This article argues against readings that tend to overlook, dismiss or reduce the profound role of poetry and myth in Plato’s Republic. It discusses and rejects the distinction between myth and poetry that we find in such readings. Then it makes the case for the irreducibility of poetry. Crucially, poetry determines both the state and the frame of mind of the dialogue’s interlocutors, and we can expect it to do the same for the Kallipoleans. The attraction of the irrational part (...) of the soul to imitative poetry entails that imitation is both beneficial and pleasant. In the last section of the article it is argued that myths, understood as false stories, play a significant role in early education. This education constitutes a critical juncture and sets up a path dependency in the lives it affects. Myths shape one’s motivational dispositions, preserve true opinions, and facilitate communicative understanding. (shrink)

Commentators of Plato’s Symposium rarely recognize the importance of traditional Greek conceptions of Eros, paideia and arête in understanding Plato’s critique of the various educational models presented in the dialogue. I will show how Plato contests these models by proposing that education should consist of philosophy. On this interpretation, ancient Greek pedagogy culminates in a philosophical education. For this new form of education, the dialogical model supplants the traditional practices of kléos and poetic mimēsis, inextricably bound to archaia paideia and (...) traditional forms of education. Plato’s Socrates is searching for knowledge and immortality through an application of the philosophical method, one that relies on a conception of Eros and propagation. For Plato’s Socrates, it is through Eros that ancient Greek paideia educates in matters of arête, but eros is not a passion for kléos or for a beautiful young man. Rather, eros is the passion for Beauty itself, a passion that is pursued through philosophical conversation with another, a life of arête. Thus, our investigation serves to define and criticize the various educational models and defend the claim that philosophy is best suited for educating the citizens of Athens. (shrink)

Whilst Theophrastus implies that the logographos had a great deal of control over the oral version of a forensic speech and what went into it,2 the part played by the logographos and the client in the content and circulation of the oration after oral delivery is controversial, and has attracted a fair share of attention.3 Sir Kenneth Dover argued that joint or composite authorship of the speech could take place, and that it was the client who could publish the speech (...) after the trial and was free to include his own remarks.4 Thus, as Dover would have it, in the case of Lysias, no unique style of that orator could be discerned in his speeches as we have them today. This composite authorship was first questioned by T. N. Winter,5 and denied even more vigorously by S. Usher,6 who argued that responsibility for a speech's later circulation lay only with the logographos, who also revised the speech as he saw fit.7 Their arguments, which nicely complement each other, are convincing enough on the evidence we have. However, two other factors may be brought in as further support: the stylistic nature of the revised speech and the extent of literacy. The argument of this paper is that the composition of the final circulated speech was beyond the ability of the ordinary client and could only have been produced by the logographos. (shrink)