"Arts, Faculty of"@en . "Classical, Near Eastern and Religious Studies, Department of"@en . "DSpace"@en . "UBCV"@en . "Evanson, Doris Muriel"@en . "2010-09-04T00:32:11Z"@en . "1989"@en . "Master of Arts - MA"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "Two theories of literature may be found in the dialogues of Plato: 1) the theory that the poet is inspired and his poetry the product of inspiration, and 2) the theory that the poet is an imitator and his poetry imitation. The two theories are distinct: inspiration is a theory of composition; imitation is a theory about the relation of language to its subject matter. Yet both theories are present in the Platonic corpus and in some cases in the same general context. This thesis will explore various aspects of these theories and will consider the problem of whether the two are in any way compatible. Our study will deal, in chronological order, with three of Plato's early and middle-period dialogues, the Ion, the Symposium, and the Republic.\r\nThe Ion treats explicitly the topic of poetic inspiration and contains implicitly the concept of poetic imitation. The theory of inspiration presented in this dialogue differs from the traditional view in two significant ways: 1) in its exaggerated portrayal of the possessed poet, and 2) in its exaggerated emphasis on the element of inspiration in the poetic process. Plato here presents an exaggerated theory of inspiration in order to emphasize the dangers inherent in poetry and to discredit the poets' claims to wisdom and knowledge. The theory of imitation implicit in this dialogue is similarly exaggerated and pejorative.\r\nThe Symposium repeats, with significant variations, the themes of the Ion. The inadequacy of the poet as regards wisdom is demonstrated in a literary agon between poet and philosopher. A new theory of inspiration is introduced, a theory of philosophic inspiration that transmutes and transcends the theory of poetic inspiration.\r\nThe Republic deals explicitly with the topic of imitation and implicitly with the subject of inspiration. The theory of poetic imitation presented in Book X is an exaggeration of an earlier concept: the imitative poet of Book X is an \"imitator\" in the lowest and most pejorative sense of the word. Plato here, as in the Ion, presents an exaggerated theory of literature in order to refute the exaggerated claims made by and for the poets. Elsewhere in the Republic there are suggestions of a higher and truer concept of literary creativity. Various passages indicate that Plato conceived of both a theory of philosophic imitation and a theory of philosophic inspiration.\r\nIn the Ion and in Book X of the Republic. Plato presents two diverse and incompatible theories in order to prove identical points. In both cases he exaggerates the deficiencies in order to emphasize the dangers of the poet and his poetry. Neither the theory of poetic inspiration in the Ion nor the theory of poetic imitation in Book X of the Republic is presented by Plato as a valid theory of literature.\r\nIn the Symposium and in various passages throughout the Republic. Plato presents a theory of inspiration, and a theory of imitation that are valid and compatible. Here, both inspiration and imitation are taken up into the realm of philosophy. Philosophic imitation is imitation of the Forms; philosophic inspiration is inspiration by the Forms. At this highest level the two theories of literature coalesce .and become one: the ideal Form is, for the philosopher-poet, both his object of imitation and his source of inspiration."@en . "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/28219?expand=metadata"@en . "IMITATION AND INSPIRATION: ASPECTS OF LITERARY THEORY IN EARLY AND MIDDLE-PERIOD PLATONIC DIALOGUES DORIS MURIEL EVANSON B.A., The University of British Columbia, 1982 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES CLASSICS We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1989 (7 ) Doris Muriel Evanson, 1989 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of (^^^X^L^i^Cl^^ The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT Two theories of literature may be found in the dialogues of Plato: 1) the theory that the poet is inspired and his poetry the product of inspiration, and 2) the theory that the poet is an imitator and his poetry imitation. The two theories are distinct: inspiration is a theory of composition; imitation is a theory about the relation of language to its subject matter. Yet both theories are present in the Platonic corpus