Abstract
Against the assumption that their literary form precludes Plato from expressing views in his dialogues, this paper argues that it is legitimate to read certain utterances of characters also as expressions of Plato’s views or to infer Plato’s views from his characters’ speech. Ancient hermeneutical practice, including the practice of Plato’s characters themselves, shows mimetic literature’s reception as “double speech” on two registers, a story register and a rhetorical register. Although aware of the distinction between character and author, ancient readers attribute ideology in characters’ speeches directly to the author. Plato’s contemporaries did this with his dialogues. This practice creates the presumption that philosophical dialogues began as a genre both mimetic and assertoric. Evidence from Cicero and Plutarch supports this presumption, and modern examples show writers and artists weaving ideology into their works. Distinctions in modern literary theory help posit “mouthpiece” as a formal property of characters, “turned on” in order for the author to convey ideology at places in the work. I argue that the “mouthpiece” assumption does not entail fallacy and that the theoretical gains of the “author’s mouthpiece” construct outweigh its risks. Without vitiating dialogues’ status as fiction, the “mouthpiece” assumption serves the history of philosophy and enriches our engagement with the texts.
References
Alieva, O. (ed.), 2023, The Making of the Platonic Corpus, Paderborn.
Allen, D. S., 2010, Why Plato Wrote, Malden.
Allen, R. E., 1991, The Dialogues of Plato. Volume II. The Symposium, New Haven‒London.
Annas, J., 1981, An Introduction to Plato’s Republic, Oxford.
Annas, J., Rowe C. (eds.), 2002, New Perspectives on Plato, Modern and Ancient, Washington.
Atack, C., 2018, “Plato’s Statesman and Xenophon’s Cyrus,” in: Danzig, Johnson, Morrison 2018, pp. 510‒543.
Austin, J. L., 19752, How to Do Things With Words, Oxford.
Beardsley, M., 1981, “Fiction as Representation,” Synthèse 46, pp. 291‒313.
Betegh, G., 2002, “On Eudemus Fr. 150 (Wehrli),” in: Bodnár, Fortenbaugh 2002, pp. 337‒357.
Beversluis, J., 2006, “A Defense of Dogmatism in the Interpretation of Plato,” OSAP 31, pp. 85‒111.
Bevilacqua, F., 2018, “Socrates’ Attitude towards Politics in Xenophon and Plato,” in: Danzig, Johnson, Morrison 2018, pp. 461‒486.
Bodnár, I, Fortenbaugh, W. (eds.), 2002, Eudemus of Rhodes, New Brunswick.
Bonomi, A., 2008, “Fictional Contexts,” in: Bouquet, Serafini, Thomason 2018, pp. 215‒249.
Bouquet, P., Serafini, L., Thomason, R. (eds.), 2018, Perspectives on Contexts, Stanford.
Camon, F., 1982, Il mestiere di poeta, Milan.
Chappell, S.-G., 2021, “Plato on Knowledge in the Theaetetus,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, E. Zalta (ed.), (Spring 2021 Edition),
URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/plato-theaetetus/>.
Cohen, L. J., 1989, “Belief and Acceptance,” Mind 98, pp. 367‒389.
Corlett, A., 2018, Interpreting Plato Socratically. Socrates and Justice, Cham.
Cossuta, F., Narcy, M. (eds.), 2001, La forme dialogue chez Platon, Grenoble.
Cowley, R. L. S., 2019, “How the dice are loaded,” The British Art Journal 20, pp. 58‒64.
Danzig, G., Johnson, D., Morrison, D. (eds.), 2018, Plato and Xenophon. Comparative Studies, Leiden‒Boston.
Dauer, F. W., 1995, “The Nature of Fictional Characters and the Referential Fallacy,” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 53, pp. 31‒38.
Demulder, B., 2022, Plutarch’s Cosmological Ethics, Leuven.
Destrée, P., Herrman, F.-G. (eds.), 2011, Plato and the Poets, Leiden‒Boston.
Dillon, J., 2003, The Heirs of Plato. A Study of the Old Academy (347‒274 BC.), Oxford.
Dorion, L.-A., 2020, “Cyrus and Socrates: Two Models on an Equal Footing?” in: Jacobs 2020, pp. 45‒70.
Dover, K. J., 1965, “The Date of Plato’s Symposium,” Phronesis 10, pp. 2‒20.
