's Kaa 7rerSAa,of Hermes' sandals). But we must beware

of taking"function"too narrowly:the Republicitselfis only one

indicationofwhatthewordmeansforPlato.
in kind betweenvalues and
(b) Similarlythereis no distinction
non-values.I will try to make sense of this obscureremarkby
saying this: The harmonia,which is basic for Pythagoreanand
Platonicthought,
and I wouldmaintainforGreekthoughtgenerally,
293

This content downloaded from 193.231.9.1 on Mon, 19 Jan 2015 07:42:35 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PHILOSOPHY
is seen indifferently
(i) as aesthetic,in musicor sculptureor archias conduciveto,
tecture;(ii) as ethical,thatis to say,teleologically,
or as the resultof, arete; (iii) as mathematical,
as a numerically
expressibleratio or logos; (iv) as logical,as the groundof being,
the "reasonwhy"; (v) as metaphysical(closelyconnectedforPlato
withthe last), as the essential"what"; (vi) as a principleof order,
thatis, as whatwe call "the uniformity
ofNature."Thus thereis in
moral
and aestheticlaw (the
no
difference
between
the
principle
law
of
the
law
of Nature,the law of
the
reason,
goldenmean),
of
mathematics.
are
all
different
ways seeingthe same thing;
They
is
betweenthem.They are
no
break
in
hencethere
subject-matter
all manifestations
of,effectsof,and ultimatelythe natureof,that
"order" which is one-halfof the fundamentalGreek antithesis
betweenchaosand cosmos,whichgivesus also thePlatonicequation
and the"real." The variousmeaningsoflogosall
of the "intelligible"
it is not by accidentthat Plato
reflectthis identity-in-difference:
in Rep. 4o0D, at theend ofthepassagewhere
speaksof K;CAosAoyos
the
he is indicatingwhat the true artistshould do. Accordingly,
as betweenthe
basic object of knowingis in principleindifferent
approach of science, logic, mathematics,ethics, and aesthetics,
willrevealonlyone aspect
thougheach such approachindividually
distortedor liableto distortion.
This "basic
-partial, and therefore
eidos.
I
"in
is
Plato
calls
the
what
say
principle,"because
object"
as
the emphasisPlato givesto any one of theseapproachesdiffers
his thoughtdevelops,and one is apt to supposethat whereone is
emphasizedin any givendialoguethe othersare to be ruledout.
In the Republic,forexample,the wholestresscomeson ethicaland
aestheticinsight,scientificunderstanding
drops to second place
is
considered
and
not
at all. In theSophist
logic
explicitly
(dianoia),
the emphasisshiftsto logic and to conceptual
and the Theaetetus
and ethical-aesthetic
knowledge,
insightis correspondingly
neglected.
But as faras I can see, Plato's mainpositionneveralters.He holds
truthsare thosegivenby an insightwhich
thatthe mostimportant
is sensitiveat once to ethical and aestheticgood, and that it is
beautyand goodnesswhich,so to speak,give senseto reality.This
is verymuchthe view thatwe are concernedwithin the Republic.
He expressesit, thereand in the Symposium,
by the doctrineof
eroson the one hand and on the otherby the assertionthat the
and ofall being.
eidosof Goodis thesourceofall knowledge
From all this, two conclusionsfollowwhich are immediately
important,if we are to considerPlato's view of techneand his
attitudeto Greekaesthetictheory.They are: that thereis thusno
separationbetween "science" and "art," and that there is no
separationbetweenethicsand aesthetics.And it will also be clear,
I hope,fromwhat I have triedto indicate,thatinsofaras ethical294

This content downloaded from 193.231.9.1 on Mon, 19 Jan 2015 07:42:35 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ART

IN

THE

REPUBLIC

in the Republicas the typeof

aestheticinsightacquiresimportance
philosophicunderstanding,
any rival claims on behalf of a nonthat the general
philosophicactivitywill be depressed;and further
will
colourwhat
of
the
direct
and
dialogue
philosophicalposition
Plato has to say thereaboutart.Thusthereare twomaincontextual
at workon Plato's discussionofthistopicin the Republic:
influences
one the generalphilosophical
positionthat he is theremaintaining,
and secondlythe politicaland educativesettingin whichthe topic
arises.In one sensewe shouldexpectthembothto operatetogether.
We shouldexpectthat whenhe comesto discussart,the combined
ofthe twowillmakemoralconsiderations
influence
primary.But in
anothersense the two will operate,we should expect,in opposed
Fortheemphasison ethical-aesthetic
directions.
insightinphilosophy
willtendtowardthe positionwhichwouldexplicitlyassertthatart
is philosophy;but on the otherhand, the politicaland educative
ofartwillnotbelongto thephilosopher
but
function
qua philosopher,
to the philosopher
or
disThus
a
we
should
qua pilot guide.
expect
tinctionbetweenart and philosophy;and we should expect that
insofaras theyare distinguished,
artwillhavescantjusticedoneto it
in proportion
as itis subordinated
to philosophy.
We shouldexpectto
a
tension
or
on
find,then,
oppositionwhereby the one hand the
twoareidentified,
and on theotherartis subordinated
to philosophy;
and we shouldexpect this to happen in a contextwhichstresses
the moralvalues at the expenseof the aestheticwherethe second
alternativepredominates,
but whichidentifies
aestheticand moral
values wherethefirstalternativepredominates.
This, I suggest,is preciselywhat we do find.I will tryto deal
withit firstin termsofcurrentGreekaesthetictheory;but I should
make it plain that all threeclasses of reasons (the eide, techne,
currenttheories)are operatingat once,modifiedby the two main
influences
ofcontextI have mentioned.So thatwhatwe have is an
extremelysubtle interplaybetween two contradictions,which
admitsat any pointof a six-foldanalysis.For thesake ofsimplicity
I am treatingas separatewhatin factis one aspectofa livingunity
ofthought:the analysiskills,but it does,I think,helpus to understand.I do notsuggest,ofcourse,thatPlato is consciously
multiplyin thisway,but I do suggestthatwe shouldtake
ingcomplications
theminto account,if we are to graspwhat he is sayingabout art
and whyhe is sayingit.
Ofwhathe says thepassageat 4oIB seq.is typical.True artmust
be like a "health-giving
breeze fromhappy places": it must lead
men"fromchildhoodunawares,to love,resembleand be in harmony
with the beauty of reason"-or howeverone is to translateKAcXA
Aoyc.True art willimitateonlywhat is morallyuplifting:accordwhichwillban all poetrywhichis
inglyPlato advocatesa censorship
295

