1 Introduction
Thestorygoes:InthebeginningtherewasAristotlewhotheorized “plot”,thentherecamethenovelistswhotheorizedtheirownplots, thenaftersomefalsestarts(Propp,Benjamin,Bakhtin)narrative theoryreallytookoffwithnarratology(thestructuralist-led “science ofnarrative”).However,likethedinosaurs,narratologistsdiedout andwerereplacedbymoremobile,covertformsofnarrativetheory withina “post-structuralist” diaspora.Narrativetheoryliveson, embeddedintheworkandtropesofpost-structuralism.
MartinMcQuillan, ‘Aporiasofwriting:Narrativeand subjectivity’ (2000:xi)
InthebeginningtherewasAristotle ...That’showoneversionofthe storygoes,anyway.1 Othertalesandothertellersremindusthatbefore therewasAristotletherewasPlato.AndafterAristotletherecame Horace(and ‘Longinus’,andDionysiusofHalicarnassus,andQuintilian, andDemetrius).Later,whiletheAnglo-Americannovelistswerebusy plotting,therevolutionaryRussianformalistswerebusyseparating fabula from syuzhet,discoursetimefromstorytime,and ‘free’ from ‘bound’ motifs,intheirendeavourstodevelopaformalist ‘science’ of literarypoetics.What’smore,beforetherewereFrenchstructuralists therewereChicagoneo-Aristotelians,alsoinvitingustoseenarratologyasa ‘science ’ andpointingto ‘grammaticalstructure ’ asthekeyto understandingtheformalmechanicsanddynamicsofstoryasdiscourse,asapurposivecommunicationact.2 Andwhilethemeteor strikeofpoststructuralismmayhavewipedoutmostoftheheavier beastsofstructuralism,theadaptiveneo-Aristotelianshavenotmerely survivedbutthrivedintheensuingnarratological ‘rhetorocene ’ era.
1 AsMezei1996:2trenchantlyobserves: ‘Thehis/storyofnarratology,likeanystory, ratherdependsonwhothenarratoris.’ Herman1999locatestheoriginsofnarratologywith the ‘classical’ structuralistprojectofthe1960sanddocumentstheevolutionofnarrative theoryonlybackthusfar.Fludernik2005a(followingFehn,Hoesterey,andTatat1992) acknowledgesaprestructuralist ‘archaic’ periodofnarratologythatbeginswithHenry James,PercyLubbock,andE.M.Forster.
2 Crane1953:168–9: ‘Beforewecanunderstandapoemasanartisticstructurewemust understanditasagrammaticalstructure.’
TheirinterdisciplinaryAristotelianDNAhasalsohelpedthemtolive happilyalongsidenewerpostclassicalnarratologicalspecies.3
Intheir2002mappingoftheevolutionofthesevariousnewnarratologies,AnsgarandVeraNünningdrewupashortlistoftopicswarranting furtherfutureinvestigation,includingamongthemanappealformore researchintothehistoryofnarratology.4 Sofar,thatcallhasbeen answeredwithnewstudiesintotheRussianformalists,thePrague school,andtheGermantraditionof Erzähltheorie. 5 Thisbookaimsto extendthehistoryofnarratologybeyondtheseearlytwentieth-century precursorsto ‘classical’ structuralistnarratologybygoingbackfurther still intotheancientworldandtotheearliest ‘classical’ originsof narrativetheory.
Thereceptionhistorythatittellsofferssomeremarkableplottwists. WeunmaskPlatoasanunreliablenarratorandtheorist,notingthe absenceofanythinglikea ‘Platonic ’ theoryofnarrativeinhis Ion and Republic.WeuncoverAristotlenotonlydistinguishingbetweenplotand story,butanticipatingtheRussianformalists’ interestinstorymotifs, Barthes’sinterestinnarrativenuclei,andChatman’sinstorykernels.We alsogetarareglimpseofAristotlehimselfputtingnarrativetheoryinto practiceintheroleofstorytellerinhisfragmentarywork OnPoets.In Horace’ s ArsPoetica we findarhetoricallyconceivedpoeticsanda sophisticatedreader-response-basednarratologyevincingakeeninterest inaudienceaffectandcognition.Andamongsttheancientscholiacritics andcommentatorswecomeacrossuntimelyappreciationforsuch modernnarratologicalconceptsasvariant,deviant,andembeddedfocalization,andforsundryformsofanachrony(including ‘repeating’ and ‘completing’ analepsis).Theseancienttheoristsandcriticsturnoutto haveaspecialistnarratologicallexiconasrich(andasvexing)asanythingdreamtupbytheirmoderncounterpartstoo. Thosemoderncounterpartshavenolessfascinatingstoriesoftheir owntotellregardingtheancientworldofnarrativetheory.Inmanyof thesestories,PlatoandAristotlearecharacterized mythologized even as figuresofancientauthorityandatemporalwisdom.Their intuitionsasnarratologists avantlalettre providecredibilityandphilosophicalintegritytothenew ‘science’ ofnarratology notonlyinits
3 Forasurveyofthelatestneo-narratologiesseetherangeofentriesinHühnetal.2014. Cf.alsoFludernik2005a,Prince1995,NünningandNünning2002,andOnegaandLanda 1996:12–35.