and in some cases in the same general context. This thesis will explore various aspects of these theories and will consider the problem of whether the two are in any way compatible. Our study will deal, in chronological order, with three of Plato's early and middle-period dialogues, the Ion, the Symposium, and the Republic. The Ion treats explicitly the topic of poetic inspiration and contains implicitly the concept of poetic imitation. The theory of inspiration presented in this dialogue differs from the traditional view in two significant ways: 1) in its exaggerated portrayal of the possessed poet, and 2) in its exaggerated emphasis on the element of inspiration in the poetic process. Plato here presents an exaggerated theory of inspiration in order to emphasize the dangers inherent in poetry and to discredit the poets' claims to wisdom and knowledge. The theory of imitation implicit in this dialogue is similarly exaggerated and pejorative. The Symposium repeats, with significant variations, the themes ii of the Ion. The inadequacy of the poet as regards wisdom is demonstrated in a literary agon between poet and philosopher. A new theory of inspiration is introduced, a theory of philosophic inspiration that transmutes and transcends the theory of poetic inspiration. The Republic deals explicitly with the topic of imitation and implicitly with the subject of inspiration. The theory of poetic imitation presented in Book X is an exaggeration of an earlier concept: the imitative poet of Book X is an \"imitator\" in the lowest and most pejorative sense of the word. Plato here, as in the Ion, presents an exaggerated theory of literature in order to refute the exaggerated claims made by and for the poets. Elsewhere in the Republic there are suggestions of a higher and truer concept of literary creativity. Various passages indicate that Plato conceived of both a theory of philosophic imitation and a theory of philosophic inspiration. In the Ion and in Book X of the Republic. Plato presents two diverse and incompatible theories in order to prove identical points. In both cases he exaggerates the deficiencies in order to emphasize the dangers of the poet and his poetry. Neither the theory of poetic inspiration in the Ion nor the theory of poetic imitation in Book X of the Republic is presented by Plato as a valid theory of literature. In the Symposium and in various passages throughout the Republic. Plato presents a theory of inspiration, and a theory of imitation iii that are valid and compatible. Here, both inspiration and imitation are taken up into the realm of philosophy. Philosophic imitation is imitation of the Forms; philosophic inspiration is inspiration by the Forms. At this highest level the two theories of literature coalesce .and become one: the ideal Form is, for the philosopher-poet, both his object of imitation and his source of inspiration. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 i i TABLE OF CONTENTS v NOTE ON REFERENCES AND CONVENTIONS v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v i i i INTRODUCTION 1 Chapter I. THE ION: POETIC INSPIRATION AND IMITATION 4 1. A New Portrait of the Inspired Artist 6 The Portrayal of the Possessed Poet 7 The Portrayal of the Unskilled Poet 18 2. The Rationale for Plato's Portrayal of the Poet as Unskilled and Possessed 22 Why the Poet is Portrayed as Unskilled 23 Why the Poet is Portrayed as Possessed 45 3. Two Questions 61 Is the Possessed Poet Creative? 62 Is Plato Serious about Inspiration? 64 4. Inspiration and Imitation 69 II. THE SYMPOSIUM: PHILOSOPHIC INSPIRATION 76 1. The Literary Agon: a Contest between Poet and Philosopher 78 2. The Inspiration of the Philosopher 116 III. THE REPUBLIC: POETIC IMITATION, PHILOSOPHIC IMITATION AND INSPIRATION 148 1. Poetic Imitation: Republic III and X 150 2. Philosophic Imitation and Inspiration 186 CONCLUSION 226 BIBLIOGRAPHY 233 v NOTE ON REFERENCES AND CONVENTIONS Plato's theory of art and literature is a topic which has received a vast amount of critical attention. The number of works extant on the topic is immense. Because of the impracticability of reviewing, within our time limits, all of the literature on the subject, the bibliography has been confined to important works in English. For bibliography and footnotes we have adopted the following conventions. Full citations for all works have been given in the bibliography. Authors cited once in the bibliography are referred to in the footnotes by name only. For author cited more than once in the bibliography, author's