The Aesthetics of Mimesis

441 Pages·2009·2.26 MB·English

by  Stephen Halliwell

The Aesthetics of Mimesis
R
This page intentionally left blank
The Aesthetics of Mimesis
R
A T
NCIENT EXTS
M P
AND ODERN ROBLEMS
Stephen Halliwell
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS
PRINCETON AND OXFORD
Copyright©2002byPrincetonUniversityPress
PublishedbyPrincetonUniversityPress,41WilliamStreet,
Princeton,NewJersey08540
IntheUnitedKingdom:PrincetonUniversityPress,
3MarketPlace,Woodstock,OxfordshireOX201SY
AllRightsReserved
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Halliwell,Stephen.
Theaestheticsofmimesis:ancienttexts&modernproblems/StephenHalliwell.
p.cm.
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
ISBN0-691-04882-7(alk.paper)—ISBN0-691-09258-3(pbk.:alk.paper)
1.Aesthetics—History.2.Mimesisinart.I.Title.
BH81.H352002
111'.85—dc21 2001056023
ThisbookhasbeencomposedinGaramondLight
Printedonacid-freepaper.∞
www.pup.princeton.edu
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
Contents
R
Preface vii
Acknowledgments xi
NotetotheReader xiii
INTRODUCTION:MimesisandtheHistoryofAesthetics 1
PARTI
CHAPTERONE
RepresentationandReality:PlatoandMimesis 37
CHAPTERTWO
RomanticPuritanism:PlatoandthePsychologyofMimesis 72
CHAPTERTHREE
MimesisandtheBestLife:Plato’sRepudiationoftheTragic 98
CHAPTERFOUR
MoreThanMeetstheEye:LookingintoPlato’sMirror 118
PARTII
CHAPTERFIVE
InsideandOutsidetheWorkofArt:AristotelianMimesis
Reevaluated 151
CHAPTERSIX
TheRewardsofMimesis:Pleasure,Understanding,andEmotion
inAristotle’sAesthetics 177
CHAPTERSEVEN
TragicPity:AristotleandBeyond 207
CHAPTEREIGHT
MusicandtheLimitsofMimesis:AristotleversusPhilodemus 234
PARTIII
CHAPTERNINE
TruthorDelusion?TheMimeticistLegacyinHellenistic
Philosophy 263
CHAPTERTEN
ImagesofLife:MimesisandLiteraryCriticismafterAristotle 287
CHAPTERELEVEN
RenewalandTransformation:NeoplatonismandMimesis 313
CHAPTERTWELVE
AnInheritanceContested:RenaissancetoModernity 344
Bibliography 383
Index 419
This page intentionally left blank
Preface
THECONCEPTOFMIMESIS lies at the core of the entire history of Western at-
temptstomakesenseofrepresentationalartanditsvalues.Thisbooksets
itself a pair of aims: first, to undertake a searching reexamination of the
ancient roots of that history,from the formative approaches of Plato and
Aristotle to the innovative treatment of mimesis by the Neoplatonists of
late antiquity; second (and not only in my final chapter), to engage with
andelucidatethecomplexlegacybestowedonaestheticsfromtheRenais-
sancetothetwentiethcenturybymimeticistwaysofthinking.
Myconcernthroughoutiswithphilosophicaltheoriesandcriticalmod-
els of mimesis. It would be a very different task, of which Auerbach’s
bookMimesisremainsthemostfamousexemplar,toinvestigatethespe-
cifickindsofartisticpracticethatvariousversionsofmimesismightclaim
to explain or justify. Significantly for my purposes, Auerbach himself
barely touched on the theory of mimesis. In particular, he had almost
nothingtosayabouttheroleofmimesisinthephilosophiesofPlatoand
Aristotle, or about the recurrent influences, direct and indirect, positive
and negative, that Platonic and Aristotelian paradigms of mimesis exer-
cisedonlaterthinkers.Itisarelief,needlesstosay,nottobeincompeti-
tionwithAuerbach.
Inmorerecenttimes,astheextentofmy(nonethelessselective)bibliog-
raphytestifies,amassofworkhasappearedonvariousfacetsofthewhole
phenomenon of mimeticism in aesthetics, as well as on other, partially
related concepts of mimesis in psychology, anthropology, and beyond.
My own book, however, offers the fullest reassessment yet attempted, I
believe, of the ancient foundations of mimetic theories of art, and in the
process it claims to correct and replace numerous misconceptions about
notonlythematerialsofthosefoundationsbutalsothelateredificesthat
havebeenerected(orsuperimposed)onthem.
Thebookrepresentstheculminationofmanyyears’worthofthinking
about Plato, Aristotle, and their importance for a revised history of aes-
thetics. The kind of history I have in mind, and to which this book is
intendedtomakeacontribution,isonethatlooksbackbeyondthecrucial
butinsomewaysphilosophicallynarrowdevelopmentsoftheeighteenth
century (when, in a nutshell, “aesthetics” was named and baptized with
anidentitysorestrictedastoimperilitsconnectionwith,andimportance
for,therestoflife),aswellasbeyondthediverseformsofantirepresenta-
tionalism thrown up by the twentieth century. It thereby endeavors to
rediscover a structure of ideas at whose center lies a sense of the vital,
mutuallyenrichingbondsbetweenrepresentationalartandhumanexpe-
rienceatlarge.
viii PREFACE
Mimesis is not only indispensable for any understanding of ancient
