January Conference 1999
THEATRE
: ANCIENT & MODERN
Return
to contents
Plato's
Use Of Theatrical Terminology
Nikos
Charalabopoulos, University of Cambridge, U.K.
Introduction
There are two basic
facts about Plato that justify a very careful scrutiny of his
theatrical language. First he wrote dialogues. His works are prose
compositions which enact conversations between two or more interlocutors
held at a specific time and place. There is a certain variety
in the application of the dialogue form. The relevant story may
be presented directly, without any narrative framework. Alternatively
it may be framed by a dialogic scene that provides the appropriate
background for the narration of the story. Or it may be told by
a single narrator addressing an unrecorded listener or audience
(and by implication the reader).[1]
The common denominator underlying this variety is the absence
of the authorial voice. There is nothing to be found in a dialogue
but for the words and deeds of its characters. This feature of
the author's effacement and his subsequent diffusion into his
personae places Plato alongside the poets of the stage.
The Platonic dialogue and the works of Attic theatre have this
in common: they are both dramatic texts.[2]
Second, Plato wrote
during the fourth century. From the point of view of cultural
history, this period marks the dissemination of theatrical culture
all over the Greek world. Archaeological evidence combined with
historical documentation indicates that what had started as a
peculiarity of Athenian society was soon to acquire panhellenic
recognition and eventually become a hallmark of national identity.[3]
In Athens itself theatre was considered part of the city's heritage
and its past was officially commemorated.[4]
As the degree of familiarity with the medium of the theatre increases,
the imagery relating to theatre is employed in the literary texts
more frequently. Sometimes it even goes beyond the limits of the
theatrical world: there is literary evidence suggesting a conscious
interplay between stage and real life.[5] To compose dramatic texts for a public increasingly
aware of its own role and the theatrical code is a challenging
task. Plato could not have ignored the principles of a dominant
communicational code of his time. Accordingly he drew attention
to it by 'commenting' on its conventions.
Generic affinities
and historical context therefore attach a special meaning to the
application of theatrical language by Plato. By this I mean the
way certain constituents of the discourse of theatre are referred
to, incorporated into, or reflected in the dialogues. The relevant
instances fall into two major groups.
- The first comprises
those cases in which there is an explicit reference to
the world of the stage. This is evoked either through the use
of suggestive imagery or by means of a structural correspondence
between the performance and the dialogic text. Theatrical metaphors,
similes and leitmotiv come under this heading.
- In the instances
of the second group theatre is only implicitly suggested,
mainly in the form of common generic norms. Here one may well
include standard dramatic conventions such as entrances and
exits , references to the scenery or thematic patterns related
to the interaction of the characters, for instance physical
contact or silence.
In what follows a
selection of passages, illustrative of the range and the nature
of the use of theatrical terminology in Plato, will be presented.[6] Since the use of terminology constitutes
the most direct mode of allusion, all these passages belong to
the first group. As a close examination of the material will show,
the language of theatre was probably meant as something more than
a mere embellishment without significance for the interpretation
of the dialogues.
Agathon's challenge
(Symp. 194a-b)
The first and most
direct level of usage is that of theatrical terminology. Words
identified with the practice of the theatre as parts of its technical
vocabulary occur throughout the Platonic corpus.[7] Whether parts of an elaborate system of imagery or
solitary remarks in passing, they constitute the most immediate
and ostensibly deliberate mode of allusion available. Their textual
function varies in regard to the degree of assimilation to the
context. Sometimes they are used as simple pointers to a reality
lying outside the fictional world of a dialogue. In other cases
their presence denotes a fusion of discourses and leads to a redefinition
of the dialogical structure.
