(1986), Heath (1996) and the collection of essays in Rorty (1992). See
Halliwell (2002) and Huhn (2004) for more detailed and historically
sensitive accounts of the concept of mimesis in the ancient world and in
the eighteenth century, respectively. For a general account of theatre and
mimesis, see‘Mimesis’ in Woodruff (2008). Walton (1990) remains the
central text onmimesisin contemporary analytic philosophy, although its
focus extends well beyond theatre.
Notes
1 The best summary of the meanings and uses ofmimesisin Greek writing is found in Halliwell
(1986). My categories and examples, broadly speaking, follow his. See Halliwell (1986: 111–5).
2 Note that play-acting and imagination are not quite the same; we shall come to the difference
shortly, but for the moment I would like to keep this as a general category, distinct from imitation.
3 References to Plato’sThe Republicgive standard section references rather than page numbers; all
translations are from the edition listed in the bibliography. It is a well-known conundrum that the
discussions ofmimesisin Books 2 and 3 license some (although not many) kinds of imitations (see
e.g.The Republic395c), whereas Book 10 opens with Socrates and Glaucon agreeing thatallimi-
tative poetry was banned. Some take this as evidence of inconsistency; Nehamas (1988) and Moss
(2007) suggest solutions.
4 The Republic393b. See also Plato’sIon, in which Socrates discusses poetry with a rhapsode.
5 The Republic394b; but I seem to recall the part of‘narrator’being an important and coveted role
in primary school Christmas plays.
6 Broadly speaking, Socrates is concerned with the former inThe Republic, Book 10 and the latter
inThe Republic,Books 2 and 3. Both are referred to asmimesisand he does not distinguish them
explicitly.
7 The Republic597b. Speakers’names added for ease of reference.
8 There are other criticisms, too, some of which are explored in Chapter 5.
9 The question of what kind of imitation is being appealed to in the relationship between this
world and the world of forms is complicated and has to be set aside. Halliwell (1986: 109-137)
has some discussion.
10 See, e.g., Barish (1981: 8); Moss (2007)
11 See Nehamas (1988), Burnyeat (1999: 249–255) and Woodruff (2008: 130–5), from whom the
following examples are developed.
12 Barish (1981) raises the question of just what the equivalent of the form of the couch is, in the
case of theatricalmimesis. For the painter, the three parts are painted-couch/couch/form-of-
couch. But theatre looks to imitate action, and forms, being unchanging, are unlikely to be actions
(Barish 1981: 6–8). In a sense, Moss (2007) provides a speculative answer, claiming that the
‘appearances’imitated by poetry should be understood as‘false appearances’or things-as-they-
appear-to-be-but-in-fact-aren’t. Poetry imitates what virtue appears to be and in fact isn’t:
namely, they present it as something shifting and varied, when in fact it is simple and unchanging.
13 Puchner (2010) has recently made a case for reinterpreting Plato as a dramatist, reforming the
theatre of his day.
14 We can make room, of course, for‘false’stories that contain deeper truths; the point is that
Plato’s Socrates, if we take him at face value, doesn’t seem to. O’Connor (2007) gives a reading
ofThe Republic, looking closely at how it interprets and reworks some of the poetry it criticises.
For an analysis ofThe Republic’s final myth, see Halliwell (2007).
15 The Republic389b, 414b–415c.
16 See Lear (2006).
17 Nails (2002: 324–6).
18 Rokem (2010: Ch. 1).44 From the World to the Stage