4 Nünning2003:239–75.Cf.NünningandNünning2002.
5 OntheRussianformalistsseeSchmid2009a;onthePragueschoolseeSchmid2009b; ontheGermannarratologicaltraditionseeCornilsandSchernus2003,andFludernikand Margolin2004.
formalistandstructuralist firstphasesbutinsomeofthelatest ‘postclassical’ neo-narratologiestoo.6 Inthestorytellingmodethatcharacterizesmostnarratologicaldiscourse(ancientandmodern)Platoand Aristotleare figuredinvariousaetiologiesaspioneers,aspatrons,as ancestors,asdonors sometimesofnothingmorethanamagicalname withwhichtoconjure.Theyareaccordinglycastintraditionalplotsin whichthematurityofanynewnarratologicalheroisprovedbyleaving thesefather figuresdeadataconvenientcrossroads.AsRussianformalist andliteraryhistorianYuryTynyanov,reflectingontheplaceofformalismwithintheliterary-criticaltradition,suggestedin1921:7
Whenonespeaksof “literarytradition” or “succession” ...usuallyoneimpliesa certainkindofdirectlineunitingtheyoungerandolderrepresentativesofa knownliterarybranch.Yetthematterismuchmorecomplicated.Thereisno continuingline;thereisratheradeparture,apushingawayfromtheknown point astruggle ...Anyliterarysuccessionis firstofallastruggle,adestruction ofoldvaluesandareconstructionofoldelements.
WearefamiliarwiththeBloomiannotionthatpoetsaresupposedto fightagainsttheirliterarypredecessorsinanOedipalstruggletomake theirownmark,butTynyanovremindsusthatliterarycriticsand theoristsmaydothesame.8 Indeed,Tynyanovhimselfisherestruggling tomakespaceforhisownideasbypushingagainstthoseoffellow formalistViktorShklovsky especiallyShklovsky’stheoryof ‘defamiliarization’ (ostranenie),theprocessbywhichpoets(andtheoristsand critics)aresupposedtoinnovatewithinandagainsttheconstraintsof literarytradition.Actually,TynyanovandShklovskyhaveverysimilar viewsonthisandonpoeticsmorebroadly;theyclearlydescendfromthe samelineageandbelongtothesameformalistfamily.ButTynyanov seeksto ‘pushaway’ fromthisfamiliarity,notleastofallbyoveremphasizinghisowninnovationanddifference evenifthatdeparture fromtraditionitselfleadstoakindofreturnthrough ‘areconstructionof oldelements’ .
Inthereceptionhistoryofnarratologicalpoeticsthesefamilialand Oedipalpatternstendtorecur,withPlatoandAristotlealltoofrequently embracedandthensubsequentlypushedawayandpushedagainst even thoughtheattempted ‘destructionofoldvalues’ mayendupfacilitating theirreconstruction.AsDavidRichterputsit: ‘Likethenovel,literary