name and full title of work, plus, in some cases, a short title to be used in future references, have been given in the first i' footnote entry. In regard to the use of Greek we have adopted the following practices. Single Greek words used repeatedly, e.g. techrie. sophia. episteme. have been transliterated. Other Greek words and phrases required for elucidation or clarification of some point have been printed in Greek characters. Except in cases where it seemed necessary to retain the Greek in order to make some linguistic or semantic point, longer quotations from Plato and other ancient authors have been given in English translation. Unless otherwise indicated, such translations are my own. vi The treatment of the Greek word mimesis presents a particular problem. Mimesis might be variously translated, depending on the context, as \"imitation,\" \"representation,\" or \"impersonation\"; no single English term can adequately convey the meaning and range of the Greek word. In Plato's works the term mimesis undergoes an infinite variety of applications, yet remains constant in definition: the word denotes consistently the relation of one object to another which is in some sense more real. Recognizing that the translation of mimesis by any single term puts a strain on the English equivalent, yet wishing to retain the unity of the concept, we have either transliterated the word mimesis or translated it consistently as \"imitation.\" vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my gratitude to those who have helped me with this thesis: to Professor Robert B. Todd for his wise guidance at every stage of the work and for his many valuable and constructive criticisms; to Professor Shirley D. Sullivan and Professor H.G. Edinger for their kind encouragement and helpful suggestions and comments; to Carol Leveille for her patience and diligence in typing the manuscript. viii I N T R O D U C T I O N ' It is a w e l l k n o w n fact that P la to nowhere lays d o w n a systematic theory o f art; he does not w r i t e a Poetics . H e nevertheless has a great deal to say on the subject o f art, and on the subject o f poetry i n p a r t i c u l a r . H i s v iews are to be f o u n d scattered th roughout his w o r k s , sometimes i n passages dea l i ng e x p l i c i t l y w i t h art and l i t e ra tu re , more of ten i n i n c i d e n t a l remarks . T h e reader discovers i n Plato 's d ia logues two v i ews o f l i t e ra ture : 1) the v i e w that the poet is i n s p i r e d and his poetry the p roduc t of i n s p i r a t i o n , and 2) the v i e w that the poet is an i m i t a t o r a n d his poetry i m i t a t i o n . T h e two theories are d is t inc t : i n s p i r a t i o n is a theory o f compos i t ion ; i m i t a t i o n is a theory about the r e l a t i on between language and its subject matter. Y e t both theories are present i n the P l a t o n i c corpus and i n some cases i n the same general context . In this thesis we sha l l examine va r ious aspects o f these theories and sha l l cons ider the ques t ion of whether the two are i n any way compat ib le . O u r s tudy w i l l focus on three o f Plato 's ea r ly and m i d d l e -pe r iod dia logues , the Ion, the S y m p o s i u m , and the R e p u b l i c . We sha l l dea l w i t h these three dia logues i n what is genera l ly agreed to be the i r c h r o n o l o g i c a l order: the f i r s t chapter w i l l deal w i t h the Ion, regarded by those scholars who consider i t to be genuine as one o f Pla to ' s earl iest works ; chapter two w i l l be a d iscuss ion of the S y m p o s i u m , a w o r k of Pla to ' s 1 middle period; the third chapter will treat the Republic, a dialogue considered by the majority of scholars to be later than the Symposium.1 Plato's two theories of literature may be found in the Ion: while poetic inspiration is its explicit topic, the concept of poetic imitation is, we shall suggest, implicit in that early dialogue. In Chapter I we shall discuss in some detail the theory of inspiration presented in the Ion, pointing out that it differs from the traditional concept of inspiration in two significant ways: 1) in its exaggerated portrayal of the possessed poet, and 2) in its exaggerated emphasis on the element of inspiration in the poetic process. Possible reasons for Plato's formulation of an exaggerated theory of inspiration will be suggested, and various problems inherent in, or arising from, that theory will be considered. In Part 4 of Chapter I, we shall discuss the theory of