Post-Structuralist Classics

Andrew Benjamin

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781134980376
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Literature
• Subtopic: Literary Criticism
• Index: Literature

Modern literary theory is increasingly looking to philosophy for its inspiration. After a wave of structural analysis, the growing influence of deconstruction and hermeneutic readings continues to bear witness to this. This exciting and important collection, first published in 1988, reveals the diversity of approaches that mark the post-structuralist endeavour, and provides a challenge to the conventional practice of classical studies and ancient philosophy. This book will be of interest to students of ancient philosophy, classical studies and literary theory.

1
Introduction

ANDREW BENJAMIN

In recent years a number of new approaches to the reading of literary and philosophical texts has emerged. This emergence, while it has its origin in French and German thought, has come if not to dominate then at least to exert a profound influence on Anglo-American philosophical and literary studies. If the use of the ‘post’ to indicate such a departure has any function at all then what it marks is a textual practice which takes place in the wake of a critique of (amongst other things) humanism, intentionality and historical reductionism. A number of proper names have come to play a major role in these recent adventures. In the case of German thought these names are Heidegger and Gadamer. The impact of French thought offers us no one proper name as such. There is rather a persuasive influence that comes, for example, from Lacan, and hence the inclusion of psychoanalysis within textual studies; there is also the influence of Derrida and of a number of other and perhaps less well known philosophers and literary critics. The importance of French thought is that it has provided a domain of experimentation. In the wake of the critique of the certainties that have dominated the reading of texts which were for the most part based in the concept of the subject, there is now a freedom in which the rules of evaluation and assessment are in the process of being negotiated.

The case of Heidegger is of course more complex. On the one hand Heidegger has given rise to a new orthodoxy, and on the other the use of his work has occasioned developments – especially in philosophy – which have in part overcome the hinderances and restrictions that analytic philosophy imposed on the development of philosophy itself. Even the emergence of a new orthodoxy presents an exciting stimulus to philosophical thought. It is situated in the ‘post’ because it inherently contains those critical moments which mark the beginning of the post-structuralist adventure. The clearest example of this is Heidegger’s Letter on Humanism¹ which is an attempt to free philosophical thought from its dependence on Cartesian subjectivity and hence the certitude of the cogito. Even if one does not wish to accept the consequences of Heidegger’s critique of Descartes, the nature of the critique locates Heidegger’s philosophical enterprise within the ambit of post-structuralist thought, a location which is strengthened by the importance that is presently given to Derrida’s reading of Heidegger. Derrida has read Heidegger in a way that frees much of his writings from any easy reincorporation into German hermeneutic theory. Indeed, today it is perhaps possible to say that Heidegger’s survival — the capacity of Heidegger to live on — is in no small part due to the meticulous reading of his texts undertaken by Derrida.

Classical studies have always been concerned with meticulous readings. Even though the Anglo-American tradition has failed to understand the inherently theoretical dimension of reading and interpretation, the German and French philosophers concerned with classical studies have been deeply concerned with the problems of interpretation. This is especially the case with the originator of contemporary hermeneutics, F. Schleiermacher. His introduction to his own translation of Plato’s works² is an attempt to draw important connections between the scholarly activity of translating Greek and the philosophical activity of interpretation. Both Heidegger and Gadamer have demonstrated their recognition of the important philosophical issues at stake in translation and even in discussions concerned to establish a correct edition of a particular philosophical or literary text. Once again, even if one wanted either to resist or disagree with Heidegger or Gadamer’s reading of Greek philosophical texts, what can never be denied is the active interplay between the establishing, translating and interpreting of texts and philosophy itself.

One of the major characteristics of post-structuralist thought is the growing interdependence and hence inseparability of philosophy and literary theory. While the distinction is maintained by the structure of university departments, it is no longer the case that philosophers have nothing to say about literary texts or that literary critics are silent about philosophical texts. While in the Anglo-American academic world this development is new and — for some — potentially disturbing, for the European tradition it is a common-place. Even leaving Heidegger and Gadamer to one side in the German tradition, philosophers and critics such as Walter Benjamin, Theodor Adorno and Peter Szondi were always concerned with the interplay between the philosophical and the literary. Recently in the USA the work of Paul de Man also exemplifies this refusal to be limited by the institutionally inspired and maintained distinction between philosophy and literature. This refusal cannot be restricted to de Man; indeed, there is a whole new generation of both critics and philosophers whose work refuses any straightforward distinction between the philosophical and the literary. One major consequence of which is that the concern with textuality which is lacking in analytic philosophy is overcome in current philosophical and literary studies that derives its orientation from the European tradition. Reciprocally, of course, the severing of the link between the analysis of texts and interpretation that marks the work of many writers in the domain of literary theory (and especially in classical studies) is joined in the work which takes place under the general rubric of post-structuralism. The papers included in this volume all exemplify these contemporary concerns. This is not to suggest that they all offer the same approach and all agree in matters of interpretation; rather that they all exhibit a concern with topics and the modes of approach afforded by a critique of conventional methods of analysis and philosophical activity.

