Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-17T00:23:57.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The repudiation of representation in Plato's Republic and its repercussions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2013

Catherine Osborne
Catherine Osborne
Affiliation:
New Hall, Cambridge
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper surveys a selection of texts from the fourth century B.C. to the ninth century A.D. and considers the continuing repercussions of Plato's famous attack on art for the present as well as the past. I propose to treat the subject in five sections:

1. A brief consideration of the iconoclast controversy of the eighth and ninth centuries A.D., to highlight the theory behind the iconoclasts' rejection of pictorial art from the Church (and effectively from society).

2. A general discussion of Plato's apparently iconoclastic argument in Republic 10, to suggest that it too, like the later iconoclasm, was rejecting certain implicit claims made about the value of representation as such.

3. A closer analysis of the arguments in Republic 10 to clarify precisely what theories of art are vulnerable to them.

4. A survey of some subsequent defences of art on the basis that it imitates nature, to show that Plato was right to say that a defence on those lines would not make art sufficiently important to justify the place we accord it in society (or the Church).

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society (Second Series) , Volume 33 , 1987 , pp. 53 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published online by Cambridge University Press 1987

References

NOTES

1. The charge goes back to the Old Testament, e.g. Exodus 20.4-5: You shall not make yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them.

2. For an example of such an argument see Theodore the Studite Ep. 2.8 (P.G.99, 1132C), where he suggests that there is a continuous succession of images from the time of Christ. Cf. also Damascene, John, Letter to Theophilus P.G. 95, 352AGoogle Scholar.

3. See Armstrong, A. H., ‘Some comments on the development of the theology of images’ Studia Patristica IX (Texte und Untersuch. 94) Berlin 1966Google Scholar.

4. Cf. Canon 82 of the council of 692, quoted by Theodore the Studite at Ep. 2.8, 1136C. This decree asserts that Christ must be depicted in human form rather than symbolised as a lamb, for example.

5. I am particularly concerned with book 10 here. The earlier discussion of literature in books 2 to 3 centred on the distinction between direct and indirect speech (which implicitly raises a problem about the dramatic dialogue form of the Republic itself and Plato's other works). In Republic 10 the definition of mimēsis is new, 595c7, and locates a problem in the copy/model relationship, disregarding any difference between direct or indirect speech. Again a problem implicitly arises for the Republic, not because of its dramatic form but because it claims to portray the (ideal) Republic. Any literature or art which claims to portray an external reality in any form, dramatic or otherwise, seems to be vulnerable.

6. Are we allowed to take Plato's arguments as self-referential? Within the Republic itself the justification for doing so is (i) the very obvious difficulty of special pleading on Plato's behalf against the generality of the arguments about literature, and (ii) the discussion at the end of book 9, 592 ab, which raises the question of the relationship of the city portrayed in the Republic to any real instantiations of it. (See further on this passage in section 5 below). In other dialogues Plato does include his own work in critical discussions of literature. See especially Phaedrus 277d-278a where the discussion of the value of writing is explicitly extended to cover all types of written composition in prose or verse, and Laws 7. 811c-812a, where the conversation in the Laws itself is treated as an example of the type of literature (again prose or verse) to be recommended.

7. 607d 8-10.

8. 607bc, 607d, 607e.

9. Ion 531a-533c8.

10. 536d8-541d5.

11. 533c9-536d3.

12. 602b-605e.

13. For the suggestion that other sections of the Republic might be meant see Nehamas, A., “Plato on imitation and poetry in Republic 10’, in Moravcsik, J. and Temko, P. (eds.) Plato on Beauty, Wisdom and the arts (1982) 47–78Google Scholar, esp. 52.

14. Prompted of course by Socrates, 531d10 and cf. 530b10.

15. 73e9.

16. On possible ways of justifying the artist's expertise see below, section IV. 1.

17. At 595b6 Socrates implies that the problem with art is that most people have not the pharmakon, the ability to see that art is just pretence. Nevertheless we see now that even if you can see art for what it is it still lacks a justification – why have mere pretence in society? More than ever it seems to have nothing to offer. Compare Socrates' rejection of a rationalising response to myth at Phaedrus 229c-230a. It is more helpful to take the myths as what they claim to be and see what we can learn that way.

18. Cf. Theodore the Studite Ep. 2.8, 1132C.

19. Apud Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, III.7.1; Bidez, J., Vie de Porphyre (1913) 1Google Scholar*.

20. Protrepticus 4.53.5

21. Cf. Clement Protrepticus 4.57.5ff

22. The Quinisext council of 692 repudiated the symbol of the lamb and recommended portraying Christ in human form on the grounds that it was more effective at calling to mind the relevant doctrines. See above, note 4.

23. It is not only icons which, in the Christian tradition, employ likeness and demand a breakdown of the distinction between the symbol and what it stands for. The drama of the Eucharist works in the same way and expects a similar response.

24. E.g. De doctrina Chr. II 1.1-2; Lib 83 QQ, Q 74 (P.L. 40. 85-6).

25. Cf. Plato's suggestion that parents be treated as statues of the gods, Laws 11, 930eff.Google Scholar

26. The analogy here between art and language moves art onto a different plane from the analogy between art and the written symbols in which language is recorded, as it appears in the ancient examples (e.g. Porphyry, Peri agalmatōn fr. 1 and Maximus Tyrius II 2). But compare also Theodore the Studite Ep. 2.36, where the analogy is between visual images and the Gospel accounts of Christ whether spoken (P.G. 99. 1212 C 13-14) or written (1212D5-1213A3).

27. E.g. Ep. 2.8, P.G. 99, 1132C.

28. Ep. 2.36, P.G. 99, 1212 B-C.

29. P.G. 99, 1212C-1213B.

30. For the claim that Plato wanted to prove that art is trivial see Annas, J., ‘Plato on the Triviality of Literature’ in Plato on beauty, wisdom and the arts, 1–28Google Scholar.