This content downloaded from 193.231.9.1 on Mon, 19 Jan 2015 07:42:35 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PHILOSOPHY
mimetic(the suggestionherebeingthat some poetryis not), or at
leastensurethatonlytherightkindofthingsare imitated.Similarly
withthe otherfinearts; and Book X reaffirms
this position,with
and psychological
based apparentlyon the
metaphysical
arguments
view that all art is mimetic.In short,unlessart is utileas well as
dulce,it can findno place in theideal state.
Now Professor
WebsterIhas pointedout thatwe may distinguish
sevenwaysofthinking
aboutart whichwereor had beencurrentin
Plato's time. Of these,fourare importantforour purpose,since
they are espousedby Plato. In the Republic,he adopts explicitly
theviewthatarteducatesand theviewthatit is mimests.
Implicitly,
we findalso thehedonicviewofart,thatit is a matterofpleasingto which,as we shall see, he gives a special twist,and the view
that the artistis divinelyinspired.We may perhapstake the myth
of thisdialogue(as of others)as a practicalexampleof the inspirationalview,the theoryof whichis propoundedin the Ion and the
latentin what Plato
Phaedrus;but I thinkit is moreimportantly
ofthe
in
the
to
the
be
nature
true
of
considers,
knowledge,
Republic,
discussion
and
of
the
eide
themselves.
detailed
Its
philosopher,
therefore
belongselsewhere.
It seems that by Plato's time the aesthetictheorymost predominantwas that art is mimesis.Certainlythe practiceof art
(whatevermay have been the theoryabout it) becomesmoreand
more"realistic"fromthe late fifthcenturyonward-theschoolsof
hareofPolygnotus-andwe can
illusionistic
painting,theproverbial
the
tracethechangefromthetimeofEuripidesas it persiststhrough
Hellenisticperiodand beyond,whetherin comedyor sculpture,in
Theocritusor Herondasor in the curiousand exquisiteproduction
in
of Longus.The aim and effectof thistypeof art is exemplified
the genreof epigramswhosesole purposeis to say how "life-like"
that Plato, withan
a workof art may be. It is thennot surprising
eye on contemporary
practice,should adopt the mimetictheory.
But in adoptingthe educativetheoryas well,he providesus witha
tourdeforce.For the naturalemphasisof the mimetictheoryis on
"realism"and on the techniqueof producingillusions.Art is thus
a pseudos,a deliberatedeceit,a dodge,a trick:the workof art is a
by deceivingus into
copy,knownto be a copy,whichgetsits effect
fora moment,that it is the real thing.The connection
thinking,
between this and the major epistemologicaldistinctionin the
Republicis obvious.As long as we hold thisview of art,therecan
be no questionof experiencing
the "real thing"-the workof art
is a matterofdoxa,of"outwardshow"orsemblance,and theshifting
"opinion"based on thisalone. And worse,it is a semblancewhose
verybeingis to seem real; it is an instanceof that inversionor
I In the Classical Quarterly, XXXIII

(I939), p. I66.

296

This content downloaded from 193.231.9.1 on Mon, 19 Jan 2015 07:42:35 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ART

IN

THE

REPUBLIC

perversionof being and knowledgewhich Plato calls in another

the workof art is "at
contextthe "lie in the soul." Metaphysically,
threeremovesfromreality."
In sayingthismuch,Plato is adoptingthe aesthetictheoryofhis
own day, with all the implicationswhichhis systemgives to it.
But thereis nothingin this view whichcan allow it to be linked
withan educativeview of art. Quitethe contrary.
For on
naturally
thiskindofview,what"realist"artmustdo is to imitatesuccessfully:
one can apply,apartfromaestheticcriteria
thisis the onlycriterion
it
proper-i.e. is the workbeautiful?And the more successfully
imitates,the moreegregiousthe deceit.This is no exampleforthe
youthofPlato's state.Further,"realism"in artrequiresrepresentationnot of thisor thatparticularaspectof a thing,but of any and
not onlythe "good," but also
everyaspect; it meansrepresenting
the "bad." Providingit imitatessuccessfully,
whatit imitatesis
besidethepoint.This kindofaesthetictheory,then,leavesno room
formorality,
and insofaras the subjectimitated
exceptincidentally
to
exhibit
moral
It is not our purpose
characteristics.
may happen
here to considerthe theoryas a manifestation
or result of the
and
moral
dissolution
which
disturbs
political
Thucydides(noryet
to inquirehowfarit is thebeginning
oftheseparatism
and syncretism
of the Hellenisticperiod).But the pointdid not escape Plato. It is
indeedobviousthat he was muchexercisedand concernedby the
course which contemporary
art was pursuing;and it is equally
obviousthatthe averageeducatedAthenianwouldconnectart and
or identical,expressionsof the
politics(since theywere different,
same thing,thepolis) and thatwe can transfer
bodilyto art what
Plato says in the 7thLetterabout thecontemporary
politicalscene.
of the mimetictheory.
These,then,are the naturalimplications
It is at odds withthe educativeview,thatthe functionof art is to
connectsart
improve.Yet Plato adoptsit-although he specifically
with morals; not merelyby the implicationsof his philosophical
position,and the close relationbetweenBeauty and Good, but by
what he says or supposesabout the functionof art. And what is
more,he makesthis connectionin termsof the verytheoryof art
whichis least adaptedto sustainit. Artmustimitatewhatoughtto
be, he says: thatis, it shouldbe bothmimeticand educative.Hence
the immediateshiftin 377 seq. to the questionof what is worth
imitatingin literature.Thisgivesnot merelytheethicalcomplexion
whichAthenianartso strongly
exhibitedwhenthe educativetheory
was in its heyday,but an explicitlymoraltone. In termsof Greek
aesthetictheory,what Plato seems to be doing in adoptingthe
educativetheoryas well as the mimeticis to advocatea returnto
the artisticpractice(but idealized) of the previouscentury,while
behindthat of his own. Mimesisneedn'tlead,
acceptingthe theory
297