6 Cf.Ryan1999.
7 Tynyanov1921quotedinEichenbaum1965:134.
8 SeeBloom1973andonBloomianmodelsintheclassicalreceptiontraditionsee especiallyMartindale1993.
criticismisaninstitutionalform,whosecontinuitiesmaybesoughtina traditionofcommonassumptionsandproblems,andwhoseevolutionary changeisthehistoryofexperimentalinnovationsseekingnewformsof inquiryandnewmodesofexplanation.’9
Framingtheselocalfamilialplotsofcross-generationalinheritance andinnovation,largernarratologicalaetiologiesandgenealogieshave tendedtoplacePlatoand/orAristotleatthebaseofagreat(parthenogenic)familytree.Higherup,significantboughsareseentobranchoffin variousdirections(Russianformalism,neo-Aristotelianism,structuralism), eachwiththeirownbifurcatingoffshoots(Pragueformalism,rhetoricalnarratologicalpoetics,poststructuralism).Inthesegenealogicallyconceivednarratives,lessemphasisisplaceduponconflictorresistanceand moreuponcontinuityorresemblance.10 DavidHermanoffersusone suchgenealogy,emphasizingthefactthatthestructuralistswererather less ‘revolutionary’ thantheir1966manifestoproclaimed,andthattheir projectrepresentedlessofahostilebifurcationthanasympathetic convergenceofpre-existingcriticaltheoriesandtraditions.11 Indeed, the(Foucauldian)genealogicalmetaphorthatHermanusesinhis accountofthestructuralistreceptionofideas firstmootedbyGerman morphologists,Russianformalists,NewCritics,andneo-Aristoteliansis explicitly(re)con figuredinthisnarrativeaspartofaplot:12
touncoverforgotteninterconnections;reestablishobscuredorunacknowledged linesofdescent;exposerelationshipsbetweeninstitutions,belief-systems,discourses,ormodesofanalysisthatmightotherwisebetakentobewhollydistinct andunrelated ...to situaterecenttheoriesofnarrativeinacomplexlineage,a networkofhistoricalandconceptualaffiliations,andtherebyunderscorehow thosetheoriesconstitutelessasingularcontinuoustraditionofresearchthana clusterofdevelopmentsmarkedbyfamilyresemblances.
Assuchgenealogicalmodelssuggest,theseplotsarereadilyincorporated intoanevenlarger ‘grandnarrative’—structuredalongthelinesofa
9 Richter1982:48.
10 Byacommonfocus,forexample,uponliterarydiscourse qua discourse,asspeechact, enunciation,rhetoricalcommunication,orvariantsthereon.Cf.OnegaandLanda1996:26, whoseetheRussianformalists,NewCritics,theChicagoschool,andthestructuralistsas akininforwarding ‘theoriesofenunciation’
11 Herman2005:20.
12 Herman2005:20–1.Cf.Herman2005:31citingHill1998:1: ‘History,accordingto genealogists,isnotteleological ...Theycannotidentifyagoalofahistoricalprocess,and thengoontoshowhowitgraduallyemergedfromitsembryonicbeginnings.Rather,they charttheprocessesthat,bycontingentconfluence,produceacontemporaryresult.Hence themetaphor:noindividualisthegoalofafamilyhistory.Rather,afamilyisavastfabricof relationships,andanyoneindividualrepresentsonlyoneamongmanyconfluencesofpast linesofdescent.’
(phylogenetic)evolutionarytree whichseesthehistoryofa ‘species’ of literarytheoryandcriticismlikenarratologyintermsofitsquasiDarwinianevolution.13
Itispreciselyaccordingtothepatternofthisgrandestofnarratives thatwe findthetransformationof ‘narratology’ into ‘narrativetheory’ plottedinMartinMcQuillan’sversionofnarratology’shistoryinthis chapter’sepigraph.InkeepingwithDarwin’sowncarefulattentionto evolutionaryculs-de-sacand aporiae ,McQuillanevenincludessomeof the ‘falsestarts’ thatemergeinthisappropriatelyateleologicalstoryof the ‘originofthespecies’ beforedescribinghowtheliterary-critical equivalentofnaturalselectionprocessesbroughtabouttheextinction ofthestructuralistdinosaurs,remnantsoftheirDNAsurvivinginmore adaptablepoststructuralistspecies.14
AlthoughbothHermanandMcQuillancarefullyavoidplottingthese historiesofnarratologyasteleological,theirrespectivegenealogicaland evolutionarypatterningnecessarilyimposesanarrativesequenceupon them.Theychoosedifferentbeginnings,butmovethroughsimilar middlestowardsidenticalends:bothstoriescovertlyprivilegethedevelopmentsofthelatestpostclassicalorpoststructuralistphaseofnarrative theorywithitsrichinterdisciplinarypluralityand narratologies.And theyarenotalone.MonicaFludernik,eschewinganexplicitlygenealogicalorevolutionaryplotstructureforher2005historyofnarratology, basesitinsteaduponananalogouslyorganicmodelofhumanbiology. Oneofherclassicallytropedplotsforthishistorynarrates ‘Theriseand fallofnarratology’ fromitsstructuralistbirthinthe1960s,throughits maturationinthe1980s,followedbyitsterminaldeclineanddeathinthe 1990s;asecondplotdescribes ‘Theriseandriseofnarrative theory’ from itsstructuralist ‘adolescence’ throughitsongoinggrowthandmaturityin apoststructuralistphase,andits flourishing ‘diversi ficationofnarrative theories’ inthetwenty-firstcentury.15 Whethergenealogical,evolutionary,orboth,teleologicalnarrativestructuresimposingorganicallyconceivedbeginnings,middles,andendsuponthesenarratologicalhistories arehardtoavoid,itseems.