poetic imitation implicit in the Ion, and argue that the rhapsode Ion and the poetry he recites are imitative in all but name. In the Symposium, inspiration is given new and higher meaning: inspiration is taken up into the realm of philosophy. In Part 1 of Chapter II we shall argue that one of the themes of the Symposium is that of a literary agon, and that in this contest Agathon and Socrates, poet and philosopher, are the principle contenders. In the course of our discussion we shall present the idea that the philosopher, like the poet, experiences a kind of inspiration. Part 2 will deal more specifically with the topic of philosophic 1 See Ross 2, for lists of the Platonic dialogues in the chronological order assigned to them by Arnim, Lutoslawski, Raider, Ritter and Wilamowitz. For a more recent discussion of chronology, see Kahn 305-320. For a full discussion of the dating of the Ion, see Moore 421-439. 2 inspiration. We shall argue that Plato envisions a new process of literary creativity in which both process and product resemble, yet differ significantly from, the process and product of poetic inspiration. In the Republic we again find the two theories existing side by side: while imitation is the theory of art and literature explicit in the Republic, the concept of inspiration is, we shall suggest, present as well. Part 1 of Chapter III will deal with the topic of poetic imitation, with imitation as it is defined in Books III and X of the Republic, imitation in its lowest, most pejorative sense. Possible reasons for Plato's presentation of an exaggerated theory of inspiration will be proposed. In Part 2 we shall consider Plato's views on philosophic imitation, imitation in its highest sense, the imitation of the Forms. We shall argue that Plato conceives not only of a process of philosophic imitation, but also of a process of philosophic inspiration, and that the two processes run along parallel lines. Finally, we shall draw some conclusions as to Plato's true beliefs on the subject of art and literature, and argue that some, but not all, of these theories - poetic inspiration, poetic imitation, philosophic inspiration, philosophic imitation - are held sincerely and simultaneously by Plato. We shall suggest that the theories of inspiration and imitation regarded by him as valid are theories which are truly compatible. 3 CHAPTER I. THE ION: POETIC INSPIRATION AND IMITATION Plato's earliest1 and most explicit treatment of the subject of poetic inspiration is found in the Ion. ' We shall therefore begin our exploration of the topic by looking closely at this dialogue. Plato in the Ion puts forward a theory of inspiration which represents a departure from, and an exaggeration of, traditional views. He dissents from the early Greek poets' conc/ept of inspiration in two significant ways: 1) in his highly exaggerated portrayal of the possessed poet, and 2) in his insistence that inspiration precludes the use of the poet's own techne. The view that the poet is possessed and unskilled has no precedent in early Greek literature. In Part 1 of this chapter we shall cite various passages from Homer, Hesiod, Pindar and other early poets, and by comparing them with statements in the Ion, we shall demonstrate that Plato's portrayal of the poet as possessed and frenzied, passive and subservient, ekphron and deprived of nous, is an exaggeration of an earlier concept of inspiration. Evidence from the early poets, will also show that Plato's portrayal of the poet as unskilled is his own innovation, and that the notion of inspiration precluding the use of techne. sophia and episteme is entirely alien to the thinking of early Greek poets. 1 The majority of scholars now accept the Ion as one of Plato's early works. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy. Vol. IV (hereafter History IV), 199, summarizes the current opinion on authenticity and dating: \"Though the list of scholars who, in the past, have rejected the Ion is in E.M. Tigerstaedt's word, 'imposing', and Ritter in 1910 claimed to have proved it spurious by language-statistics, few would doubt today that it is Plato's own work. Estimates of its date have varied from before the death of Socrates to 391, the most probable estimate being between 394 and 391. It bears all the marks of an early Socratic dialogue, and Wilamowitz, who dated it before 399, saw it as 'the attempt of a tiro'.\" Cf. Tigerstedt, \"Plato's Idea of Poetical Inspiration\" (hereafter \"Inspiration\"), 18. 