This content downloaded from 193.231.9.1 on Mon, 19 Jan 2015 07:42:35 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PHILOSOPHY
he virtuallyinsists,to thedecadenceand neuroticism
intowhichart
has in factlapsed. That comesabout if you imitatethe wrongsort
of things.Let us have mimeticart by all means,but let it imitate
whatis noble.It is as if one shouldadvocatethe "realism"of Jane
Austenratherthan that of Hemingway.The mimetictheorydoes
not indeedlead naturallyto this sortof art, but it is not entirely
withit.
incompatible
it
so happens that the practice which accompaniedthe
But
educativetheoryofart was notmimetic,
but hortative;as we would
say, the art of Pindarand Sophoclesand the restis not "realist,"
but "ideal" or "typical." Part of Plato's difficulty
is that thereis
no adequate aesthetictheorywhichexplainsthe practicehe has in
mind: art eithereducatesor imitates.Thereis as yet no theoryof
whatart is, onlytheoriesabout whatit does or shoulddo. And art
becauseit doesnotimitate,buton thecontrary
can improveprecisely
our ordinary
Plato is in factstruggling
after
transcends,
experiences.
a theoryof aestheticswhichdoes not findfull expressionbefore
Hegel.But it is a theorywhichcannotbe helduntilwe have isolated
that kindof activitywe call art.And the Greekscouldnot do this:
theyhave no wordforart, and henceno specificisolationof it in
thought.They have only techne,which means somethingquite
different.
Plato has to conducthis discussionin termsof the four
theorieswe have noticed;and noneofthemis reallywhathe wants.
This is one reason why he commitshimselfto the contradictory
positionwhichdemandson theone handthattheartistshouldhave
philosophicvision,and denieson theotherthathe can.
The junctionPlato makesbetweenthemimeticand theeducative
theorymay be expressedby sayingthat he urgesthat art should
imitateonlythe ideal, that is, the thingin its aspect of complete
arete.But this leads directlyto the requirement
that the artist
shouldhave trueknowledge,
as thephilosopher
how
has. Otherwise,
can he producethisimitation?Even the carpenterin the Cratylus
workswiththe eidosin his mind'seye. A fortiori,
so will the poet.
And if this is so, what becomesof the mimeticview proper,and
the "thirdremove"view of the workof art? Thus Plato solvesone
difficulty
onlyto raise another.Indeedwe can discernthreeincompatibilities in his joint adoption of the mimetic and the
educative view: (i) the fact that they are not naturallyallied;
withthe
conflicts
(ii) thefactthatthemimeticview,takenstrictly,
theoryof art as God-inspired;'(iii) the fact that themimeticview
I Space forbidsa detailed discussionof this theory.But what holds forthe
educative theory,as against the mimetictheory,holds for the inspirational
theoryalso. It is not naturallyallied withthe mimeticview; what inspiration
or Divine giftof frenzyis needed, if all the artistdoes is to produce accurate
copies? It is only if art is to be prophetic,or to "inspire" in the sense of
298

This content downloaded from 193.231.9.1 on Mon, 19 Jan 2015 07:42:35 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ART

IN

THE

REPUBLIC

wouldnaturallylead to some dissociationof the aesthetically

good
fromthe ethicallygood. A complicatedinterplayof these three
underlieswhatis said bothin theRepublicand in theLaws.
We cannotstudythisinterplayin detail here; but we may note
thatwhereastheprevailing
and explicitviewadoptedin theRepublic
is thatartis theimitationofimitations,
based notupontrueinsight
but upon fallible"opinion,"thereare indicationswhichif taken
seriouslylead us straightto the view that the artistcopiesthe eide
or philosophical
and exercisesepisteme
insightin the process.Thus
in 4oIB, wherePlato has been statingwhat art shoulddo, we find
the significant
remarkthat the Guardianswill not be properly
trained or educated (TraL8evrEov)-sc. by art, among other things-

untiltheycan recognizetheeideof"temperance,
courage,liberality,
and all otherkindredqualities";' that thesemustbe apprehended
both in theirown rightand in image,as they are in things;and
that we are to realizethatboththe eideand theirimagesbelongto
the same eXyV?7
K[

EuAEXr7(402

c.). But unless the artist recognizes

the eide,how can he make imagesof them?Again,the point of

595 seq. is that the artisthas not, in fact,the knowledgethat he
oughtto have if he is to be "good." "Some people tell us," says
ofthataboutwhich
Plato,"thatthegoodpoetmusthave knowledge
he writes;otherwisehe could not writeKoCAW3s"
(598E). But most
artistsdeceive,producingimageswhichare not the resultof knowledge,"whichis an easy thingto do withoutknowingthe truth."
We may recall Soph. 267B, whereart comes under the craftof
producingcopies; but thereare thosewho knowwhattheyimitate,
and thosewhodon't; the majorityof artistsare ignorant
of SK(ctOawrvs

To aXiL,a KOcl Ars {;A

vXAt81r3v
aperrj and imitate their "vague
notion" of it-8SoaovrEsC 8'e 7'. If we take seriouslythe point about

knowingwhatone copies,we are led to thefulldoctrineexemplified

similewhereby
by theLineand theCave. Again,thereis thefrequent
the philosopheris likenedto the painter(whoseart is otherwise
takenas theneplus ultraofsemblance),as in 472D, 484C,50o-5oIB.
revealing triumphsof perfectionto be aimed at, that this kind of view has
any point. And in that case it is virtuallyequivalent to the educative view;
it is merelybeing more explicitabout whence the artistderiveshis authority
and information,and the purpose of art remainsthe same. The doctrineof
the Republic must mean that if the artist is inspired,this inspirationcomes
ultimatelyfromthe eidos of Good: that is, by philosophical vision. Hence
insofaras Plato may be thoughtto have the inspirationaltheoryin mind,in
this dialogue, he will have similardifficulties
with it.
I I cannot agree with Adam that there is no technical referencehere,
when it is apparent from476A that the theoryof eide is already known to
at least one of the participants.Whetherthe eide are "immanent" or "transcendant" is beside the point, when one realizes what the eide are in this
dialogue: fortheywill be both.
299