While it is obviously problematic to try to delimit the specificity of individual papers by allocating them to a general group, the papers in this volume reveal three different, though at times related, points of departure. The papers by David Krell, John Llewelyn and Andrew Benjamin all situate themselves around the work of Heidegger. Although they disagree as to the importance or indeed the viability of Heidegger’s philosophical project, his philosophy and especially his reading of Greek philosophical texts forms a general locus of investigation. This Heidegger, it must be stressed, is a post-Derridian Heidegger. The importance of Derrida cannot be overestimated. Not only have his writings provided a new approach to Heidegger, but also they stand in their own right as perhaps the most powerful contemporary philosophical influence. Derrida has to some degree influenced all the papers in this volume, but this influence is most evident in the papers by Giovanni Ferrari and Pietro Pucci. Once again it is not a question of a tacit and uncritical acceptance of Derrida; indeed Ferrari’s paper is concerned in part with a critique of Pucci’s use of Derrida in his now famous reading of Hesiod, Hesiod and the Language of Poetry³ The important point in this instance is the recognition by both not simply of the contribution made by Derrida to the now interrelated domain of philosophical and literary studies, but the inevitability of coming to terms with his philosophical point of departure. The other paper which shows the influence of Derrida is Sarah Kofman’s discussion of Plato. It must be said, of course, that the paper is not a simple essay in applying Derrida’s work to Platonic texts. Kofman is an important thinker in her own right, and her various books, which include studies of Freud and Nietzsche amongst others,⁴ have established her as one of France’s most important contemporary philosophers. None the less, her point of departure can be described as an acceptance of Derrida’s approach to the reading and analysis of texts. Kofman’s paper will emerge as one of the most important and influential readings of Plato in recent years and as such it is both a delight and a privilege to be able to include it in this volume.

The papers by John Henderson, Roland Cotterill, Simon Goldhill and David Halliburton can all be described as incorporating and exemplifying the experimental possibilities occasioned by post-structuralism. The acceptance of post-structuralist approaches is neither unified nor complacent. John Henderson and Simon Goldhill offer readings of specific texts. They both draw on philosophical and psychoanalytic sources to offer their detailed and perhaps controversial readings of Terence’s Adelphoe and Theocritus 11. David Halliburton and Roland Cotterill are concerned with larger topics. Halliburton’s reading of Sophoclean tragedy makes persuasive use of the work of Rene Girard in order to offer both an important reading of texts as well as a significant and original discussion of tragedy itself. Cotterill’s critical stand in relation to some of the problems which emerge in post-structuralist conceptions of history informs his reading of Augustan poetry. He offers a counterargument to the all-too-easy evacuation of any concern with the historical. Not only, therefore, does his paper provide an important interpretation of poetical texts, but also it serves to reintroduce the problem of the historical.

In sum, all the papers offer an exciting and important challenge to the conventional practice of classical studies and ancient philosophy and yet they do so with the same care and concern for scholarship which has always characterized these domains of intellectual research. Consequently these papers incorporate a futural dimension. Instead of scholarship being condemned to the repetition of repetition, where the division between philosophy and literature is not only reinforced by its place within the university structure but also repeated in academic work, there has emerged a domain of intellectual endeavour which refuses any essential characterization and allows, if not demands, experimentation. The importance and viability of post-structuralism, therefore, lies in its twofold challenge: a challenge on the one hand to the tradition and hence to intellectual complacency, and on the other the redefinition of intellectual activity as itself a challenge.

A note needs to be made concerning the transliteration of Greek. A standard transliteration procedure has been followed in most instances. However accents have been included only where their retention is vital in order to distinguish between different words or where an interpretative point depends upon the retention of the accent, or more simply where an author has deemed it necessary. For readers without a working knowledge of Greek this method of presentation will I hope prove helpful. While readers of Greek may find it slightly frustrating it is consistent with the overall intention of making these papers available to an academic though not necessarily classically trained audience.⁵

Notes

1 The English translation of Heidegger’s text is in David Farrell Krell (ed.) Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978, pp. 189—243. It was translated by Frank A. Capuzzi.

2 In F. Schleiermacher (trans.), Platons Werke Ersten Theiles Erster Band, Berlin, Georg Reimer, 1855, pp. 5—56.

3 Pietro Pucci, Hesiod and the Language of Poetry, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md, and London, 1977.

4 Sarah Kofman has published approximately seventeen books of which some of the most important are: Nietzsche et la metaphore, Paris, Galilée, 1983; Nietzsche et la scène philosophique, Paris, Galilée, 1986; and L’Enigme de la femme, Paris, Galilée, 1980. The paper translated here as ‘Beyond Aporia’ was first published in France as a book entitled Comment s’en sortir, Paris, Galilée, 1983.