A well-known passage
in the Symposium provides an appropriate starting point
(194a-b). Aristophanes has just finished his own speech, and Eryximachus
expresses his approval but without failing to pay a compliment
to the remaining speakers, Socrates and Agathon. The former cleverly
dissociates himself and turns the compliment completely in favour
of the latter. Agathon intervenes:
Farm£ttein
boÚlei me, ð Sèkratej ... †na qorubhqî
di¦ tÕ o‡esqai tÕ qšatron
prosdok…an meg£lhn œcein æj eâ ™roàntoj
™moà. (a5-7)
"You're trying to
bewitch me, Socrates," ..."by making me think that the audience
expects great things of my speech, so I'll get flustered."[8]
Socrates replies that
Agathon's self-confidence has been sufficiently and successfully
tested:
Epil»smwn
ment¨n e‡hn, ð 'Ag£qwn ... e„ „dën
t¾n s¾n ¢ndre…an kaˆ megalofrosÚnhn
¢naba…nontoj ™pˆ tÕn Ñkr…banta
met¦ tîn Øpokritîn, kaˆ
blšyantoj ™nant…a tosoÚtJ qe£trJ,
mšllontoj ™pide…xesqai sautoà lÒgouj,
kaˆ oÙd' Ðpwstioàn ™kplagšntoj,
nàn o„hqe…hn se qorub»sesqai ›neka
¹mîn Ñl…gwn ¢nqrèpwn. (a8-b5)
"Agathon!" ...
"How forgetful do you think I am? I saw how brave and dignified
you were when you walked right up to the theater platform along
with the actors and looked straight out at that enormous audience.
You were about to put your own writing on display, and you weren't
the least bit panicked. After seeing that, how could I expect
you to be flustered by us, when we are so few?"
Agathon protests:
for him what counts is the quality and not the quantity of his
spectators. He would be very surprised if Socrates thought of
him as ignorant of this principle:
T… dš,
ð Sèkratej; ... oÙ d»pou me oÛtw
mestÕn qe£trou ¹gÍ éste
kaˆ ¢gnoe‹n Óti noàn œconti
Ñl…goi œmfronej pollîn ¢frÒnwn
foberèteroi; (b6-8)
"Why, Socrates"
... "You must think I have nothing but theater audiences on
my mind! So you suppose I don't realize that, if you're intelligent,
you find a few sensible men much more frightening than a senseless
crowd?"
This is a text rich
in theatrical connotations, with the very same word qšatron
repeated thrice, taken up alternately by the interlocutors, in
all the oblique cases and nuanced differently each time (a unique
instance in Plato). In classical times the word meant either the
specific place of performance or collectively the spectators.[9]
Playing on the second meaning, Agathon the playwright attempts
his little coup: by identifying the participants in his
banquet with a theatre audience and, by implication, himself with
a competing actor, he shifts the grounds of the discussion. His
daring metaphor amounts to a superimposition of the theatrical
over the dialogical discourse.[10]
Socrates accepts the
challenge and responds through a cunning stratagem. He brings
in the real theatrical space by recalling a scene from the recent
past: Agathon's presentation of his play during the Proagon.[11] At the same time he keeps these two levels
of discourse apart by emphatically underlining the spatio-temporal
distance (nàn appropriately marks the transition to the
dialogical present). The vividness of the description, enhanced
by the accumulation of (semi-) technical terms,[12] ensures that the relevant imagery belongs to another
reality, different from the one experienced in the 'here and now'
of the dialogue. In Socrates' reply, then, Agathon's attempted
superimposition has been carefully deconstructed into a harmless
juxtaposition.
Realising that Socrates'
move has invalidated his own blurring of the demarcation between
different types of discourse, Agathon abandons his initial purpose.
Alarmed by the suggested binary opposition many (tosoÚtJ
qe£trJ b3) / few (Ñl…gwn ¢nqrèpwn
b5), which leads to a mutual exclusion of the theatrical and the
dialogical audience, he renounces the identification in order
to avoid patronising his present listeners. This new stance is
mirrored in his language. Once again he employs familiar theatrical
imagery, only to repudiate it this time. Agathon strongly states
that he is not mestÕj qe£trou, 'full of theatre',
stretching the meaning of a term he had himself introduced. For
the word qšatron has so far denoted a theatrical audience
- either real (b3) or imaginary (a6). In its third and last occurrence
it acquires a more general content, signifying the theatrical
experience as such.[13] Agathon the host of his fellow-symposiasts
distances himself from Agathon the playwright . In short, theatre
and dialogue are declared independent entities by the very same
person who invoked their overlapping.[14]
The audience's
favourite (Critias 108b, d)
A parallel , though
by no means identical , case is to be found in the Critias
(the dialogue that is ostensibly intended as a sequel to the Timaeus
). In the opening scene Timaeus has just concluded his account
of the universe. According to a previous agreement[15] Critias, the next speaker, has undertaken to set
in motion the ideal city envisaged by Socrates, by narrating its
military feats. He intends to speak about matters accessible to
human experience. Critias is then more vulnerable to criticism
than his predecessor, since listeners tends to be less willing
to suspend disbelief when a speaker is dealing with familiar subjects.
