The Overqualified Artist: The Regulation of Mimesis in Plato's Republic

The first-time reader of Pla to ' s Republic is often shocked at the rough treatment and eventual exclusion of art in P la to ' s ideal state. The Republic has been described as one of the greatest attacks on democracy and freedom in the history of Western thought, and the restrictive treatment of art in Book III can seem unduly harsh to the modern reader. By the time that the interlocutors reach Book X it seems that all non-craft art has been entirely banished from the polis due to its corrupting impurity. T o the modern reader, the extreme nature of this proclamation is highlighted by our historical knowledge . Even the more brutal and repressive totalitarian states of the last century—for example , those of Hit ler ' s Third Reich and the Soviet Union under Josef Stal in—did not go so far as to completely outlaw art. 1 There is a second surprise for the first-time reader of the Republic in Book X insofar as this final book seems to contradict, disregard, or forget the conclusion that the interlocutors reached concerning art in Book III. This apparent contradiction calls for a close reading and interpretation of the text in light of both Pla to ' s conception of mimesis and the overall project of the Republic. The problem lies in the apparent incommensurabil i ty of the discussions on the suitability of art, specifically poetry, for the polis as put forth in Book X and Book III. Book III seems to al low that some forms of poetry and imitation will be acceptable in the state while others will be rejected. The discussion of poetry in this section concludes that "we ourselves,/*?/' our souls' good, should continue to employ the more austere and less delightful poet and taleteller, who would imitate the diction of the good man and would tell his tale in the patterns we prescribed in the b e g i n n i n g . . . [italics mine I" (398b) . 2 However , in Book X it appears that all imita-