Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 6
  • Cited by
    This chapter has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Fuchs, Andreas 2000. Dramatische Spannung: moderner Begriff — antikes Konzept. p. 317.

    Bamford, Rebecca 2005. Nietzsche, science, and philosophical nihilism. South African Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 24, Issue. 4, p. 241.


    MORRIS, T. F. 2013. Is Plato Really in Favour of Monotonous Literature? Republic 392c6-398b9. Dialogue, Vol. 52, Issue. 03, p. 491.


    Asmis, Elizabeth 2015. A Companion to Ancient Aesthetics. p. 486.

    Schenker, David 2015. A Companion to Greek Literature. p. 310.

    Stokes, Dustin and Paul, Elliot Samuel 2016. A Companion to Experimental Philosophy. p. 318.

    ×
  • Print publication year: 1992
  • Online publication date: May 2006

11 - Plato on poetic creativity

Summary

In Book X of the Republic, Plato expels the poetry of Homer and his followers- “the poetry of pleasure” as he calls it- from his ideal state by observing that there is an ancient quarrel between philosophy and poetry. At the same time, he expresses a willingness to put aside the quarrel. His spokesman, Socrates, throws out a challenge: If the poetry of pleasure or its defenders can show that it is “not only pleasant, but also useful for cities and human life,” they would gladly receive it back (607a-e). Plato returns to this challenge in his last work, the Laws. The tragic poets approach the lawmakers and ask, May we bring our poetry to your city? The lawmakers reply that they, the lawmakers, are “poets” too, rivals and competitors in making the “most beautiful drama.” Their drama is the state, an “imitation of the most beautfiul and best life.” If the tragedians can show them dramas that agree with theirs, they will be allowed to perform; otherwise not (817a-d).

In the Laws, Plato takes the more conciliatory stance of one who admits rather than expels, but the quarrel persists. Only the type of poetry that is politically correct is permitted; the rest is banished. The reason is that poets and lawmakers are rivals in fashioning human life. Both are at once “makers” (the etymological meaning of poiētai, “poets”) and “imitators” of moral values; and in a wellordered society they must speak with one voice. This subordination of poetry to politics has offended many readers of Plato from antiquity to the present. Plato sees the poet primarily as a maker of ethics, and this concern appears strangely one-sided.

Recommend this book

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

The Cambridge Companion to Plato
  • Online ISBN: 9781139000574
  • Book DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521430186
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×