13 Foranalternativemappingofnarratology’sgenealogyseeDarby2001,whoemphasizesdifferenceandschismratherthancontinuityandevolution,positingafundamental splitbetweentheGermanictraditionof Erzähltheorie andthebroadAmerican-French structuralist/poststructuralisttradition.Onthecognitivelydelimitingnarrativedynamicsof suchDarwinianmodelsseeAbbott2003.
14 McQuillan2000:xi.DeJong2014:11alsousesthisDNAmetaphor.Cf.Morson1999: 292–3,forwhomDarwin’ s ‘OriginofSpecies stressesthemessiness,historicity,andtimeliness(nottimelessness)ofthings ...[and]imaginesaworldofconstantsmalladjustments accumulatingwithoutplan,ofadaptationstrippingoverearlieradaptations.’
15 Fludernik2005a:36–7.
Yetliteraryhistories,likeotherstories,arenotneatlystructuredwith theclearlydefinedbeginnings,middles,andendsthatAristotleprescribedforplotsinhis Poetics.Indeed,themonstrousliterarychimera thatHoracedescribesinhis Arspoetica mightofferabettermodelto illustratetheshapeofnarratology’sstrangehistory,initsfusionof incongruousyetcongruouspartsjoiningtogethertomakeupawhole. Thus,thestorythisbooksetsouttotellaboutnarratologyrecognizesthe impossibilityofturningareceptionhistoryofnarrativepoeticsspanning morethantwothousandyearsintoaperfectplot.Itattemptsinsteadto tellagoodstory.
Narratologyanditstheorists,ancientandmodern,haveatleast equippeduswelltorecognizeanddescribetheoperationsandphenomenaassociatedwithsuchatelling.16 Justasanystorytellinginvolves makingchoices,selectingsomecharactersandeventsattheexpense ofothers,offeringdetaileddescriptionsandanalysesofsomefeatures andellipticallypassingoverothers,lingeringoversomemomentsand speedingthroughtherest,sothereceptionhistoryofferedherepresentsaparticularfocalizedandemplottednarrative.Itsemphasisis uponthedestructionofoldvaluesandthereconstructionofold elements.TheGermanmorphologists,thePragueCircle,theTelAviv school,andkey fi guressuchasMikhailBakhtin,JonathanCuller,Käte Hamburger,andPaulRicoeurreceivelessattentionthantheydeserve. Nordoesthisreceptionhistorytellthefullstoryofnarratologyand genre,orofnarratologyandhistoriography bothrichandcomplex narrativesintheirownright.
Andjustasanynarrativeinvolves,inJimPhelan’susefulformulation, ‘somebodytellingsomebodyelseonsomeoccasionandforsomepurposesthatsomethinghappened’,thestoryItellherehasaparticular ‘somebody’ inmindasitsintendedaudience.17 Infact,Ihavetwo somebodies:classicistsandnarratologists.18
16 Somenarratologistsengageplayfullywiththisidea:Herman,intheintroductionto hisowngenealogical ‘overview’ , firstselectskeymomentsorchaptersinthehistory ofnarratologyonwhichto ‘focus’ andthen ‘zoom[s]outtorevealthebroadercontexts’ (2005:20).DeJong2014offersa ‘birds-eyeviewofthehistoryofnarratology’ (3–6).
17 Phelan2015:146.
18 Becauseofthisdoublefocus,GreekandLatinhasbeenkepttoaminimumbutancient termsareusedcontextuallythroughout,whilenarratologicalterminologyissimilarly glossedandvariantsexplained.Alltranslationsaremyownunlessotherwiseindicated. ReadingsandtranslationsofPlato’ s Republic arebasedonSlings2003;Plato’ s Ion and Phaedrus onBurnet1903;Aristotle’ s Poetics onHalliwell1999;Aristotle’ s OnPoets on Janko2011;Aristotle’ s HomericProblems onRose1886;Horace’ s Arspoetica onRudd 1989;theGreekscholiaonErbse1969–88andvanThiel2000;ServiusonThiloandHagen 2011.Onnarratology’snotoriousterminologicalcomplexityseeToolan1988:9–11.