That is why he pleads for a well-disposed reception of his story.
On behalf of the rest of the gathering Socrates grants him his
request while adding, as if confirming Critias' fears:
prolšgw ge
m»n, ð f…le Krit…a, soˆ t¾n
toà qe£trou di£noian, Óti qaumastîj
Ð prÒteroj hÙdok…mhken ™n aÙtù
poiht»j, éste tÁj suggnèmhj
de»sei tinÒj soi pampÒllhj, e„ mšlleij
aÙt¦ dunatÕj genšsqai paralabe‹n.
(108b3-7)
But now, my dear
Critias, I must caution you about the attitude of your audience
in this theater: the first of the poets to compete in it put
on such a glorious performance that you will need a great measure
of sympathy if you are going to be able to compete after him.
In his reply to this
teasing remark, following an encouragement by Hermocrates and
an appeal to the gods and Mnemosyne ('memory') in particular,
Critias seems confident enough to make the following statement:
scedÕn od'
Óti tùde tù qe£trJ dÒxomen
t¦ pros»konta metr…wj ¢potetelekšnai.
(d6-7)
you the audience
in our theater will find, I am confident, that we have put on
a worthy performance and acquitted ourselves of our task.
As was the case in
the passage from the Symposium, qšatron is once again
the key term which opens up the dialogue to theatrical discourse
and is likewise repeated in the course of the discussion.[16]
Similarly the use of the same metaphor - identification of the
participants in the dialogue with spectators in the theatre -
occurs at a transitional stage of the narrative, namely at the
interlude between two speeches.[17] Furthermore the rationale of the metaphor
relates to the competitive nature of the presentations: as in
the theatre, the prospective speaker is expected to try to win
the favour of the audience despite the possibly overwhelming success
of the previous one.[18]
Now it is true that
the introductory section of the Critias comprises a variety
of discourses.[19] Why should any
of them be credited with a privileged status? Given the silence
of the other interlocutors on the matter, one could well argue
that Socrates' theatrical metaphor was little more than an ad
hominem gesture, a way of assimilating his language to a mode
of expression welcomed by Critias; especially so if the latter
is to be identified with the notorious fifth-century tyrant and
tragedian.[20] But perhaps there
is more to the choice of theatrical imagery than this. Provided
that the Timaeus offers a reliable parallel, one is justified
in assuming that Critias' soliloquy was meant to extend over almost
the entire dialogue. It is through his eyes that his listeners
- and Plato's readers of course - become acquainted with the Atlantis
story. His viewpoint then determines to a certain extent the reception
of a large part of the dialogue.[21] Moreover he seems to be very well aware
of his status as a story-teller. In the 'theoretical' excursus
preceding the narration itself, Critias argues for the difficulty
of his project in terms similar to those of poetical production.[22]
Not surprisingly then he is more than willing to follow Socrates'
lead and corroborate the theatrical discourse. For when he declares
himself certain that this audience is able to appreciate
the quality of his performance, Critias resorts to the conventions
of Old Comedy, since he uses a technique traditionally exploited
by the comic poets.[23] Therefore
it might not be implausible to suggest that the imagery of the
dramatic contest was intended as a metatextual reflection of the
entire dialogue.[24]
The poet and the
actor (Charmides 162d)
In the previous passages
the poet was envisaged as himself delivering his works to the
public. Of course in reality the dramatist as such is always in
need of the actor (Øpokrit»j) who will give life
to his characters.[25] It is not difficult to imagine the complex relationship
likely to develop between these basic factors of the theatrical
act. In fact Plato brings them together in a vivid simile. In
the dialogue that bears his name, young Charmides converses with
Socrates on the meaning of swfrosÚnh(temperance, moderation).