This content downloaded from 193.231.9.1 on Mon, 19 Jan 2015 07:42:35 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PHILOSOPHY
Indeed the questionin 472D 4, epitomizesthe theoryof art Plato
wouldliketo hold,but whichhe cannotholdunlesshe allowsart to
coalescewithphilosophy-"Anddo you thinka man wouldbe any
the worsepainter,if he shouldproducean exemplarof the ideal

man (o Ka\AAtrosavOpcoros),but couldn't show that this ideal

couldactuallybe realized?"
This kindofemphasisby itselfmustlead, I think,to therequirementthat the trueartistshouldhave episteme;
just as the mimetic
if we hold, as Plato does,
view will lead to the same requirement
that art shouldimitatenot whatis but whatoughtto be. For that
to sayingit mustcopytheeide.On theotherhand,it
is tantamount
is counterbalanced
by the assertion,forwhichBook X givesmetaphysicaland psychologicalreasons,that the artistdoes not and
cannothave such knowledge.Does not,granted:but whycannot?
Simplybecause qua artist,he is not a philosopher.Plato uses the
mimetictheoryherein malampartem-orrather,withits natural
implication,to insistthat the artistis at the lowestlevel of the
Line,and thathisartis organizeddeceit.Thisis theexplicitdoctrine
aesthetic
oftheRepublic,and wherePlato is asserting
it,he sacrifices
values to moral values-as in 387C, 387B, 39oA, 398A: the W$v,
the7roIrqTKWrEpov,
must give way to the (qe'Atlov.
We may wonderwhy,if they are to introducethis tensionor
opposition,Plato shouldadopt boththe mimeticand the educative
theoryof art. Why,forexample,shouldhe not have droppedthe
mimetic
view,andheldtotheeducative-whichwouldhaveservedhis
ends quite easilyon its own? Or whyshouldhe not have takenthe
ofthe
mimeticviewalone,and used the wordas he does elsewhere,
view
would
the
educative
Then
the
eidos?
particular"imitating"
automaticallydisappearinto the.mimetictheory,because of the
teleologicalsenseofmimesis,and we shouldhave a straightforward
parallel of the 'pws doctrineof the Symposium-besideswhich,
sincethesame notionwouldbe
therewouldbe a gainin simplicity,
Indeed
in
in
and in psychology.
operatingequally art, metaphysics,
thispositionis virtuallyimpliedby the admissionthat art is vital
to education,that educationis crownedby philosophy,and that
philosophyinvolvesthe "kinglyart" whichis in the end (sincesin
is ignorance)identicalwiththe art of living.The questionwhyhe
should not adopt eitherof these alternativesis in part easy and
obviousto answer,in partcomplexand obscure.
The easy partoftheansweris givenby pointingout thathe could
hardlydo otherthan adopt bothviews.For the educativeview is
about whatart does,as
not so mucha consciouslyadvancedtheory
a flathistoricalstatementabout what it actuallywas doingin the
Athenianpolity.The factswerethere;Plato couldscarcelyrepudiate
them.He could, and did, wish that art were doingbetterin this
300

This content downloaded from 193.231.9.1 on Mon, 19 Jan 2015 07:42:35 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ART

IN

THE

REPUBLIC

task; but he could not pretendit was not doingit at all. Indeed
we can almostdeduce the theoryfromthe wordfor"poet," with
its double sense of making or creating(What? Clearlynot the
originals;obviously,copies) and of makingsomebodysomething,
betteror worse.It is latentin language,as well as patentin fact.
As forthemimeticview,Plato was clearlyinfluenced
by the artistic
or
not
we
are
to
that
the
say
practiceofhisday,whether
appropriate
theorywas consciouslypropoundedby those who practisedit.
he can give it a twistwhichserveshis ends,but there
Admittedly,
is no need forhimto giveit that particulartwist.In any case, the
generaltestimonyof Greek literaturegoes to show that in the
discussionofBook X, forexample,Plato is doingno
psychological
morethanto makeexplicitthenormalfeelingsofthenormalGreek
confronted
withpoetryand music.
The otherpartof the answeris not so easilycomeby. To give it
we have to take up the same questionsuccessively
thoroughly,
it in termsof the
fromthreedifferent
pointsof view,considering
and of aesthetictheoryas such. So far,I have tried
eide,of techne,
to discussthe last of these-at some length,yet morebriefly
than
it requires.This discussionitself,I think,providesthe answer,or
ratherthatpartof it. In thenextsectionI willattemptit fromthe
theposition
pointofviewoftechne;butit maybe wellto summarize
so far.
The interplaybetweenthe mimeticand the educativetheoriesof
art in theRepublicmaybe seen:
(a) As the outcomeof an oppositionbetweentwo incompatible
doctrines.The one is that art is "philosophy"in a different
guise
(in Plato's special sense of philosophy);the otheris that art is
different
fromphilosophyand subordinateto it. The influence
tout
eide
the
of
the
and
doctrines
pur
epistemological
exemplified
by the
Line and the Cave lead to the firstposition;and the educative
theoryof art is consonantwiththis providedwe grantthe artist
knowledgeoftheeide.On the otherhand,themimetictheorytaken
in its naturalformleads to the "thirdremove" positionand to
ofart to philosophy,
withtheconsequentsacrifice
thesubordination
to
of aestheticvalues proper moralvalues. But this happensonly
becauseart mustbe "useful,"in the widestand best sense.And so
can tellus
oncemorewe areback at theimpasse:foronlyphilosophy
ofutilityin thissense.NeithertheorywillgivePlato whathe wants,
and no amountofjugglingwiththetwowillreallysolvehisdilemma.
(b) The dilemmamay be consideredin anotherway. What Plato
is anxious to maintainis "idealist"practicein art,and a viewof
art whichenablesit to transcendhumanexperienceby hintingat
of what "really" is, i.e. what oughtto be. But he
the perfection
art and philosophy,
cannotadopt sucha theorywithoutidentifying
301

This content downloaded from 193.231.9.1 on Mon, 19 Jan 2015 07:42:35 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PHILOSOPHY
unlesshe is to break the mouldof his Greekthoughtand achieve
a post-Renaissance
insistenceon art as the special activityof the
beautifulas distinctfromtheethicallygood.In fact,he has to work
withthethoughtofhisperiodand a languagewhicharticulatesthat
thoughtin a certainway. Thus he embracestwo incompatible
theories.The educative(or equally the inspirational)view would
lead to an identification
of philosophyand art; the mimeticview,
takenstrictly,
to the entirebanishment
of art fromthe ideal state.
He fusesthe two; by distinguishing
aestheticfrommoralissueshe
contrives
to suppresssomeart(considered
as mimesis)whileretaining
thatwhichis mimeticofthegood (considered
as educativeart).And
by insisting
judiciouslyon mimesistoutpur he can sustainthe"third
to philoremove"positionand subordinateart, so distinguished,
sophy. Thus he constantlyshiftshis emphasisto maintainan
is unstable,becauseit is an equiliequilibrium;but the equilibrium
briumofincompatibles.
This I suggestis a description
ofwhat,in theseterms,is goingon
in the Republic.If we ask whyit shouldgo on-why Plato should
put himselfin this dilemmaat all, the real answercomesfroma
ofwhatthe eidemeanforthisdialogue.And it is that
consideration
ofquasi-aesthetic
Plato is so convincedoftheparamountimportance
is swallowed
are
the
that
as
such
art
which
insight(of
they
objects)
no
of
his
view
There
in
is, properly, place forart in
up
philosophy.
the Republic,because the wholephilosophical,
political,and metais
aesthetic
from
to
physicalconception
beginning end.
PART II