Inthelastthirtyyearsthetoolsandtermsofnarratologyhavebeen takenupeagerlybyclassicistsandhaveinspiredmanyproductivereadingsofabroadrangeoftexts,fromepictoelegy,ancienthistoriography totheancientnovel.19 MassimoFusillo’sGenetteanreadingshaverevolutionizedthestudyoftheancientnovel.IrenedeJonghasusedBal’ s narratologicalmethodologytodemonstratehowcomplexsubjectivities andembeddedfocalizationcharacterizeHomericnarrative.JohnWinklerhasputBarthestoexpertuseinhisnarratologicalreadingsof Apuleius.StephenWheelerhasusedGenette ’stheoryof ‘narrativelevels’ toexposenewdimensionstotheembeddedtales-within-talesofOvid’ s Metamorphoses. Thefruitfulmergingofnarratologywithpsychoanalyticallyinformedtheoriesofreadingandreaderresponse(inspiredby PeterBrooks’sinfluentialwork)hasopenedupfurtheravenuesleading tonewnarratologicalapproachestotextualanalysis particularlyin Latinliterature:DavidQuint’slandmarkstudy, EpicandEmpire,and DuncanKennedy’scharacteristicallynuancedreadingsofLatinlove elegyhavebothusedBrooks’smodeltoreleasefreshinsightsintoLatin poetry.20 Although,asMiekeBalappropriatelywarns,narratologyisnot ‘somekindofmachineintowhichoneinsertsatextatoneendand expectsanadequatedescriptiontorolloutattheother’,classicistshave beenrelativelyquicktotestthepotentialofthisnewsystemoftextual analysis,welcomingnotonlyitstaxonomiesandtechnicalvocabularies buttheinterpretativeinsightsitcanhelptoyield.21
Foramuchlongerperiodoftimenarratologistshavelookedtothe classicsforequivalentinsights.Successivewavesinthemodernhistory ofnarratologyhaveseeneachnewgenerationofnarratologistsdevelopingtheirownstoriesabouthownarrativesandnarrativityworks, baseduponthebasicplotsandpreceptsestablishedinantiquityby PlatoandAristotle. 22
19 Cf.Fowler2001:68: ‘Narratology ...isan approachwhichhasbeentakenupand adaptedevenbyclassicistsrelativelyhostiletotheory:termslike “prolepsis” , “intradiegetic” , and “focalization” arenowasfamiliartoclassicalscholarsassuchnon-jargontermsas “syllepsis” , “propemptikon” ,or “prosopopoia” ’
20 SeedeJong2014foranextremelyusefuloverview(withbibliographies)ofnarratologicallyinformedclosereadingsofancientGreekepic,historiography,anddrama.Onthe ancientnovelseeFusillo1985,Winkler1985,andWhitmarsh2011;onthenarrativityof GreekhymnsseeFaulknerandHodkinson2015.OnRomanepicseeespeciallyWheeler 1999and2000,Fowler2000,Barchiesi2001and1994,Rosati2002,andNikolopoulos2004; ondidacticseeGale2004;onRomanhistoriographyseePausch2011,Pelling2009,Hardie 2009,andtheessayscollectedinLiotsakisandFarrington2016;onelegyseeLiveleyand Salzman-Mitchell2008;andonlyricseeLowrie1997.
21 Bal1997:3–4.
22 Toavoidtheunnecessarilycomplexspectrumofterminologiessuggestedbysomein this field,Iusethetermsnarratologyandnarrativetheoryasbroadlyinterchangeable and
Thisbooksetsouttoexaminethewaysinwhichthoseancienttheories ofnarrativehavebeen(re)shapedinandbythesenarratologicalstories. Followingabroadlychronolinearnarrativeofreception,soastobetter identifypatternsofcauseandeffectorappropriationandresistance (whilstremainingvigilantfor posthocergopropterhoc syllogisms) eachchapterselectsakeymomentinthehistoryofnarratologyon whichtofocus,zoominginfromanoverviewofsignificantphasesto lookatcoretheoriesandtexts.Itsaimisnottoarguethatmodern narratologiessimplypresent ‘oldwineinnewwineskins’,butratherto stressthediachronicaffinitiessharedbetweenancientandmodern storiesaboutstorytelling.Itseekstohighlightthedistinctivecontributionthatclassicalpoeticshasmadetomodernnarratology,atthesame timerecognizingthatnarratologistsbringparticularexpertisetobear uponancientliterarytheoryandthattheirreceptionandreadingscan offervaluableinsightsintotheinterpretationofthesenotoriouslydifficulttexts.