His final suggestion, that the word may be defined as minding
one's own business, has just been refuted by Socrates. But this
failure alarms Critias, his older cousin and evidently the original
author of this definition. To make things worse, Charmides behaves
in a deliberately provocative manner so as to drag his cousin
into the discussion. He goes so far as to challenge Critias' intellectual
soundness when he says that whoever gave this definition may not
know himself what he was talking about ( 162b9-11). This remark
naturally prompts the enraged reaction of Critias, who thus enters
the discussion. Let us see how Socrates comments on this instance
of 'family business' :
Ð mn oân
Carm…dhj . . . Øpek…nei aÙtÕn
™ke‹non, kaˆ ™nede…knuto æj ™xelhlegmšnoj
e‡h: Ð d' oÙk ºnšsceto, ¢ll£
moi œdoxen ÑrgisqÁnai aÙtù
ésper poiht¾j ØpokritÍ kakîj
diatiqšnti t¦ ˜autoà poi»mata(162c6-d3).
And then Charmides
... tried to provoke him ... by going on pointing out that the
cause was lost. Critias couldn't put up with this but seemed
to me to be angry with Charmides just the way a poet is when
his verse is mangled by the actors.
Two points need to
be made here. First, Plato employs theatrical imagery in the form
of a simile. What distinguishes this particular figure of speech
is that it is based on the independence of the discursive worlds
involved (whereas metaphor, for example stems precisely from the
convergence between the discourses). As it is syntactically marked
- usually introduced through a comparative word, in this case
ésper - a simile acquires a separate, well-defined textual
space. It displays a sort of discursive self-sufficiency: it is
framed by and not fused with its context. A simile is therefore
raised to a privileged status of textual 'isolation'.[26]
Second, the content
of the simile is worthy of closer examination since it relates
to the world of theatre production. The function of a simile is
to illustrate the narrated action by means of suggestive and immediately
accessible imagery.[27] The latter
has therefore to be drawn from the deposits of common experience
shared by the speaker / writer and hearers / readers alike. In
other words the familiarity of the applied image is a sine
qua non for its successful reception. It follows that the
image of the infuriated dramatist would not have been employed
unless it belonged to an established pattern of recognisable
stock behaviours.[28]
In the present context
the application of the particular simile reflects on more than
one level of interpretation. The emotional outburst of Critias
due to Charmides' inability to stand up for what he had learned
from him reminds Socrates of the reaction of a poet whenever an
actor of his maltreats his text. The anger is here the common
element. But the correspondence runs deeper. For Critias was in
fact a tragic poet. Are we then entitled to read the identifications
Critias=poiht»j and, by implication, Charmides=Øpokrit»j
back into the rest of the dialogue? In other words, is the theatrical
imagery intended to supply an additional framework for the characterisation
of these principal dramatis personae ?