WE comenow to the secondpart of the answerto the questionI

have raised-viz. whyPlato shouldadopttwo theoriesofart in the
Republicwhich are incompatiblewith one another,the mimetic
theoryand the educativetheory.We are to deal withit in termsof
techne;and once more we may best approachit by considering
ofthegeneralcharacterofthethoughtinvolved.
something
of art seemsoffensive
or unsatisfactory
WherePlato's treatment
to themoder mind,it is becausehe refusesto allowthattheactivity
of art is independentas well as autonomous.Modernwriters,for
example,mayregardart as a typeof "expression"whichis its own
justification;they may be inclinedto hold that art is a way of
reachingtruth,just as "science"and "religion"are waysofreaching
truth,and that the aestheticaspectof truthso attainedis at least
with"religious"or "ethical"truthand with"scientific"
co-ordinate
truth.Hence art may standon its ownfeet:it is its own cause,its
its own end. Whateverwe may thinkabout this
own justification,
302

This content downloaded from 193.231.9.1 on Mon, 19 Jan 2015 07:42:35 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ART

IN

THE

REPUBLIC

way of viewingart,it is certainlynot Plato's. And the reasonwhy

or the main reasonwhy,is that for him ro
he thinksdifferently,
a unity,and hencethe ethicalcannotbe
and
ro
form
KaCov
acyao'v
It
follows
that art is not an independent
of
out
art.
kept
activity;
like all otherkindsof activity,it mustministerto, and be justified
as a whole
by, therealizingof the Good whetherin the community
art
is
a
or theindividualas a whole.Otherwise
put,
speciesoftechne.
I
that
the
entire
as
if
we
have
done,
Thus,
say,
conceptionofthe
we
must
is
and
be carefulto
throughaesthetic,
Republic through
a
not
with
modernconnotation.
use thiswordwitha Greekand
In
adoptingthese theoriesabout "art," Plato is not workingout a
theoryof art in the sense in whichhe is workingout a theoryof
philosophy-whatit is, and what its place is in human activity.
For whathe is concernedwithis a speciesoftechne;and thatmakes
all the difference,
althoughit is almostimpossibleto findEnglish
is. He is indeedworking
wordswhichcan explainwhatthedifference
is is not "art"
but whatthat something
out a theoryofsomething,
in its modemsense: it is what he calls elsewherea sub-branchof
7
SAwo0totLOK7)
rE'Xvrj(Soph. 266D). The very same factors, which
in
enable him to achievealmostan organicunityand consistency
thephilsophical
doctrineoftheRepublic,precludehimfromthrowing
the activityof what we call "art" intosharpreliefand contrasting
it with otheractivities.The chiefreasonforthis is the fusionof
beautywithethicaland moralgood, whichgives as one of its byproducts(and not the onlyone,as some think)an emphasiswhich
emergesin one of its guisesin the Republicas the politicalsetting
in whichart is to be exercisedand discussed.But the important
is theobjectofphilosophic
pointis thatinsofaras theGood-Beautiful
in
robbed
advance
ofits mostessential
is
as
it
were
"art"
knowledge,
so that whenit is contrastedwithphilosophy,
it is
characteristic;
is
art
in
of
Thus
not
with
a
shadow
contrast
itself.
really
already
and
this
a
reflection
but
fact
ofit;
pale
very
producesa
philosophy,
and be identified
constanttendencyforartto subsideintophilosophy
is furthercomplicatedbecause Plato is an
withit. The difficulty
in a wayin whichhe is not,forexample,
his
in
artist,
philosophizing,
a mathematician:this doubtless accounts also in part for the
aesthetic-ethical
emphasisoftheRepublic.Henceit comesaboutthat
somemodemaestheticians
proper,dealingwithart as separatefrom
moralsor politicsor science,can make the same sortof statements
withouteven
aboutartas Plato makesaboutphilosophy-sometimes
the
connection.
recognizing
But in the Republic,art is no moreclear-cut-in fact,less soof the Line and the
than "science"is. And despitethe illustrations
or
of
at
rate
the
mathematical
science,
Cave,
any
position science,
fromphiloremainsequivocal.On the one hand,it is distinguished
303

This content downloaded from 193.231.9.1 on Mon, 19 Jan 2015 07:42:35 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PHILOSOPHY
to it (in the upwardmovementof
sophicinsightand subordinated
the dialectic,and the passageout oftheCave); on theother,by the
ofthedialectic,it is absorbedintophilosophy.
downwardmovement
we may inquire,why not art? Why should
And if mathematics,
Plato disallowthoseglimpsesof the ideal, or the lightthat never
shoneon land or sea, whichart can give? Whyshouldhe allow,in
the Symposium,
thatbeautyin its variousformsis a stepping-stone
to ultimatetruth,and yet in the Republicso largelydenythat art
is, while insistingthat it should be? I have given the answerI
cannotheredefend:it is becausephilosophy
is the supremeformof
a
as
and
so
serve
in the way that
art
cannot
art,
stepping-stone
mathematicsdoes. Beauty can do it in the Symposium,because
therewe arenotdealing(exceptbyimplication)
withGood.But when
we look twice,it becomesplain that the expositionsof the Line
and the Cave and the dialecticof the Republicare simplythe
doctrineput intoa moreelaborateand reticulated
form,
Symposium
withtheethicalinnuendoofkallosnowmadeexplicit.ThusaestheticoftheeidosofGood,is thearchetype
ethicalinsight,
ofall
knowledge
derivesfromit.
and all otherknowledge
knowledge,
this wholeposition,and in part explainingit, is the
Underlying
Platonicview of techne.Techneonce moreis a notionof wide and
variablerange:comprisedin it is any activityby whichthe mind
for"orders"
orders,aftera rationalfashion(thisphraseis tautological
in Greekthought)its immediateenvironment,
the self,and its less
the "externalworld,"includingits own
immediateenvironment,
body. Thus it is neither"art" nor "craft" nor "science,"but all
three;and it followsthat thereis no clear thoughtof "art" in its
narrowsensein Greek,any morethanthereis in Latin. Because of
this meaning,Plato is able to treat morality(dikaiosyne)as an
art; and what is too oftentermedthe "analogy betweenjustice
and otherarts" is the basis of the entirediscussionand definition,
from332C to the end of the Republic.But in truthit is morethan
an analogy:it is thesameprincipleofform(and hence,forPlato,of
in different
instances.Moralityis a techne
because
being)exemplified
the basic notionof techneis that of puttingorderinto chaos, in
accordancewithsomepurpose,and aftersomedeterminate
pattern.
Thereis thusa directconnection
betweenthe definition
of morality
as Ta