5 The majority of these papers were first given in a series of lectures organized by the Centre for Research on Philosophy and Literature at the University of Warwick, on the general theme of the relationship between classical studies and post-structuralism. In looking for other papers to complement the original lecture series I have tried to include papers covering a wide range of topics. Clearly this volume is only a beginning but it will serve to indicate the presence of a new direction now being taken in classical studies. It must also be said that the volume could not have been completed without the goodwill of all the contributors, the help of Tamra Wright, the editorial assistant at the Centre, and the continual encouragement of David Wood, the general editor of the series.

2
Beyond Aporia?

SARAH KOFMAN

Translated by David Macey from Comment s’ en sortir?, Paris, Galilée, 1983

Translator’s note

The Republic, The Symposium, Phaedrus, Charmides and Euthydemeus are cited in Benjamin Jowett’s translation; in the case of The Symposium, W. Hamilton’s translation has also been consulted (Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1951). Parmenides, Theaitetos and The Sophist are cited in John Warrington’s translation, London, Everyman’s Library, 1961. Meno and Protagoras are cited in W. K. C. Guthrie’s translation, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1956; Philebus in Robin A. H. Waterfield’s translation, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1982; Phaedo in Hugh Tredennick’s translation (in The Last Days of Socrates, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1954). Menexeneus and The Laws are cited in R. G. Bury’s translation, London, Heinemann, Loeb Classical Library, 1929 and 1926.

Existing translations have occasionally been modified to take into account discrepancies between the French and English versions.

Nightmare at the Margins of Medieval Studies first appeared in SubStance 49, 1986, translated by Frances Bartkowski.

Men, a strange species, would like to escape death. And some cry, ‘Oh, to die, to die!’ because they would like to escape death. ‘What a life. I will kill myself; I give up.’ This is pitiful, strange, and a mistake. (Blanchot, La Folie du jour)

Poros, son of Metis

Marcel Detienne and Jean-Pierre Vernant conclude their remarkable study of the Greek metis by emphasizing the supposed exclusion from within philosophy of the wily iintelligence which progresses by twists and turns.¹ It is claimed that, in the name of truth, Plato in particular relegated to the outer darkness and condemned this entire sector of intelligence, its ways of understanding and its practical modalities; more specifically, he is said to have denounced its devious, approximate and uncertain methods by contrasting them with the one exact and rigorous science, with the philosophical episteme, which is by its very nature contemplative. Science, which stands at the summit of the hierarchy of knowledge, is deemed to have distinguished between true and untrue, between oblique and straight, to have divided human productions into those which depend upon uncertain knowledge and those which result from accuracy, to have dismissed with a lordly gesture most technes, along with rhetoric and sophistics. Quite explicitly. The condemnation of everything derived from stochastic (conjectural) understanding, from metis, is, we are told, ‘quite unequivocal’. This conclusion, seems irrefutable and classical.

And yet, if philosophy itself could not do without metis, if its ‘contemplative’ understanding did not make a radical break with ‘technical’ understanding, perhaps Plato’s gesture would not be so simple or so unequivocal — even if it cannot be denied that he does make a hierarchical distinction between philosophy and other sciences, between philosophy and techne, between philosophy and sophistry.

I will begin with the celebrated myth of the birth of Love in The Symposium (203b, f). In a parody of earlier encomia which, rather than investigating the essence of love, give it a divine origin, Socrates (Diotima) in his turn indulges in a genealogical fantasy. He gives Love a father and a mother: Poros and Penia. We are given no information as to the ancestry of Love’s mother; it is as though, in her distress, Penia could have no ancestors, as though she had to be always already an orphan. His father Poros, on the other hand, is, we are told, the son of Metis. This genealogical asymmetry is not, it seems to me, without its significance: to stress the tie of kinship that exists between Love, Poros and Metis is to state that the wily resourceful intelligence that lies at the origin of all technes is also one of the ancestors of philosophy, of the love of sophia. For Love is a philosopher, ‘a philosopher at all times.’ He is at one with philosophy, for ‘wisdom is a most beautiful thing’, ‘and therefore Love is also a philosopher or lover of wisdom, and being a lover of wisdom is a mean between th...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Original Title
• Original Copyright
• Contents
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Beyond Aporia?
• 3 Hesiod’s mimetic Muses and the strategies of deconstruction
• 4 Desire and the figure of fun: glossing Theocritus 11
• 5 Time and interpretation in Heraclitus
• 6 Banter and banquets for heroic death
• 7 ‘Knowledge is remembrance’: Diotima’s instruction at Symposium 207c 8 — 208b 6
• 8 On the saying that philosophy begins in thaumazein
• 9 Entertaining arguments: Terence Adelphoe
• 10 ‘Sunt aliquid manes’: personalities, personae and ghosts in Augustan poetry
• 11 Concealing revealing: a perspective on Greek tragedy
• Index