views of representation in the verbal, visual, and musical arts; it is also
essential, I maintain, for the entire history of aesthetics, including the in-
ventionofaestheticsso-calledintheeighteenthcenturyitself.Thismeans
thatthebookhasatwo-wayperspective:itlooksatantiquityfromaview-
pointconsciousofthelaterdevelopmentsofmimetictheory;anditseeks
to reinterpret certain features of those developments with a better in-
formedawarenessofthecomplexityofancientideasthanistobefound
inmostoftheexistingliteratureonthesubject.Theambitionistoomuch,
itgoeswithoutsaying,foronepersonoronebook.ButIhope,intheterms
of Blake’s arresting proverb, I have driven my cart and plow sufficiently
vigorouslyoverthebonesofthedeadtostimulateandprovokethosewho
may be able to modify or improve on parts of my argument. Because I
dealwithaveryconsiderableanddiverseamountofmaterial,andadvance
amany-sidedthesis,Ihavegiveninthelastsectionofmyintroductiona
relatively full summary of my ideas: I hope this will assist readers with a
marked interest in particular chapters to orientate themselves in relation
tomyenterpriseasawhole.
The groundwork of this project was laid by my books on Aristotle’s
Poeticsin1986–87,andmycommentaryonPlatoRepublic10in1988(see
thebibliographyforfulldetailsofallpublicationsmentioned).Istartedto
exploresomeofthewiderimplicationsofmyviewsinanarticleon“The
ImportanceofPlatoandAristotleforAesthetics”(Halliwell1991a),which
wasgivenasapapertotheBostonAreaColloquiuminAncientPhilosophy
and as a Mellon Fresh lecture in Aesthetics at Brown University in April
1989.ForthatandsubsequentinvitationstoBrown,Iamextremelygrate-
fultoMarthaNussbaum,who,inadditiontothestimulusofherownout-
standingwritings,hasoftendiscussedmyworkwithmeandhaslentcru-
cial intellectual encouragement over the past decade and more. I am
deeply indebted to her in many respects. Earlier statements of ideas that
have found their way into this book, often in greatly transmuted form,
werepresentedaslecturesandseminars,overmanyyears(andmorethan
onceinseveraloftheselocations),inBergen,Cambridge,Chicago,Edin-
burgh, Harvard, Helsinki, Leeds, London, Los Angeles, Munich, Notting-
ham,Oslo,Oxford,Paris,Pittsburgh,Princeton,Providence(BrownUni-
versity), Reno, Riverside, Rome, Tu¨bingen, and Zurich. One of these
invitations now arouses mixed emotions in me: Gianni Carchia was re-
sponsible for inviting me to Rome to give four Italian lectures in April
1998;Irememberhiskindnesswithaffection,buthisprematuredeathin
February 2000, when I was in the later stages of this project, caused me
greatsadness.
For the other invitations I have mentioned, for the dialectic that took
placeonthoseoccasions,aswellasforresponsestomyworkinavariety
PREFACE ix
of other contexts, I owe thanks to a very large number of friends and
colleaguesindifferentpartsoftheworld.Tolistsomeofthemmayseem
a mechanical act, but I hope they will all appreciate that my gratitude to
them—for invitingme, arguingwith me,or assistingme inother ways—
isanythingbutperfunctory.Theyare:DeborahAchtenberg,MegAlexiou,
ØivindAndersen,JuliaAnnas,ElizabethAsmis,DavidBlank,LucBrisson,
Thomas Buchheim, Myles Burnyeat, Terence Cave, Sir Kenneth Dover,
MoniqueDixsaut,DorotheaFrede,SimonGoldhill,AdrianGratwick,Jon
Haarberg,MalcolmHeath,HarryHine,OttfriedHo¨ffe,JohannesHu¨bner,
JohnHyman,ChristopherJanaway,DanielJavitch,IanKidd,DavidKons-
tan,IsmeneLada-Richards,JonathanLear,BerndMagnus,PennyMurray,
GregoryNagy,AlexanderNehamas,AnthonyPrice,ChristofRapp,Ame´lie
Rorty, Christopher Rowe, Dory Scaltsas, Heda Segvic, Juha Sihvola, Mi-
chaelSilk,MaeSmethurst,RichardSorabji,RobertWallace,JohnWilkins,
BernardWilliams,PeterWoodward,andBernhardZimmermann.
IwasgivenhelpinobtainingcopiesofrelevantpublicationsbyDaniel
Delattre(who generouslyshowed mepartsof hisimportant newedition
of Philodemus De Musica in advance of publication), Daniele Guastini,
FernandoBollino,BabettePu¨tz, andRichardRutherford.Princeton’stwo
readers,CynthiaFreelandandPaulWoodruff,gavemeconstructivecriti-
cismsandhelpfulsuggestionsthatmadeiteasierformetoimproveparts
of the book. I am also happy to acknowledge a Research Leave Award
fromtheArtsandHumanitiesResearchBoardfortheautumnsemesterof
1999,whichgreatlyfacilitatedcompletionandrevisionoftheproject.
Finally,Imustthankmyfamilyforcontinuingtoendurelivingwithme.
My younger son, Edmund, has argued with me endlessly (about every-
thing,includingmattersrelatedtothisbook)andhassharedmorelaughter
withme(someofitmimeticallyincited)thananyoneelse;myolderson,
Luke,hasprovidedexperttechnicaladviceandhelpwithcomputers;and
mywife,Ruth,hasgivenloveandsupportthatexceedmyentitlementsto
anembarrassingdegree.