4 Plato has a purpose is presenting a new and exaggerated theory of poetic inspiration. In Part 2 of this chapter we shall consider first his reasons for depicting the poet as unskilled, second his reasons for portraying the poet as possessed. Plato's depiction of the poet as unskilled and lacking in knowledge is, we shall suggest, the basis for his later attack on the poets. In the Ion and other early dialogues, Plato, through the mouth of Socrates, attempts to undermine the didactic pretensions of the poets and the popular belief in their infallibility as teachers. In the Meno (95d-96b) and the Protagoras (339a-347c), he demonstrates the futility of attempting to extract moral doctrines from poetry. In the Ion, the Apology. and the Meno. he examines and refutes the poets' claims to techne. sophia. and episteme. In each of these dialogues, Plato is, we shall suggest, paving the way for the overthrow of the poets and for the establishment of the philosophers as the educators of Greece. Plato has a similar purpose in portraying the poet as possessed: he intends to attack subtly and indirectly the belief in poetic inspiration and hence the belief in the authority of the poets. There is, we shall suggest, a further purpose in his likening of the poet to a frenzied Bacchant: he wishes to warn the reader that poetry is not only beautiful but also dangerous, and that the elements of beauty and danger are mingled inextricably. It is not until the Republic that Plato expresses his growing conviction that the more poetic a passage is the more dangerous it is, dangerous because of the element of emotional surrender involved. We shall 5 suggest, however, that the seeds of this conviction are present in the Ion. Two questions will arise from our discussion of Plato's portrayal of the possessed poet: 1) is the possessed poet in any sense creative? and 2) is Plato serious about the theory of inspiration he presents here? In Part 3 of this chapter we shall attempt to answer both of these questions; the second is particularly difficult and our answer to it will be somewhat tentative. Finally in Part 4 we shall argue that while inspiration is the predominant theory of the Ion, there are also suggestions in the dialogue of a theory of art as imitation. Ion, as we shall demonstrate, possesses many of the characteristics of the imitative poet. 1. A New Portrait of the Inspired Artist Plato in the Ion presents a theory of inspiration which is without precedent and uniquely his own. His portrait of the inspired poet differs from earlier portrayals of the inspired bard in two important ways: 1) Plato depicts the poet not only as inspired and full of the god, but also as possessed, frenzied, and emptied of his own faculties, and 2) Plato depicts the inspired poet as ignorant, completely lacking in skill or knowledge of any kind. We shall consider first Plato's portrayal of the possessed poet, and second his portrayal of the unskilled poet. 6 The Portrayal of the Possessed Poet When we read in Plato's Ion (533c4) that the Muse herself makes men entheoi we feel that we are standing on familiar ground. The Homeric bard has an aura about him that sets him apart from other men as \"inspired\" and \"full of the god\"; and while the word entheos is never used in Homer, the related word theios. \"divine,\" is repeatedly applied \"to bards as singing by divine inspiration,\"2 and its cognate, thespis. is applied to both singer and song. Like the poet who is entheos. the bard who is theios or thespis experiences a close relationship with the Muse, and receives his poetry as a gift from her. The thespis aoidos (Od. 17.385) is the singer \"who has been given from the gods the skill with which he sings\" (Od. 17.518-19); the theios aoidos is the one to whom \"the god gives song surpassing\" (Od. 8.43-44). The divine bard wins honour and reverence from men because he is taught and loved by the Muse (Od. 8.479-81). It is the favour of the Muse, the gift of the god granted to him, which earns for the bard reverence and honour. Even the grovelling Phemius can justly ask to be held in reverence: Ci/ cJ \u00C2\u00A3.GQ\O{\u00C2\u00A3 ) within him (Od. 11.367-8). Again, in the case of Phemius, the god does not deprive the bard of his faculties, but rather implants the way of song within the poet's own phrenes (Od. 22.347-8). In Pindar, too, we find that song arises in part from the poet's own mind: his poetry is both a gift of the Muses and the sweet fruit of the poet's own phren (O. 7.8). In early poetry, the thvmos. too, can be an active participant in the