ov,rov Trparrci

and the "analogical" argumentwith Thrasy-

machus(cf.especially349E and 352D, E seq.): or again withLysis

2IoB-"where we knowwhat is what,we are in our own proper
province,and we act withbenefit"-andthe wholeassertion,in all
its ramifications,
that goodnessis a matterof knowledge.This
briefindicationmay serveto showthat the conceptionof techneis
alwaysat workin the Republic;and we mustturnto its immediate
consequencesforthe discussionofart.
304

This content downloaded from 193.231.9.1 on Mon, 19 Jan 2015 07:42:35 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ART

IN

THE

REPUBLIC

to the whole
(a) In the firstplace,techneappliesindiscriminately
is
of
as
that
human
insofar
orderly
range
activity implicitly
activity,
or rational.The differences
betweenone techneand another,marked
by the adjectivesin phraseslike "the war-likeart," "the mathein a
maticalart," and so on, appear to be not so muchdifferences
as
of
as
of
the
differences
order,purposeand
type activity such,
is derived
techne
which
itself.
Thus
the
patternby
activityregulates
witha ratherpointedjoke fromkev vov,"active stateof insight,"
in Crat.4I4B, and Soph. 2IgA hintsat it as a kindof dynamis.It
comes about, then,that in principlethe "artist" is in the same
the
the miningengineer,
categoryas the politician,the shoemaker,
philosopher.
to "meansand end" in
(b) Thereis no notionquitecorresponding
termsof whichart mightbe distinguished
fromcraft:since the
meansandendconceptsinvolvedoperatein a contextwhichconflates
or confoundsart withcraft.We mightwish,forexample,to adopt
in termsofwhichthe "end" of art is one
distinction,
Collingwood's
withits "means,"whilethe "end" and the "means" of a craft(e.g.
food production)are not thus unified.But in fact this kind of
turnsin Plato's handsintothatbetween"insightbare of
distinction
fusedwithpractice"(Pol. 258D);
practice"and "insightorganically
and once moreart in its narrowsenseis groupedwiththe manual
crafts,or withthosecombining"theory"with"practice."In fact,
the "end" of any techneis conceivedas lyingoutsidethe activity
itself;the proper"work"or productof a techne(its ergon,cf. Rep.
363 seq.) is always usefulforsome othertechne.And the "end" is
always the Good (cf. Gorg.468). Again, "art" is thus assimilated
to "craft,"and the effect
is that"art" has inevitablyattachedto it
itself.
an end or purposewhichlies outsidethe aestheticcreativity
In short,art is educative.Thus the educativetheoryis impliedin
theconceptoftechne
itself.
This
same
orderintothe arts.
(c)
principleimportsa hierarchical
And in termsofthe threemostconcernedin the Republic,it means
that "art" is subsidiaryto education,whichin turnis subsidiary
to philosophy;whichin its turnis (thoughsometimesdoubtfully)
subsidaryto the "art ofliving."(Politicsat timesserveseducation,
and at timesis servedby it.) Thus we are remindedin Rep. 352D
and in 6o8B that the dialogueis concerned"withno casual topic,
but withthe questionof whatis the rightway to live"; and in 353
we are told that the ergonof the soul is to live, and its areteis to
live morally.We have therefore
the same effectas before,brought
about by the hierarchical
relationsof one techneto anotheras well
as by the notionof the activityof technetakenon its own. Again,
artis educative.
(d) Such technaiare distinguishedaccordingto the ends they
u
305

This content downloaded from 193.231.9.1 on Mon, 19 Jan 2015 07:42:35 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PHILOSOPHY
serve,the ergontheyproduceand the typeof ordertheyare concernedwith,we have the productof "art" throwninto reliefin
separationfromthe activitywhichproducesit. The artist'sproduct
is clearlynot theoriginal:whatcan it be but a likeness,an image,a
copy,whichis the resultof an imitativeordering?And no incompatibilityis feltbetweenthe "creativeness"of art and its imitativeness.For thesensein whichtheworkofartis "original"is subsumed
intotheinspirational
by Plato elsewhere
theorymaintained
explicitly
as
dismissed
rather
Kal
(or
uneasily Lepov
OCVwatcroV KOCt 8,5, as
in 398A); and the sense in which"art" is creativeis swampedin
the creativeor productiveactivitywhichbelongsto any techne.So
that the emphasisis freeto fall on the productof "art," the copy.
And thuswe findthemimetictheoryoperative.
(e) For Plato the hedonictheoryof art-that it is a matterof
givingpleasureto godsormen-seemsto disappearintotheparergon
or "accidentalconcomitant"of a techne.Thus the pleasurewhich
of
the rightkindof art will give will indeedbe the accompaniment
ethical
ideal
the identification
the
of the audienceor spectatorwith
portrayed,but it will not be the "end" (ro oS ZVEKc) of art, nor even

its properergon.(We may perhapscomparethe remarkof Plotinus

in Enn. 6, vii, 25, that if we associatepleasurewiththe Good as
an essentialaspectof it, we are thinking
not of theGood but of our
good.) I thinkPlato would argue that if we make the aesthetic
the
we are perverting
pleasuregivenby art of primaryimportance,
true notionof art. Thus an hedonicview whichstressesaesthetic
forits properend what
pleasureis a view of art whichsubstitutes
of
is merelya parergon;just as "the cosmeticart" is a perversion
forthe true end of
the art of medicine,producedby substituting
medicine,good health,the parergonof it, and thencreatinga pervertedartto producethisperversion
as its ergon.
Thus the attitudewhichPlato takes in the Republicand which
causes him to sacrificeaestheticvalues properto moralvalues is
of,hiscardinaldoctrine
parallelto,and indeedis a partialexpression
of the perversion
to whichtechneis subject,'and whichis foundin
his treatment
is veryclose,since"art"
ofsophistry.
The connection
in
the
as
Sophist
appears
explicitlyconjoinedwith "thinking,"of
is a perversion.
whichsophistry
The Republicis notquiteso explicit;
but it is clear enoughthat where Plato dismissesthe aesthetic
proper,he does so verylargelyin the beliefthat otherwise"art'
will becomepervertedand get out of hand-or rather,that it has
and vicious
become so already by reason of the indiscriminate
imitation
ofcontemporary
whichunderlies
artists.It is thisconviction
the"thirdremove"position,and whichis illustrated
psychologically
in Book X. The illustration,
in fact,givesanotherexampleof this
I

Cf. Plato's Theoryof Man, JohnWild, Harvard UniversityPress, I948.

