Chrystal Hemphill
Dr. Kilpatrick
ENG 500
10/12/2015

The Role of Knowledge and Preference in Literary Criticism

Some argue that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, while others argue that there are scientific and social factors that contribute to a clear definition of beauty. The same type of argument comes into focus when one considers literature. Dictionary.com defines literature as “written works, especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit,” but this brings into question how one is to judge whether a work has greater or enduring artistic value. This question is addressed in Plato’s Ion. In Ion, Plato addresses whether it is through experience and skill or through divine intervention that Ion judges the merit of works. Through an explication of the text, one can consider whether it is knowledge or preference that leads to determining value through literary criticism. The dialogue opens with Socrates speaking to Ion who is a rhapsodist, or a professional performer of epic poetry. The reader learns that Ion is a skilled rhapsodist as he has just won first place among competitors at the festival of Asclepius. It is upon this knowledge and skill that Ion bases his affinity for Homer. Ion makes the claim that Homer is a superior poet and because of this, Ion is better able to interpret his works as compared to his inability to interpret other poets’ works. When this claim is made, Socrates goes through a series of deductions in order to determine how Ion has come to realize the merit of Homer’s works. Unlike Ion, Socrates believes that Ion’s judgment is based on divine intervention as opposed to any real skill. In order to prove his argument, Socrates equates the rhapsodist to artists or sculptors and argues that the artist does not limit his or herself to a critique of simply one artist, and that Ion should not do the same if the basis of his interpretations is knowledge. Socrates asserts that Ion should be “equally skilled in Homer and in other poets, since he himself acknowledges that the same person will be a good judge of all those who speak of the same things; and that almost all poets do speak of the same things” (Plato). He argues that if Ion was guided by skill, he would equally be able to interpret various poets and not just Homer as Ion attests.
In response, Ion questions why he is not moved by any poet other than Homer, and why he often loses attention and gains no value from any other poet. Socrates argues that it is not skill which the rhapsodist possesses, but it is by inspiration that the rhapsodist engages in interpretation and determines which works are considered to be superior. Socrates states, “The gift which you possess of speaking excellently about Homer is not an art, but, as I was just saying, an inspiration” (Plato). Socrates uses an analogy of the stone of Heraclea, stating that inspiration becomes like a magnet, attracting a chain of rings. He further explains, saying the Muse is the original magnet from which inspiration emerges, and that inspiration flows to the poet, to the rhapsode, and finally to the audience as an intertwining chain. He argues that it is the divine inspiration that moves a poet or a rhapsodist and helps account for feelings of superiority or value. Socrates discusses the difference between knowledge and inspiration by stating:
…the greater number are possessed and held by Homer. Of whom, Ion, you are one, and are possessed by Homer; and when any one repeats the words of another poet you go to sleep, and know not what to say; but when any one recites a strain of Homer you wake up in a moment, and your soul leaps within you, and you have plenty to say; for not by art or knowledge about Homer do you say what you say, but by divine inspiration and by possession. (Plato)
Socrates continues his argument by speaking of poets and performers not being in their “right mind” when they are moved by artistic expression (Plato). Despite Socrates’ use of analogy and deductive reasoning, and despite Ion’s agreement with his major points, Ion refuses to acknowledge the divine nature of poetics. Lastly, Socrates continues his inquiry by questioning whether one who has knowledge in a particular field or art should be judged as the expert and therefore the only true judge of that particular field. He questions Ion, asking if it is true that, “he who has no knowledge of a particular art will have no right judgment of the sayings and doings of that art” (Plato). Ion is in agreement with his statement that knowledge should be the basis for sound judgment, and that only one who practices in that particular field should hold the power to be deemed an expert. However, Socrates counters this argument by showing that even though Ion is a poet, he speaks knowingly and passionately about Homer and all of the subjects upon which Homer discusses. When Homer speaks of a charioteer, Ion is capable of speaking as an expert on the subject though he is a rhapsodist and not a charioteer. When Homer speaks of medicine, Ion is able to speak fluently and eloquently on the matter, though he is no doctor. Through this logic, Socrates proves Ion cannot be truthful in what he speaks; for if Ion agrees that knowledge is the basis of discernment, he discounts his expertise in reciting Homer. Socrates argues:
Ion, if you are correct in saying that by art and knowledge you are able to praise Homer, you do not deal fairly with me, and after all your professions of knowing many, glorious things about Homer, and promises that you would exhibit them, you are only a deceiver, and so far from exhibiting the art of which you are a master, will not, even after my repeated entreaties, explain to me the nature of it. (Plato)
Instead of admitting to being dishonest in nature, Ion chooses to agree with Socrates that it is not knowledge of a particular art that leads to his passion for the poetry of Homer; rather it is through divine intervention that Ion is moved by his works. This explication leads one to a direct questioning of literary interpretation and criticism. How are aesthetics judged, and what is the role of personal opinion and taste in said judgment? In regards to what is appealing in literature, I believe it is a coupling of both knowledge and passion that leads to appropriate criticism of a work. As in the case of Ion, knowledge of a particular subject matter aids in one’s ability to fully analyze a work of art. Socrates argues that Ion should be a capable judge of all poets if he is led by knowledge alone. Of the role of a rhapsodist, Socrates states, “the rhapsode ought to interpret the mind of the poet to his hearers, but how can he interpret him well unless he knows what he means” (Plato). I am in agreement with Socrates, that one who is well versed in a particular subject or field should possess the appropriate background expertise to offer valid criticism of a work. However, Ion’s argument that he, “lose[s] attention… go[es] to sleep and ha[s] absolutely no ideas of the least value” when hearing the works of others speaks to the idea of personal opinion and passion in the art of literary criticism. In Ion’s situation, it is both his knowledge as a poet as well as his preference for Homer which leads him to be so inspired by Homer’s art, and bored by the art of others. Without knowledge of the subject at hand (poetry), Ion would not be equipped to make an educated criticism of the work of Homer or any other poet; but as a rhapsode, he is capable of interpreting the poet’s intent and meaning behind the words of any poet. However, it is personal preference that leads Ion to feel moved and inspired by Homer. It is passion which causes Ion to feel that he is better capable of interpreting Homer’s works over all others. A modern day example would be in the case of music, particularly blues music. Blues music is made up of basic elements: pentatonic scale and major chords, blues chord progressions and riffs, the turnaround, and lyrics which rely on personal narrative. A musician, or someone who possesses background knowledge of music composition, would be more than capable of determining whether a song fits the criteria to be placed in the blues genre. However, just because a song fits the criteria to be considered a blues song does not make it a good blues song. In this situation, the musician has to be moved by something within the music—the chord changes, the dissonance, the story in the lyrics—in order for him or her to determine that it is meaningful and has aesthetic appeal. Like Ion, the musician may have a preference for a certain artist or style, which plays a major role in how works of art are interpreted and criticized. In the end, beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but the beholder must also possess some understanding of the word beauty itself. One cannot judge a work of art based solely on awareness of the field, and one cannot judge merit based only on being moved by passion. It is a balance of both knowledge and taste that allows one to fully interpret and criticize art, more specifically literature. As time passes and new ideas of “beauty” are presented, it is important to remain informed of both past and present, while remembering that everything has beauty; not everyone sees it.

Work Cited
Plato. “Ion.” The Internet Classics Archive. Trans. Benjamin Jowett. 1994. Web. 12 Oct. 2015