For a start the parallel
is suggested by Socrates in his capacity as narrator, apparently
the substitute for the absent authorial voice.[29] The simile also supports the structural
pattern of the dialogue as it adds to the transitional character
of its immediate context by hinting at the subsequent change in
Socrates' interlocutors.[30] As
regards Critias himself, though he is nowhere explicitly mentioned
as a playwright, Plato has Socrates hinting at his poetic skills
(155a1-3).[31] More importantly,
in the very next moment Critias has the opportunity to prove Socrates
right. In order to attract Charmides to the companionship of Socrates
he makes up a whole story assigning Socrates the role of a false
doctor (155b).[32] On the other
hand Charmides is often presented as the reflection of others'
opinion about himself. When asked by Socrates whether he possess
swfrosÚnh he cannot give a positive or negative answer
(158c-d). His indeterminacy derives from his reluctance to disprove
or displease Critias and those who praise him. Later in his attempts
towards a definition he evidently draws on socially acceptable
norms.[33] The person responsible
for the young boy's compliance with and internalisation of these
norms must have been Critias. In short, Charmides seems unable
or unwilling to speak for himself. What corresponds to the poems
of the simile might not have been only the third definition after
all. Is it too far-fetched to suppose that Charmides as a social
persona was Critias' s real 'creation'?[34]
How to play a role
(Gorgias 464d)
Although references
to actors are scattered throughout the Platonic corpus, there
are hardly any passages in which actors in performance are depicted
or mentioned.[35] Such an instance
occurs in the Gorgias, where the art of performing is alluded
to in an imaginary and sophisticated way. Socrates has suggested
that rhetoric is an image of a part of politics (463d). In order
to explain this point to Gorgias he proceeds to a classification
of the four crafts that aim at the benefit of what they take care
of, gymnastics and medicine of the body, legislation and justice
of the soul (the latter are also parts of the more general craft
of politics). There are also four false arts corresponding to
these crafts which form parts of kolakeutik» 'flattery'.
Then Socrates goes on to describe the nature of the association
between the crafts and their false counterparts:
(SW.)tett£rwn
d¾ toÚtwn oÙsîn [sc. tîn tecnîn]...
¹ kolakeutik¾ a„sqomšnh - oÙ gnoàsa
lšgw ¢ll¦ stocasamšnh - tštraca ˜aut¾n
diane…masa, Øpodàsa ØpÕ
›kaston tîn mor…wn, prospoie‹tai
enai toàto Óper Øpšdu,
kaˆ toà mn belt…stou oÙdn
front…zei, tù d ¢eˆ ¹d…stJ
qhreÚetai t¾n ¥noian kaˆ ™xapat´,
éste doke‹ ple…stou ¢x…a enai.
ØpÕ mn t¾n „atrik¾n ¹
Ñyopoiik¾ Øpodšduken, kaˆ
prospoie‹tai t¦ bšltista sit…a
tù sèmati e„dšnai, ést' e„
dšoi ™n paisˆ diagwn…zesqai ÑyopoiÒn
te kaˆ „atrÒn, À ™n ¢ndr£sin
oÛtwj ¢no»toij ésper oƒ pa‹dej,
pÒteroj ™pa…ei perˆ tîn crhstîn
sit…wn kaˆ ponhrîn, Ð „atrÕj
À Ð ÑyopoiÒj, limù ¨n ¢poqane‹n
tÕn „atrÒn. (464c3-e2)
(So.) These then
are the four parts ... Now flattery takes notice of them, and
- I won't say by knowing, but only by guessing
- divides itself into four, masks itself with each of
the parts, and then pretends to be the characters of the
masks. It takes no thought at all of whatever is best; with
the lure of what is pleasant at the moment it sniffs out folly
and hoodwinks it, so that it gives the impression of
being most deserving. Pastry baking has put on the mask of
medicine, and pretends to know the foods that are best for the
body, so that if a pastry baker and a doctor had to compete
in front of children, or in front of men just as foolish as
children, to determine which of the two, the doctor or the pastry
baker, had expert knowledge of good food and bad, the doctor
would die of starvation.
The implicit reference
to the theatrical milieu is proven by the following points. (a)
Plato uses the verb ØpodÚomai[36], the emergence of which as theatrical term is directly
related to the conditions of the stage.[37] The emphatic repetition of the verb as
well as the presence of words of deception (prospoie‹tai,™xapat´)
defines the context as one of role-playing and make-believe. (b)
The splitting of flattery into four parts and the subsequent assumption
of the role of the corresponding craft strongly reminds one of
two standard practices in ancient theatre production: the acting
by the same actor of more than one character and its collorary,
the distribution of the roles in more than one actor.[38] It is tempting to view flattery as an exceptional
case of an actor-role who divides herself into four so that every
part , in its capacity as an actor, will assume the role of the
real crafts, such as gymnastics or justice.[39]
(c) The deeply engaging description of how flattery succeeds in
deceiving people and eliciting an undeserved reputation sounds
like the exposition of a plot in which flattery is the leading
character. One is given the impression that one listens to a tale
about the adventures of kolakeutik».[40]
That Plato intended
an allusion to the world of theatre is confirmed also by the example
Socrates employs to elucidate flattery's mechanism of deception.