306

This content downloaded from 193.231.9.1 on Mon, 19 Jan 2015 07:42:35 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ART

IN

THE

REPUBLIC

same perversion.It is not merelythat indiscriminate

imitationis
the cause and the effectof perversionin "art"; it encouragesa
psychologicalperversion(i.e. of the ergonand hence the areteof
the soul). Thus thereis an added forceto the operationof the
mimetictheory,and an added reasonwhy Plato shouldadopt it.
And in operatingin thisway, the mimetictheoryhelpsto support
whatis incompatible
withit-the educativetheory-intheinterests
of whichPlato dismisseswherenecessarythat kindof art whichis
not entirely
consonantwithhis ideal.
For all of thesereasons,then,I suggestthat the discussionand
treatment
of art in the Republicis affected
by the notionof techne.
But I can do no morethanalludeto them,becausethenotionoperates
in anotherway whichalso demandsattention.I have pointedout
what seemsto me a constanttensionbetweenthe claimsof "art"
and thoseof "philosophy";and thistoo maybe considered
in terms
of techne.In some respectsthe distinctionbetween"theory"and
with "knowinghow" and "knowing
"practice,"with its affinities
that," cuts acrossthe activityof techne.We have noticedalready
that in the Politicus (258seq.) Plato makes a divisionbetween
technaiwhichare concernedwithinsightalone,and thosein which
theoryand practiceare organicallyone-therebydeprivinghimself
of a possibledifferentia
for"art" in its modernsense. This whole
has
on the relativepositionof art and philoquestion
repercussions
in
the
Republic.
sophy
For the sake of simplicity,
let us take only one instance,as an
theconflation
In
6oiD Plato epitomizes
of
is
what
on.
going
example
withthe remarkthat thereare threetechnaiconwhichis techne,
cernedwithanyobject:thatofusingit,ofmakingit,and ofimitating
it. It looks as if we have as clear a distinction
as one could wish
betweenart and philosophy,with no questionof theirconflict.
For philosophy,we know,is theoretical;the pilot of 487E seq.
gazes at the stars; in 486A the philosopher"contemplatesall
timeand all existence,"and the wholeemphasisof the Line and
ofthedialectic,tellsthesame
theCave,withtheupwardmovement
the
whole
if
this
were
And
story,we shouldindeedhave the
story.
clearestpossible distinctionbetween"art" and philosophy.For
and philosophy
wouldnot.And thatwould
"art" wouldbe a techne,
to
Plato
art
be
as
educative
as
allow
liked; he could even openly
insistthat art shouldproperlyinvolveepisteme,
and that what the
As
is a "spectator,"
artistimitatesaretheeide. longas thephilosopher
himfromthe "doer,"the artificer
and
we can distinguish
(technites);
thattheonlytrueartistis thephilosopherwecouldassertexplicitly
but quitesimplyqua artist.
notindeedqua philosopher,
The argumentseems odd: and it is-so odd that Plato cannot
adopt it. It is impossiblefor two reasons.In the firstplace, by
307

This content downloaded from 193.231.9.1 on Mon, 19 Jan 2015 07:42:35 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PHILOSOPHY
technemustincludephilosophy;and in the secondplace,
definition
techne
mustinvolveboththeoryand practice,thoughthe sense
any
of "practice"will not be identicalin each case. Plato is usingan
equivocation,when he makes his bold divisionin the Politicus.
to have its naturalimplication;
But in theRepubliche allowstechne
is notpurelycontemplative.
In fact,by theparadox
and philosophy
that the philosopheris the "best doer," because he alone knows,
and by the downwardmovementof the dialecticand the Cave.
Plato makes in the Republicthe assertionthat philosophyis par
the XpcWzElv
excellence
7reXr. (cf.Adam's note on 6oiD, 27). But if
"the art of using a thing" turnsinto philosophy,the apparent
it" reallycollapses.
distinction
betweenthatand "the artofimitating
For as we have seen,thesenseof"imitate"whichPlato reallywants
to use-the effectof whichhe contrivesby adoptingthe educative
ofartwithphilosophy.
theory-issuchas to lead to theidentification
Techneis hereoperatingin a complexfashion,and whatwe have
is the same tangle of notions which leads Aristotleto divide
"theoreticalscience" fromtechne,and Plotinusto his paradoxical
and
argumentthat all actionexistsforthe sake of contemplation,
thatpracticeis a parergon
oftheory(Enn. 3, viii,3; 8). CouldPlato
adopt thisposition,art couldbe subsumedintothepracticalaspect
of philosophy(as mathematicsis by the downwardmovementof
the dialectic)while remainingdistinctfromphilosophyqua contemplative,even thoughthe type of insightemployedby both be
identical.The positionof art would then be parallel to that of
mathematicalscience;in the upwardmovement,it would be subto apprehension
of the eidosof
sidiary,providinga stepping-stone
Good; and in the downwardmovementit could be includedin
philosophy.This is in factwhat is impliedby the teachingof the
wherecontemplation
But it is not the
Symposium,
predominates.
of
the
has
Mathematics
its
teaching
Republic.
separateobjects of
but
"art"
has
for
the
not,
apprehension;
verygood reasonthat the
eide themselvesare conceivedin this dialogueas the objectsof an
fromthatofart.
insightvirtuallyindistinguishable
Thus althoughit is onlytheconceptoftechne
whichenablesPlato
to put artin ostensiblecontrastwith"the art ofmaking"and "the
art of using" a thing,this same conceptimpliesa partialidentity
betweenart and philosophy(each of themis at once something
more and somethingless than what we mean by "art"). And he
cannotemploythepractical-theoretical
to separatethem,
distinction
because techneitself cuts across this distinction. Further,the
mimetictheorycollapses,since the true artistmust "imitate"not
whatis, but whatoughtto be-and onlythephilosopher
can apprehendthat.Both Proclusand PlotinusrejectPlato'sdelicatebalance,
and explicitlyassertthatart portraystheeidethemselves.
308