creation of song: the god gives to Demodocus skill in song, but it is the bard's own thvmos that stirs him to sing (Od. 8.45). Plato, therefore, in stating that the poet is ekphron and not in possession of his faculties is introducing a theory of inspiration that would be new and strange to readers of Pindar and Homer. Through the central section of the Ion. Plato again and again contrasts the powerful and active role of a divine external force with the complete passivity of the, poet. Neither poet nor rhapsode is a free agent: a divine power moves him (533d4), or a Muse impels him (534c3). The mind of the poet is taken from him by the god, so that the poet himself is incapable of saying anything worthwhile; it is not the poet but the god who speaks and who, through the poet, makes his utterances to us (534c7-d4). The poet has become the mere mouthpiece of the god. Such a concept is entirely foreign to earlier literature. As has already been demonstrated, earlier poets recognize the vital role played by their own faculties in the creation of their poems. The activity of the god or Muse in the poetic process does not preclude the use of the poet's own mind. The songs of Demodocus proceed both from the god and from the poet's own spirit: 11 theos and thvmos are happy collaborators in the production of song. Without noticing any paradox the bard Phemius can state: The functions of self, god, and phrenes are closely intertwined; their roles are complementary. As Penelope Murray points out, dual motivation is a characteristic of Homeric epic: divine prompting does not exclude human motivation. There is therefore no contradiction in Phemius' statement that he is both self-taught and god-inspired.9 In Pindar, too, we find the role of god or goddess and poet closely intertwined. Verdenius comments: The Muse stands alongside the poet and lends him her aid; the poet creates 9 See P. Murray 97. 1 0 Verdenius, \"The Principles of Greek Literary Criticism\" (hereafter \"Literary Criticism\"), 42. (Od. 22.347-8). The tie between goddess and poet is so intimate that their collaboration can be expressed in a paradoxical prayer: 'grant me an abundant flow of song welling from my own thought (N. 3.9, trans. Dodds, 22).10 This \"intimate tie\" is evident again at Olympians 3.4: 12 something shining and ' new. Hesiod, too, enjoys a personal relationship with kindly Muses: they give him a staff, a branch of flourishing laurel, and breathe into him a divine voice (Th. 30-32); he reciprocates by singing of them both first and last (Th. 34). For him, as for Homer and Pindar, poetry is the product of collaboration between himself and the Muses: the invocation at the beginning of the Works and Days is followed by an emphatic declaration of his own part in the work: & T & * < T q V o { T O T T ^ Y T O C W V point to one more significant difference between Democritus' view of inspiration and that of Plato. Democritus' bard, like the early poets, is a craftsman: he builds an ordered structure of every kind of verse. For Democritus, enthusiasm does not preclude the use of techne. This view is diametrically opposed to that of Plato, as we shall now demonstrate. 2 0 Russell 72. 17 The Portrayal of the Unskilled Poet Plato's portrayal of the inspired poet as unskilled represents a second major departure from traditional views. For Homer, Hesiod and the early lyric poets, inspiration was a gift of the Muses which enabled the poet to use effectively his own skills; for Plato, inspiration is an external force which precludes the use of the poet's own techne. The incompatibility of inspiration and techne is emphasized repeatedly in the Ion. All the good epic and lyric poets compose their beautiful poems not by techne. but not by techne that poets compose and say many fine things about their subject matter, but by divine dispensation they compose well that to which the Muse impels them,, that is to say, they compose well in only one genre (534b8-c4). Poets are unable to give a correct exegesis of poems in more than one genre because they make their comments not by techne but by a divine power (534c5). In explaining a similar inability on the part of the rhapsode Ion, Plato links techne with episteme and contrasts both with inspiration. Ion's inability to give an exegesis of the works of other poets is explained by the fact that he is unable to speak about Homer by means of techne. and episteme. Clearly, episteme in this context has the meaning \"ability\" or \"skill\": Ion possesses no comprehensive art or skill which he can apply to the exegesis '. of all poetry. The fact that Ion lacks art or skill leads to the conclusion that poetic exegesis, like poetic composition, is the result of divine inspiration. Socrates tells Ion that the rhapsode says what he says about Homer not by techne or episteme but by divine dispensation and possession (536c2). because they are possessed (katechomenoi. 