Cookery usurps the role of medicine and professes knowledge of
the proper foods for the body. In a supposed contest between a
real doctor and a cook the former would probably end up starving
to death due to the lack of clientele. Such a picture comprises
elements of the theatrical tradition. To begin with, it is the
context of public competition explicitly referred to (™n
¢ndr£sin d6, diagwn…zesqai d5).[41] The very idea of two competitors, each
claiming for himself that what he stands for benefits most the
community, reminds one of the ¢gînej lÒgwn in
Aristophanes' Clouds and Frogs .[42]
The professionals themselves, the cook and the doctor, are stock-characters
in comedy.[43] More importantly, Plato uses here the image of the
pseudo-doctor, a motif exploited also by Menander.[44] Finally, death from starvation can be seen as a comic
motif .[45] All in all, Socrates'
example could be taken as if a summary of the plot of a short
play titled 'The Doctor and the Cook'.[46]
Conclusion
In this essay I have
attempted a first approach towards the application of theatrical
terms in the Platonic dialogues . An examination of a few selected
passages[47] indicates the way
these elements of theatrical discourse may function in the framework
of the Platonic text. They seem to be something more than a mere
embellishment, often leading to another level of interpretation.
Either embedded in the discourse of the characters or incorporated
in the part of the narrator - if any - they tend to open up the
dialogic text to the pragmatics of the theatre and, thus, built
up a firm association between the two worlds. The exact nature
and character of this association is something that deserves to
become the subject of scholarly attention.[48]
Return
to contents page
Endnotes
[1] For a general discussion concerning the significance of
the distinction between dramatic and narrated dialogues see H.Thesleff
Studies in the Styles of Plato Helsinki Acta Philosophica
Fennica Fasc.XX (1967) 19--25, 45-50; his Studies in Platonic
Chronology Helsinki, Societas Scientarum Fennica (1982) 54-64.
D.Clay ‘Plato’s first words’ Yale Classical
Studies 29 (1992) 118 opts for a triple division featuring
an additional, rather hybrid, category of the frame dialogues,
which consists of the Phaedo, the Theaetetus, the
Symposium and the Parmenides.
[2]
The dramatic aspect of the Platonic dialogue has received proper
treatment in recent years. See among others J.Arieti Interpreting
Plato:The dialogues as dramas Savage, Md. Rowman and Littlefield
(1991), F.J.Gonzalez (ed.) The Third Way: New Directions in
Platonic Studies (Rowman and Littlefield, 1995) R.Hart and
V.Tejera (eds) Plato’s dialogues :The dialogical approach
Studies in the History of Philosophy Vol. 46 (Edwin Mellen Press,
1997).
[3]
The related material in relation to the social context has been
succinctly presented in J.R.Green Theatre in Ancient Greek
Society (Routledge, 1994) 49-88. As for tragedy P.E.Easterling
‘The End of an era? Tragedy in the fourth century’ in
A.H.Sommerstein - S.Halliwell - J.Henderson - B.Zimmerman (eds)
Tragedy, Comedy and the Polis:Papers from the Greek Drama Conference
Nottingham 18-20 July 1990 Bari, Levante Editori (1993) 559-569
as well as P.E.Easterling ‘From repertoire to canon’
in her (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy (Cambridge
University Press, 1997) 211-227 offers an illuminating account.
The wide range of distribution of theatre buildings is well brought
out by O.Taplin Comic Angels: And other approaches to Greek
Drama through vase-paintings (Oxford University Press, 1993)
‘every Greek city with any cultural pretensions had one [theatre]
by the mid-third century’ (3; cf. also n.10), while Green
Theatre attests to the significance of theatre as a national
cultural product when remarking that among the Greeks ‘theatrical
performance was a common language’ (106). See now O.Taplin
‘Spreading the word through performance’ in S.Goldhill
and R.Osborne (eds) Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy
(Cambridge University Press, 1999) 34-57.