Its ‘finalcause’ andoverarchingthesis,though,istheargumentthata morejoined-upappreciationofthefamilial,genealogical,phylogenetic relationshipssowidelyarguedtoexistbetweenancientandmodern theoriesofnarrativehelpsustobetterunderstandbothspecies.For everyliterarytheoryandhistorybothshapesandisshapedbyits canon.AsGeoffreyHartmanobserved:23 ‘Totakethemetaphysical poetsasone’sbaseortouchstoneandtoextendtheir “poetics” toward modernpoetryandthenallpoetry,willproduceaverydifferentresult fromworkingfromCervantestowardPyncheon,orfromHölderlin towardHeidegger.’ Aristotle’sdecisiontotaketragedyashistouchstone andtoextenditspoeticstoexplainallotherkindsof(mimetic)poetrywill haveproducedaverydifferentresultthanifhehadchosenAristophanes’ absurdistcomedyorSappho’slyricpoetryinstead.24 Twentieth-century ‘classical’ narratologywouldhaveproducedaverydifferentsetofresults ifithadchosenRomanrhetoricorHellenisticpoeticsasitsstartingpoint. InchoosingPlatoandAristotle alongsideHomerandthebroader canonofclassics asamongtheirfoundationaltouchstones,modern narratologyissimilarlymouldedbythesepartsofitscanon,itsown structurespatternedbythoseexhibitedintheseobjectsofstudy.
donotreserve ‘narratology’ todescribeonlythe ‘structuralist’ phaseofnarratological history.Cf.Nünning2003andFludernik2005a.
23 Hartman1980:299,citedinRabinowitz1987:10.Thispointisalsowellmadeby feministnarratologists:seeChapter10.3.
24 Cf.Richardson2015:95–8on ‘unnaturalnarrative’ andostensibly ‘plotless’ comedyin theancientworld(especiallyAristophanesandLucian).
We findaprimeexampleofthisintheubiquitouspresenceofbinary paradigmsthroughoutthisreceptionhistory.Beginning(inthisplot) withPlato’sSocrates’ distinctionbetween logos and lexis (thesubjectand style,orcontentandformofnarrativediscourse),andcatalysedby Aristotle’sdirectresponsetothebinarydistinctionapparentlydrawn between diegesis and mimesis inPlato’ s Republic,analogousbinary oppositionscometodominatemodernnarrativesaboutnarrative.25 AristotleandPlatoleadthetreatmentandtaxonomyofnarrativediscourseintermsofits muthos and logos ,plotandstory, syuzhet and fabula, histoire and discours bysubsequentgenerationsofmodernnarratologists.VariationsonAristotle’sNeoplatonic(orneo-Socratic)binarismformthebedrockofnarrativetheoryfromRussianformalismto poststructuralism.26 Andthispervasivebinarisminnarrativetheoryis onlysignificantlychallengedbythedeconstructiveneo-narratologiesof recentyears.Postclassicalnarratologiesshowthatconceptsofplotand story,baseduponcleardistinctionsbetweenthetaleanditstelling,are notalwaysviableorreliable.BrianRichardson’stheoryof ‘unnatural’ narrativity,inparticular,remindsusthatthereisnothinguniversal, transhistorical,or ‘natural’ aboutthedynamicsofstoryandplot,of lexis and logos, mimesis and diegesis oraboutanyofthebinariesshapingthe theoriesandmodelsofnarrativethathavedominatedWesternpoetics sincePlato.27 Byinterrogatingancientandmodernnarratologiesthrough themutuallyimbricatingdynamicsoftheirreception,then,Ihopethatwe mayarriveatabetterunderstandingofboth.
25 SeeLloyd1984ontheprevalenceofsuchbinarystructuresinGreekthought.
26 ForFludernik2005a:38the(Saussurean)foundationandlegacyofstructuralist narratologyis ‘thestructureofbinaryopposition’.Cf.Gibson1996.
27 SeeespeciallyLowe2000.Cf.Richardson2002:48–9andFludernik1996:333–7.On theradicallydifferentprioritiesandpoeticsofancientEasternnarratologies,seeHoganand Pandit2005.
2 Ancientnarrativetheory beforeAristotle—Plato
Socrates: Iseemtobearidiculousandobscureteacher,someone unabletoexpresshimselfclearly.
Plato, Republic 3.392d
2.1 Arche
Giventhegreatmany fictions,myths,andmisreadingsperpetuated aboutPlato’sroleinthehistoryofnarratology,atwenty-first-century Socratesmightbejustifiedinseekingtobarnarratologistsandliterary theoristsaswellaspoetsandstorytellersfromhisidealcity.Atone extreme,Platoissimplyoverlooked,overshadowedbyAristotle’sstar billingintheroleofthe ‘ultimatehistoricalancestorofnarratology’ . 1 At theother,Platoiscreditedwiththerecognitionandanticipationof severalofthefoundationalconceptsofnarratology:the firsttoidentify thebasicsofgenretheory,the firsttorecognizetheimplicationsof ‘showing’ versus ‘telling’,andthe firsttodistinguishthemediatingrole ofthenarrator.2 Drawingadirectconnectionbetweensomeofthe earliestandthelatestnarratologicalconversations,IoanaSchaefferand JeanMarieVulturevenidentifyPlato’sconcernsregardingthepsychologicaldangersof mimesis asinitiatingcontemporarynarratological debatesupontheeffectsof ‘immersion’ invirtualrealityandinteractive digitalstoryworlds.3 ThetruestoryofPlato’sroleasnarratology’sfoundingfather,however,ismoremixedthananyoftheseaccountsallow.
1 Cobley2012:348.Cf.McQuillan2000.
2 Margolin2014:647arguesforalloftheseasPlatonicinnovations.Kearns2005:201 andPyrhönen2007:110alsotracetheoriginsofgenretheorybacktoPlato.Chatman1978: 32and146seesPlato’sdistinctionbetween mimesis and diegesis asadistinctionbetween showingandtelling,andconcludesfromthisPlato’sinventionofthenarratorrole(‘insofar asthereistelling,theremustbeateller,anarratingvoice’).Barthes1966andFludernik 2005b:559seeinPlatothe firsttheoryofspeechrepresentation.Cohn1978:78creditsthe firstallusionto ‘interiorlanguage,innerspeech,endophasy’ toPlato.
3 SeeSchaefferandVultur2005:238.
TheimpetusforthereadingsandrepresentationsofPlatoasprotonarratologicalpioneercomeslargelyfromthediscussionof diegesis in Book3ofthe Republic 3.392c–398b,wherePlato’scharacterSocrates infamouslyobserves(Republic 3.392d)thatstorytellersemploy: eithersimplenarration(haplediegesis),ornarrationthroughimitation(dia mimeseos),oramixofthetwo(di’ amphoteron).
Hegoesontoillustratethiskeyformulabyrewritingawell-known passageofmixed diegesis (diegesisdi’ amphoteron)fromHomer’ s Iliad assimplenarration(haplediegesis),transformingits ‘mimetic’ parts (diegesisdiamimeseos) thatis,itscharacterspeech intonarrated summary(Republic 3.392e–393d).4 Inturn,we findthesummaryof Socrates’ tripartitetypologyofnarrativeitselfsubsequentlybeingrewrittenandtransformedinmodernnarratologicaltheoryandscholarship.
H.PorterAbbottinhis2002 CambridgeIntroductiontoNarrative offers afairlyrepresentative(mis)readingofSocrates’ observationsontherelationshipbetween mimesis and diegesis asoutlinedinthe Republic: 5
AccordingtoPlato, mimesis isoneofthetwomajorwaystoconveyanarrative, theotherbeing diegesis ortherepresentationofanactionbytelling.Bythis distinction,playsaremimetic,epicpoemsarediegetic.
Here(andinnumerouslikereadings)weseethe Republic’sideas about mimesis and diegesis beingmappedontomodernnarratological modelsof ‘showing’ and ‘telling’—categorieswhichplaynopartinthe ancientdiscussionitself.6 Yetthereisnot,aswewillsee,anyneatdiametric distinctionbetweentwonarrativemodesof diegesis and mimesis,between narrationanddialogue,orbetween ‘telling’ and ‘showing’ tobefound anywhereinPlato’swritings.7
4 Discussedmorefullybelow,section2.3.
5 PorterAbbott2002:237.Seealso2002:75wherehedefines diegesis astheterm ‘which Platooriginallyusedtorefertothetelling,ratherthantheacting,ofstories’;and2002:231 where diegesis,heargues, ‘goesbacktoPlato'sdistinctionbetweentwowaysofpresentinga story:as mimesis (acted)oras diegesis (told)’.Cf.HermanandVervaeck2005:14,forwhom ‘Mimesis evokesrealitybystagingit ...[while] Diegesis summarizeseventsandconversations’.TheydirecttheirreadersnottoPlatobuttoRimmon-Keenan(1983:106–8)for confirmationofthisinterpretationofthe Republic (2005:181n.6).SeeFludernik1993:27 foramoreconsideredapproachandareminderthat ‘thedichotomyof diegesis vs mimesis tendstoconflate...thegrammaticalissueofindirectvsdirectdiscoursewiththeepicvs dramaticgenericdistinctionalaPlato’
6 Cf.Chatman1978:32,Fludernik2009:64,Genette1980:164and1988:17–18,Kirby 1991:118.
7 SeedeJong2005a:19: ‘Ithasbecomecustomaryinnarratologicalscholarshiptoequate Lubbock’sfamousoppositionof “showingvstelling” withPlato’ s mimesis vs diegesis. ’ Cf. Prince2003:20.
WhileitmaybetruethatPlato’ s Ion (written c.390 BCE)andBook3of the Republic (written c.375 BCE)bothdemonstrateproto-narratological concernswiththesubject(logos)andstyle(lexis)orcontentandformof narrativediscourse,alongsideconcernswithnarrativeaffectandethics, thereisnosystematictheoryofnarrativeperseineitherdialogue.8 Noris theincidentaltreatmentofnarrativethatwedo findinthesedialogues consistentwithPlato’sownpracticeorthetreatmentofstorieselsewhere inhiswritings. 9 Indeed,thereisnosuchthingasa ‘Platonic’ theoryof narrative. 10
2.2 Plato’s Ion
Inanearlydialoguequestioningtheartor techne ofpoetryPlatooffers anoutlineoftheapproachtostoriesandstorytellingthatwewill subsequentlyencounterinthe Republic, anticipatinginparticular someoftheviewsaboutnarrative logos and lexis,audienceandaffect thatweseeexploredthere.11 Inthe Ion,Socratesmakesthepointthatall poetsessentiallydealwiththesamecorestorycontentandmaterial(Ion 531c–532a):Homer,Hesiod,andalltheotherpoets,hesays,tellstories aboutthesamethings war,humansociety,theinteractionsofmen,and ofgods,theirexperiencesinheavenandintheunderworld,thelivesof godsandheroes.ButIoninsiststhatHomerdoesnottreatthismaterial inthesamewayastheotherpoets;hedoesnotmakethesamekindof poetryoutoftherawstorystufffromwhichallthesestorytellersdraw. Theimplicationhereisthatinthepoeticreworkingoftraditionalstory
8 SeeHalliwell2009:41: ‘[T]hereisnofullyintegratedtheoryofnarrative,letalone anythingwecancall “Plato’stheory” ofnarrative,tobefoundat Republic 3.392c–8b.’
9 OneofthemanyproblemsofPlato’ssupposedtheoryofnarrativeconcernsits contradictoryrelationtohisactualnarrative praxis.PlatofrequentlyhasSocratesdeploy mythsandstoriesinhisdialogues,amongthem:traditional muthoi suchasthemythof Gyges(Republic 359d–360b),themythofPhaethon(Timaeus 22c7),theAmazons(Laws 804e4);and muthoi apparentlyofPlato’sowninventionsuchasthemythofEr(Republic 621b8),themythofTheuth(Phaedrus 274c–275e),andthemythofAtlantis(Timaeus 26e4). OnPlato’suseofmythsandnarrativeseeBrisson1998andPartenie2009.
10 NotallreadingsofPlatofallsowideofthemark:Rabinowitz2005:29andSchneider 2005:484seeinPlato’ s Republic and Ion anearlynarratologicalconcernwithaudiencesand readerresponse;Phelan2014:534–5,Korthals-Altes2005:142,andBooth1961:385seean anticipationofnarrativeethics: ‘In Ion ...Platocontendsthatpoetryhasinherentdeficienciesintheethicsofthetellingthatcanleadtodeficienciesintheethicsofthetold’ (Phelan 2014:535).
11 AsFowlernotes(2001:65),todescribeanancienttextorreadingas ‘anticipating’ a laterresponseistohighlighttheomnipresenceofplotsandplottinginourowndiscourse andscholarlystorytelling.