Forcignanò, F., Martinelli Tempesta, S., 2023, “Comparing Corpora, Rethinking Authenticity: Why Are Platonic Letters ‘Platonic’?” in: Alieva
2023, pp. 203‒221.
Friend, S., 2019, “Reference in Fiction,” Disputatio 11, pp. 179‒206.
García-Carpintero, M., 2019, “Singular Reference in Fictional Discourse?,” Disputatio 11, pp. 143‒177.
Ge, T., 2019, “The Status of Xenocrates in the History of the Text of Plato’s Corpus Reconsidered,” Phoenix 73, pp. 372‒387.
Genette, G., 1988, Narrative Discourse Revisited, transl. J. E. Lewin, Ithaca.
Gerson, L. P., 2000, “Plato Absconditus,” in: Press 2000, pp. 201‒210.
Gerson, L. P., 2013, From Plato to Platonism, Ithaca‒London.
Grethlein, J., 2021a, “Author and Characters. Ancient, Narratological and Cognitive Views on a Tricky Relationship,” CP 116, pp. 216‒230.
Grethlein, J., 2021b, The ancient aesthetics of deception: the ethics of enchantment from Gorgias to Heliodorus, Cambridge.
Grethlein, J., 2023, Ancient Greek texts and modern narrative theory: towards a critical dialogue, Cambridge.
Halliwell, S., 2000, “The Subjection of Muthos to Logos: Plato’s Citations of the Poets,” CQ 50, pp. 94‒112.
Halliwell, S., 2011, “Antidotes and Incantations: Is There a Cure for Poetry in Plato’s Republic?” in: Destrée, Herrman, 2011, pp. 241-266.
Herrnstein Smith, B., 1971, “Poetry as Fiction,” New Literary History 2, pp. 259‒281.
Hösle, V., 2006, Der philosophische Dialog: eine Poetik und Hermeneutik, München.
Hyland, D., 1968, “Why Plato Wrote Dialogues,” Ph&Rh 1, pp. 38‒50.
Irwin, T., 1995, Plato’s Ethics, Oxford‒New York.
Iseminger, G. (ed.), 1992, Intention and Interpretation, Philadelphia.
Jacobs, B. (ed.), 2020, Ancient Information on Persia Re-assessed: Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, Wiesbaden.
Johnson, C., 2019, “Investigating Illocutionary Monism,” Synthèse 196, pp. 1151‒1165.
Kahn, C. H., 2015, Review of M. Burnyeat, M. Frede, The Pseudo-Platonic Seventh Letter (D. Scott, ed.), Oxford, 2015, NDPR 2015.11.09 https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/the-pseudo-platonic-seventh-letter/
Keating, P., 2003, “The Fictional Worlds of Neorealism,” Criticism 45, pp. 11‒30.
Klosko, G., 1983, “Criteria of Fallacy and Sophistry for Use in the Analysis of Platonic Dialogues,” CQ 33, pp. 363‒374.
Krukowski, L., 1981, “Commentary on Monroe Beardsley’s ‘Fiction as Representation’,” Synthèse 46, pp. 325‒330.
Lane, M., 2016, “Antianarchia: Interpreting Political Thought in Plato,” Plato Journal 16, pp. 59‒74.
Levinson, J., 1992, “Intention and Interpretation: A Last Look,” in: Iseminger 1992, pp. 221‒256.
Louette, J.-F., 2009, “‘L’Enfance d’un chef’: La Fleur et le coin d’acier,” Revue d’Histoire littéraire de la France 109, pp. 365‒384.
Luzzi, J., 2009, “The Rhetoric of Anachronism,” CompLit 61, pp. 69‒84.
Margolis, J., 1980, Art and Literature, Atlantic Highlands.
Marren, M., 2022, Plato and Aristophanes. Comedy, Politics, and the Pursuit of a Just Life, Evanston.
Mattingly, H., 1958, “The Date of Plato’s Symposium,” Phronesis 3, pp. 31‒39.
Mikkonen, J., 2009, “Intentions and Interpretations: Philosophical Fiction as Conversation,” Contemporary Aesthetics 7, http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.7523862.0007.012.
Mulhern, J., 2000, “Interpreting the Platonic Dialogues. What Can One Say?,” in: Press 2000, pp. 221‒234.
Mulhern, J., 2015, “Plato’s Putative Mouthpiece and Ancient Authorial Practice: The Case of Homer,” in: Nails, Tarrant 2015, pp. 257‒277.