This content downloaded from 193.231.9.1 on Mon, 19 Jan 2015 07:42:35 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ART

IN

THE

REPUBLIC

The divisionof Rep. 6oiD reappearsin a slightlydifferent

form
in the Sophist(266Dseq.). There productivetechnaiare divided
into "the art of making a thing" (tV7rovpyLKrc)and that which
produces "copies" of them (etSwAoroLUKrj).And under the latter

fallboththeactivityof"art" and theactivityofthinking,

and hence
of philosophy.
K is dividedin turnintotheartsproducing
ElSWAoroL07
a truecopy (eikon)and those producinga mere "image" (eidolon)
whichamountsin the vocabularyof the Republicto the distinction
betweendoxa,or properlyeikasia,and episteme.Here again is the
Republic'sdifference
betweengood and bad art; and herethe "third
remove"implicationof the mimetictheoryis apparent,together
withthe wholequestionof perversion
in an art (as the restof the
dialoguemakesplain). And we can see the close connectionof art
and philosophy.Again,too, the implicationis that the true artist
must copy the eide. But the art of the man who apprehendsthe
eide is, we know,eitherphilosophyor the art of living-according
to whetheror not we are to identifythe two. And thenwhatis to
betweengood and bad "art"? For if it is
becomeof the distinction
the natureof art to be "good art," i.e. to producean eikon,then
bad art is not "art" at all-it mustbe something
else. Or ifit is the
natureof art to producethe eidolon,as the Republicinsistswhen
the mimetictheory,then"good art" is not "art"
Plato is stressing
at all, but something
The distinction
ofthe
else,namelyphilosophy.
because Plato is not thereconsideringthe
Sophistis interesting
ethical-aesthetic
insight,and so he can develop
aspectofphilosophic
hisdivisionwithoutembarrassment.
it in termsof
But if weinterpret
theRepublic,
thedilemmabecomesapparent.Eitherwe have themiandeikasia,orwehavetheeducativetheory
andepisteme.
metictheory
And in the secondcase "art" tendsto coalescewithphilosophy.
In general,it would seem that if Plato is to hold,as he does in
the Republic,that "truthsof reason" (roughlycorresponding
to the
of
the
"truths
dianoia
Line
and
the
and
of
value"
in
Cave)
scope
to the objects of noesis)both derivefrom
(roughlycorresponding
the same source,namely,the eidosof Good,and are properlyintelligibleand corrigibleonlyin termsof it, thenhe is bound to get
with "art" in its modernsense. For art involves
into difficulties
of values; and it is involvedin
awareness,and trueart knowledge,
such awareness.But knowledgeof this kind is attainableonlyby
the philosopher.Further,all discursive"scientific"knowledge,in
is attainableonlyby the philosopher
its truesignificance,
(cf.5iiB).
is theonlytruetechnites;
and within
It followsthatthephilosopher
thisconclusion,thathe is theonlytrueartist,just as he is the only
trueeducator.On theotherhand,hisartis notthatofthe"artist"in
the narrowsense. The productor ergonof philosophyis the good
life; thatis, the good man. At least,thatmustbe our conclusionif
309

This content downloaded from 193.231.9.1 on Mon, 19 Jan 2015 07:42:35 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PHILOSOPHY
we leave aside the contemplative-practical
distinction,which if
will
to
lead
a
different
conclusion,
namelythe neo-Platonic
pursued
view that the philosopherlives to contemplateratherthan contemplatesin orderto live. And if we add to all thisthe aestheticwhichis maintainedin the Republic,
ethicalemphasisin philosophy
it becomesclearwhythereshouldbe the tensionwhichalternately
themon equal terms.
and conflates
"art" to philosophy,
subordinates
lives
What Plato wishesto hold is that whereasthe philosopher
as he
the good life,the artistportraysit. But the artist,exercising
cannotexercisethatknowledge
whichis notphilosophy,
doesa techne
the supremetechnefromall others.Yet Plato
whichdifferentiates
Hencetheinterplay
sees thathe oughtto,ifhe is to educaterightly.
betweenthe mimeticand educativetheoriesof art. Again,under
we have the art of living
in techne,
the wide rangecomprehended
and at the bottomcraftslike shoeat the top, requiringepisteme,
making,whichdo not requireit. But in thesetermsthe notionof
sinceit impliesa
an artistwho educatesis reallyself-contradictory,
which
is
not
the
art
but
which
nevertheless
techne
ofliving,
requires
as well as he can, by
Plato gets out of the contradiction
episteme.
sayingon the one hand that some art cannotbe educativein the
requiredsense,and by implyingon the otherthat all art wouldbe
educative,ifonlythe artisthad thephilosopher's
knowledge.
I have deliberatelyexaggeratedthroughout,
in an attemptto
presentin contrastvariousstrandsof thoughtin the Republic.It
seemsto me thatin the discussionof art there,thereare two main
influences
at work,and insidethesetwo,two others.The two main
ones are the philosophicpositionin termsof whichPlato carries
out the discussion-namely,the primacyof the eidos of Good as
thesourceofall knowledge
and being,and thetypeofinsightwhich
is thus made fundamentalto all knowledge-and secondly,the
political,social,and ethicalcontextof a dialoguewhosequestionis
"What is morality?"Insidethese,and influenced
by them,we have
the backgroundof previousand contemporary
aesthetictheoryas
one ofthe subsidiaryfactors,and the Platonicviewoftechneas the
other.But the interplaybetweenthemall is not clear-cut,because
is at thebottomofthe philosophical
techne
positionalso: it dictates
whatPlato has to say aboutphilosophy
relativeto educationand to
the art of statesmanship,
and it is vital to the distinctionsand
assertionsof the Line and the Cave, and all that theyimply.The
detailsoftheshifting
of
emphasisbetweentwodifferent
conceptions
"art" are due, I think,to the interplayof thesefourfactors.But
the factthat the emphasisshiftsat all is due to something
else: it
is due to an aestheticsympathy
whichsomepeoplewoulddoubtless
condemnas excessivein a philosopher.
University
ofOtago,N.Z.
3Io

This content downloaded from 193.231.9.1 on Mon, 19 Jan 2015 07:42:35 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions