Response to Athens Dialogues: Logos and Art; Nagy, Martin, and
Bierl
The first papers presented at
this session devoted to
Logos and
Art , or, rather,
Logos
kai Tekhnê , challenge us to consider what
it means to think of the verbal art of archaic
Greek poetry as a
tekhnê , a question that has been
addressed with regard to the visual arts by Damian
Sutton. As Richard Martin reminds us in his
contribution, the notion of
tekhnê , understood as
“craft,” is an “inclusive” concept that
encompasses much more than the narrow, value-laden
realm of “art” as that term has been
conceptualized in the West since the Romantic
period. What, then, does it mean to un-think our
Romantic prejudices and recover a notion of verbal
artistry, and in particular of that special form
of
logos that
is poetry, as a kind of
tekhne ? The papers presented by Anton
Bierl, Richard Martin, and Gregory Nagy all have
important things to say on this subject (as well
as others). In the few minutes I have, I would
like to highlight in particular what these papers
have to say about one of the main themes of the
Athens Dialogues—the theme of the diachronic
connection between the culture of antiquity and
the ongoing unfolding of that culture today. In
highlighting some of the consequences of their
arguments, I would like to take my cue from the
great theorist and polemicist of
tekhnê , Plato.
Plato, of course, vehemently denies that poets
like the rhapsode Ion have a claim to
tekhnê , largely on the
grounds that their art relies too much on
irrational “inspiration.” But Plato’s attack on
the poets is in fact the first step on the path
that leads, ultimately, to their Romantic
apotheosis as artists possessed of a unique and
unaccountable gift. Our task is to read Plato
backwards, so to speak, to discover just what the
artist and the craftsman have in common, before
Plato forces them to part ways.
One of the central premises regarding
tekhnê that Plato shares
with his predecessors and rivals the sophists is
the notion that a
tekhnê must, by definition, be
teachable. That is to say, a
tekhnê must take as its
object some human activity that is in principle
repeatable, and not just by a single practitioner,
but by a potentially infinite number of
practitioners. This feature of repeatability is,
in a way that comes across especially clearly in
the papers by Bierl and Nagy, an essential
characteristic of the performance medium that is
archaic Greek poetry. In fact, it could be said
that repeatability is the feature that
distinguishes the artful
logos of poetry from every-day speech:
poetry is speech that is worthy of being
remembered, which is to say, of being reperformed
on another occasion. All the more interesting,
then, that Plato chose to use the innovative
prose format of the
Sôkratikos logos —the
“Socratic (dia)logue”—to stake out a claim in
opposition to poetry for his own master
tekhnê —the
dialektikê tekhnê , or
art of dialectic. The complexities of this choice
and its execution in Plato’s dialogues are a
fascinating subject in their own right, but far
beyond the limited scope of my objectives here. Suffice it to say that there are potential
parallels with Bierl’s image of Sapphic monody
perpetually conjuring choral poetry as its virtual
double, or Martin’s discussion of the way
rhapsodes position themselves vis-à-vis their
competitors the citharodes.
To return to the repeatability of
tekhnê : repeatability
also means, necessarily,
transmissibility . Poetry, as the
object of
tekhnê , is something that must be
capable of being communicated to others, which
means, capable of being appropriated by them and
embodied by them in subsequent performances. Bierl
and Nagy offer the most instructive illustrations
of this point, but all three of the papers amply
demonstrate an all-important consequence of this
notion of poetry as something fundamentally
transmissible, a consequence that is too often
ignored by many authoritative histories of ancient
literature: the history of archaic Greek
literature is necessarily the history of its
reception. Even if we wish to retain, with Bierl,
the possibility of access to a “primary” moment of
production and reception, we must nevertheless
recognize that no document we possess provides a
record of this primary context but only the traces
of one or many acts of reception, of the
re-situation or
mise-en-oeuvre
of texts that were conceived with their own
re-performance in mind.
Rethinking the
logos of poetry as
tekhnê , then, requires
us to shift our thinking away from a Romantic
notion of art as an unrepeatable act of genius,
and toward a notion of art as practice, a practice
that is fundamentally oriented toward transmission
and reperformance, and that is supported by a
variety of institutional frameworks. That is not
to say that the notion of individual artistic
excellence disappears from view. On the contrary,
Martin’s fascinating discussion of the nexus
between
krisis
and
kritêrion ,
between judgment and the formulation of an
aesthetics, reminds us that the institutional
frameworks in question inexorably produce
standards that are scrupulously applied to
individual artists and performances.
Moreover, the repetition of
tekhnê is not static,
not locked into the mere reproduction of past
performances. Nagy, evoking Kierkegaard’s remarks
in his essay on
Repetition , stresses that the
mimêsis of archaic
poetry is forward-oriented, looking beyond the
present moment toward an eternal future of
ever-new realizations. Indeed, the most striking
thing about many of our archaic texts is the way
that they convey an awareness of this ongoing
process of reception in re-performance, and the
way that they seem to look forward to their future
reception as the context for a fulfillment that is
perpetually deferred. I am thinking particularly
of Bierl’s compelling treatment of the erotics of
longing and absence in the New Sappho. As Bierl
notes, “The deferral of love becomes its own song
in the interruption and continuation of a
reperformance.” The perpetual longing for an
unattainable erotic fulfillment is a way of
figuring the energy and dynamics of a medium that
understands that it can never attain a definitive
state of completion because it is always subject
to a potentially endless series of future
realizations.
Nevertheless, the longing for such completion is
what drives the cycle of performance. The
Alexandrian edition of Sappho set the entire
Sapphic corpus under the sign of this erotic and
performative longing, by beginning with the famous
“Hymn to Aphrodite.” The hymn begins with Sappho
calling on the aid of an absent Aphrodite, whose
presence is then conjured, performatively, when
the speaker channels the voice of the goddess
herself. One gap is therefore bridged, one absence
filled, but there is still a residue of erotic
longing that looks forward to a future moment of
completion: Aphrodite can only assure Sappho that
if her beloved now flees,
soon she
will be the pursuer,
soon she will
give gifts, soon she will return Sappho’s love. The insistent deferral encapsulated in this
repeated “soon” corresponds performatively to the
desire to stage ever new realizations of Sappho’s
voice, and textually to the desire to continue
reading, in search of the fulfillment promised by
Aphrodite.
I would like to stress that this dynamic of
unattainable fulfillment pertains not only to
Sappho’s lyric poetics, but also in equal measure
to the rhapsodic medium of Homeric poetry. The
erotic longing highlighted by Bierl finds its
analogue in a powerful observation made by
Johannes Haubold in his book
Homer’s People: Epic Poetry and Social
Formation (2000). Examining the way in
which the communities represented in the
Iliad and
Odyssey are figured as the antecedents of
the communities of historical Greek
poleis , Haubold notes
that, within the Homeric poems, communities never
attain the kind of social stability and permanence
they so clearly aspire to have. The fulfillment of
this aspiration is instead deferred and projected
into the world of the poems’ reception—the world
of
performance , in which the
audiences of rhapsodic poetry—the descendants of
the Homeric heroes—are engaged in the ongoing
realization of their ancestors’ aspirations. This
is
our world.
The reality of ongoing performance, figured, as
Nagy argues convincingly, in the quadrennial
re-weaving of Athena’s
peplos , brings the heroic and mythic
past into the realm of history, which is to say,
of change, development, and elaboration. To
practice a
tekhnê means precisely to take up the
craft of another and to hand it on in turn in
pursuit of a perfection that may be unattainable
but is not for that reason any less compelling as
a goal. This afternoon’s Dialogue is a testament
to the power of the
tekhnê of archaic Greek poetry to
perpetuate itself in an ongoing process of
reception. We are ourselves engaged today in the
pursuit of that unattainable fulfillment that has
always been the subject of great poetry.