Mullen, A., 2015, “Living in Earnest,” Hudson Review 67, pp. 677‒684.
Murphy, D., 2023a, “The Sophist’s Puzzling Epistêmê in the Sophist,” CQ 73, pp. 53‒65.
Murphy, D., 2023b, “Back to Teichmüller: Literary Feuds and the Author’s Voice in Plato’s Dialogues,” in: Alieva 2023, pp. 37‒62.
Nails, D., 2000, “Mouthpiece, Schmouthpiece,” in: Press (2000), pp. 15‒26.
Nails, D., Tarrant, H. (eds.), 2015, Second Sailing: Alternative Perspectives on Plato, Helsinki.
Notomi, N., 2022, “Plato, Isocrates, and Epistolary Literature: Reconsidering the Seventh Letter in its Context,” Plato Journal 23, pp. 67‒79.
Ostrowski, M., 2022, Ideology. Cambridge‒Medford.
Peterson, S., 2011, Socrates and Philosophy in the Dialogues of Plato. Cambridge‒New York.
Press G. (ed.), 2000, Who speaks for Plato? Studies in Platonic anonymity, Lanham.
Press, G., 2000a, “The Logic of Attributing Characters’ Views to Plato,” in: Press 2000, pp. 27‒38.
Press, G., 2013, “Commentary on Byrd,” BACAP 28, pp. 210‒214.
Press, G., 2015, “Changing Course in Plato Studies,” in: Nails, Tarrant 2015, pp. 187‒196.
Press, G., 2022, “Anonymity,” in: Press, Duque 2022, pp. 135‒137.
Press, G., Duque M. (eds.), 2022, The Bloomsbury Handbook of Plato, London.
Rashed, M., 2006, “Platon, Sathon, Phédon,” Elenchos 27, pp. 117‒122.
Rihll, T., 2003, “Teaching and Learning in Classical Athens,” G&R 50, pp. 168‒190.
Rossetti, L., 2001, “Le côté inauthentique du dialoguer platonicien,” in: Cossuta, Narcy 2001, pp. 99‒118.
Rossetti, L., 2008, “I Socratici della prima generazione: fare filosofia con i dialoghi anziché con trattati o testi paradossali,” in: Rossetti, Stavru 2008, pp. 39‒75.
Rossetti, L., Stavru, A. (eds.) 2008, Socratica 2005. Studi sulla letteratura socratica antica, Bari.
Rowe, C., 2007, Plato and the Art of Philosophical Writing, Cambridge.
Sassi, M., 2015, Indagine su Socrate: persona, filosofo, cittadino, Torino.
Savage, N., 1979, “Rencontre avec Roland Barthes,” French Review 52, pp. 432‒439.
Schofield, M., 2023, How Plato Writes. Perspectives and Problems, Cambridge.
Searle, J., 1975, “The Logical Status of Fictional Discourse,” New Literary History 6, pp. 319‒332.
Sedley, D., 2002, “Socratic Irony in the Platonist Commentators,” in: Annas, Rowe 2002, pp. 37‒57.
Suleiman, S., 19932, Authoritarian Fictions. The Ideological Novel as a Literary Genre, Princeton.
Swirski, P., 2000, “The Nature of Literary Fiction: From Carter to Spiegelman,” MMLA 33, pp. 58‒73.
Szlezák, T., 2017, Review of M. Burnyeat, M. Frede, The Pseudo-Platonic Seventh Letter (D. Scott, ed.), Oxford, 2015, Gnomon 89, pp. 311‒323.
Tarrant, H., 2000, Plato’s First Interpreters, Ithaca.
Teichmüller, G., 1881‒4, Literarische Fehden im vierten Jahrhundert vor Chr., Bd. I–II, Breslau.
Thesleff, H., 1982, Studies in Platonic Chronology, Helsinki.
Trabattoni, F., 2016, Essays on Plato’s Epistemology, Leuven.
Walton, K., 2015, In Other Shoes. Music, Metaphor, Empathy, Existence, Oxford‒New York.
Wimsatt, W., Beardsley, M., 1946, “The Intentional Fallacy,” Sewanee Review 54, pp. 468–488.
Zetzel, J., 1996, “Natural Law and Poetic Justice: A Carneadean Debate in Cicero and Virgil,” CP 91, pp. 297‒319.
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Peitho provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.