533e6). It is 18 The notion that divine inspiration is incompatible with human techne* is entirely absent from early Greek poetry. We have seen that the early poets felt a heavy sense of reliance on the Muses, and were deeply conscious of their need of divine inspiration; we shall see that they were also keenly aware of their need of acquiring skill in composition. The word techne* does not come into use to denote literary skill until the end of the fifth century, although this use, as Verdenius suggests, may be \"foreshadowed\"21 by Pindar's phrase n0UGottei<<; T^X^*^ (E&e . 9.39). The concept, however, was well known, as is evident from the craft metaphors found in Homer and Hesiod, and present in increasing abundance in the works of the lyric poets. . Homer includes the poet in a list of demioergoi (Od. 17.328ff.), suggesting that the poet, too, is a craftsman possessing a certain skill. Metaphors from weaving and sewing are common. Homer, Hesiod, and Bacchylides all use the metaphor of weaving a speech or song.22 Hesiod and Pindar refer to poets as stitchers of songs,23 a metaphor immortalized in the title \"rhapsode.\" Architectural metaphors occur in Homer and are used by Pindar with telling effect: Homer speaks of fabricating a story (\u00C2\u00A3rra$ 77^^><^T^KT/7V^fO , Od. 14.131); Pindar likens a poem to a far-shining structure, a wondrous hall (Q. 6.2), or to a Pythian victor's treasure-house (P. 6.7-9). Pindar's belief in the superiority 2 1 Verdenius, \"Literary Criticism,\" 23. , , 2 2 See e.g. Horn. II. 3.212-^1/00*$ ...VfatYty Pi. N.4.44-45: &3>uaicit\/&. r/4\u00C2\u00B1\o$ > B a cch . 5.9-10: V0cJv'<=4$ / tyUYav' \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 cf-Pi. 0.6.86-87: Tr\\u00C2\u00A3*?ut\> 7TOt*V<^( ) with the poet who has merely been taught his craft, he never denies the importance of technique in poetry. His frequent use of craft metaphors and his own evident concern with technique show that he regarded technique as a vital ingredient in poetry. But for the true poet mere technique is not enough.\" 2 5 Cf. Bowra, Pindar. 4: \"when Pindar refrained, as he did, from calling poetry a 7V\u00C2\u00A3XV\u00C2\u00AB=\"< , it was not because it was derogatory but because it was inadequate. He needed a word which would stress more than mere skill, and he found it in <5odt'*>i..\" 20 excellence.26 The close link between sophia and the art of poetry is exemplified by Pindar's usage of the words sophos and sophistes: both are used periphrastically for \"poet.\" In the fifth Isthmian he tells us that the honours of brave warriors have given a new theme to <7O0V CT^^S > obviously meaning \"to poets\" (I. 5.28); in the second Olympian he contrasts the sophos. the true poet who knows much by nature ( )\u00C2\u00BB with those who have only learned their art (O. 2.86). For Pindar, the true poet is sophos because of his divinely endowed nature. Sophia belongs to Apollo and to the Muses (P. I. 12; cf. N. 4.2): it is a divine attribute, and the mortal who participates in this divine virtue is elevated above the stature of ordinary men. He is the favoured recipient of a gift that comes from god ( \u00C2\u00A3/< @\u00C2\u00A3GU 7 Q_. II. 10), the singularly blessed possessor of more-than-human wisdom. Sophia is in the highest degree compatible with divine inspiration, and in no sense opposed to it. The occurrence of the verb epistamai in early poetry is another indication that the inspired bard recognized his need of an acquired technical skill. As Gould, following Snell, has demonstrated, epistamai in its early usage denotes skill, \"the ability to carry out some action.\"27 Homer uses the word of a singer skilled (epistamenos) in the lyre and song (Od. 11.406), and uses it also of a bard's narrative skill, when Alcinous 2 6 Verdenius, \"Literary Criticism,\" 21: \" CT6gf/o<. is used by Homer, to denote the skill of a carpenter, but it now becomes a technical term for fthe art of poetry*. Solon describes the poet as ffa man who understands the full measure of the lovely art.' Theognis omits the defining epithet and uses the mere verb 6~0 Q\u00C2\u00B1P^PAr\u00C2\u00B0^S > and OTT}\ ICT&is