M.F. Burnyeat has returned to Robinson College, Cambridge after ten years as senior research fellow in philosophy at All Souls. He is the author of The Theaetetus of Plato, among other books.
MORE BY THIS CONTRIBUTOR
RELATED ARTICLES
30 September 1999
On Greek tragedy
24 August 2000
Writes about The World of Prometheus: The Politics of Punishing in Democratic Athens by Danielle Allen
31 August 1989
Writing it down
1 November 2001
On Alexander the Great
31 July 2008
Bacchylides
18 June 1998
On the naked body in Ancient Greece
18 September 1997
Eels Tomorrow, but Sprats Today
RELATED CATEGORIES
Classics, Classical literature, Plato, Politics, 500 BCE-500 CE, 500 BCE-1 CE, 400 BCE-301 BCE, 500 BCE-500 CE, 500 BCE-1 CE, 500 BCE-401 BCE, Europe, Southern Europe, Greece, Athens, History, Cultural history
Vol. 20 No. 10 · 21 May 1998
pages 3-9 | 9754 words
Art and Mimesis in Plato’s ‘Republic’
M.F. Burnyeat
Plato is famous for having banished poetry and poets from the ideal city of the Republic. But he did no such thing. On the contrary, poetry – the right sort of poetry – will be a pervasive presence in the society he describes. Yes, he did banish Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes – the greatest names of Greek literature. But not because they were poets. He banished them because they produced the wrong sort of poetry. To rebut Plato’s critique of poetry, what is needed is not a defence of poetry, but a defence of the freedom of poets to write as, and what, they wish.
You are not Logged In
- If you have already registered login here
- If you are a print subscriber using the site for the first time please register here
- If you are not yet a subscriber you can subscribe here
- If you are a member of a subscribing institution or University library please login here
- If you have an Institutional print subscription and online access is not included, find out about our Institutional online subscriptions
This article is also available for purchase from the London Review Bookshop. Contact us for rights and issues enquiries.
- print this article
Letters
Vol. 20 No. 13 · 2 July 1998
From Charles Simic
There are a great many things to say about M.F. Burnyeat’s brilliant piece on Plato’s Republic (LRB, 21 May), but for someone like me, brought up under Communism, what stands out immediately is the similarity of Plato’s ideas to those of Stalin. The difference is that the dictator understood, and the philosopher did not, that to turn poets and writers into ‘engineers of the human soul’ one must have prison camps and firing squads.
Charles Simic
Strafford, New Hampshire
Vol. 20 No. 15 · 30 July 1998
From M.F. Burnyeat
Charles Simic (Letters, 2 July) is right to see similarity between Plato’s ideas and Stalin’s. With characteristic effrontery, Plato actually cites great wickedness as proof that, given the right education, you can produce people with the talents and virtues needed to rule the ideal city: ‘It is the best endowed souls, is it not, who become outstandingly bad when they receive a bad education. Great crimes and pure wickedness come from a vigorous nature corrupted by its upbringing. A weak nature is incapable of either great good or great evil.’ According to Plato, if Stalin had been brought up in the ideal city, he would have become a paragon of virtue.
Plato wants Utopia to be brought about by persuasion and argument, not revolutionary force, which he deplored. He is not imagining a philosopher taking over a modern nation state, but the founding of a new city. That was not an unusual event in the Greek world, and it is important that, by our standards, Greek cities were very small. To get the right perspective on Plato’s project, we might think of the communities that Shakers and other groups founded in New England. Maybe in Maine, where Simic writes his wonderful and disturbing poems.
M.F. Burnyeat
All Souls College, Oxford
Vol. 20 No. 16 · 20 August 1998
From Lesley Chamberlain
Readers who enjoyed Charles Simic’s comparison of Plato’s ideas with those of Stalin (Letters, 2 July) may be interested in Solzhenitsyn’s reflections, in The First Circle, on the intellectuals who lived in the ‘soft’ prison of Mavrino. Forcibly detached from their families and the pursuit of all ordinary satisfactions, and with nothing remaining but to devote themselves to friendship and the consideration of timeless things, they may – he believes – have been the first people in history to realise what Plato meant by excellence: ‘They were not hungry and not full. They were not happy and therefore not disturbed by the prospect of forfeiting happiness … A spirit of manly friendship and philosophy hovered over the sail-shaped vault of the ceiling. Was this perhaps that state of bliss which all the philosophers of antiquity tried in vain to define and describe?’ On my reading of D.M. Thomas’s biography, Solzhenitsyn, once free, tried ever after to re-create the prison atmosphere around him so that he could continue to benefit from that ‘excellent’ ascetic discipline.
Lesley Chamberlain
London SW12