[4] One may mention for example the institutionalisation of
the production of old plays, the law preventing foreigners from
participating in the dramatic choruses, the rebuilding in stone
of the theatre of Dionysus, the production of official copies
of the plays of the three canonised tragedians and the erection
of their bronze statues (the last three measures instigated by
Lycurgus). Cf. E.Csapo and W.J. Slater The Context of Ancient
Drama (University of Michigan Press, 1995) 10 I 14, 80, 351,
358 IV 295, 405.
[5] A case in point is Diodorus’ account of Philip’s
assassination at the theatre of Aegae. Though Diodorus is a historian
of the Imperial age his source for this story is likely to have
been Theopompus of Chios, the fourth-century exponent of the rhetorical
school of historiography. Cf. P.E.Easterling ‘Repertoire’
218-20 with bibliographical note 227; C.Bradford Welles Diodorus
of Sicily Vol. VIII, Loeb Classical Library (Harvard University
Press, 1963) 4-5. For Theopompus and ‘tragic’ historiography
in general see W.R.Connor ‘Historical writing in the fourth
century B.C. and in the Hellenistic period’ in P.E.Easterling-B.M.W.Knox
(eds) The Cambridge History of Classical Literature I Greek
Literature (Cambridge University Press, 1985) 458-471, 464-8
(henceforward CHCL).
[6]
The words used as theatrical terms may be roughly divided into
two groups: (a) those with a semantic field exclusively or mainly
related with the world of theatre such as Ñkr…baj
(=raised platform) or Øpokrit»j (=actor) and (b)
those which have a wider, non-theatrical field of reference; as
for example the word ¥ggeloj may denote equally well a messenger
in real life (e.g. in military) and the stock character of tragedy.
In this case it is the context that proves decisive for the attribution
or not of theatrical meaning. Cf. also n.12 below.
[7]
D.Tarrant ‘Plato as dramatist’ Journal of Hellenic
Studies 75 (1955), 82-89 offers an extremely helpful starting
point.
[8]
Throughout this essay I follow the Platonic text of OCT
series (J.Burnet Platonis Opera Vol.I-V, Oxford University
Press, 1900-7 and, wherever applicable, E.A.Duke et al. Platonis
Opera Vol. I Oxford University Press, 1995). The translations
come from J.M.Cooper and D.S.Hutchinson (eds) Plato: Complete
Works (Hacket Publishing Company, 1997).
[9]
H.G.Liddell - R.Scott - H.S.Jones - R.MacKenzie Greek - English
Lexicon 9th edition (Oxford University Press, 1968) (hence
LSJ9 )s.v. 1, 2.
[10]
Up to that moment there had been scarcely any indications that
the symposiasts thought of the succession of the speeches in terms
of a dramatic contest. The only possible exception is Socrates’
use of the verb¢gwn…zomai (194a) which might bear some
relevant connotations, but its semantic field relates to all kinds
of public contest. It is Agathon who explicitly identifies his
guests with a theatrical audience. He thus wishes to secure his
victory in advance since he knows how to win the favour of such
an audience. The logic underlying Agathon’s attempt may be
likened to a sort of reversed sympathetic magic.
[11]
This is the scholarly consensus. For a challenge to this view
see P.W.Harsh ‘Plato Symposium 194b and a raised platform
in the theater’ Classical Philology 44(1949), 116-117.
[12]
Apart from genuine theatrical terms such as qšatron, Ñkr…baj
(=a special raised platform), Øpokrit»j, one finds
words that acquire an assimilated meaning, appropriate for this
context. For example, qoruboàmai ‘be thrown into confusion’
as well as its cognateqÒruboj ‘uproar’ are closely
associated with the reactions of a mass audience (cf. LSJ9
s.v. For the behaviour of the theatre audience see R.W.Wallace
‘Poet, Public, and "Theatrocracy": Audience Performance in
Classical Athens’ in L.Edmunds and R.W.Wallace (eds) Poet,
Public and Performance in Ancient Greece (John Hopkins University
Press, 1997) 97-111. Similarly lÒgoi here denotes in all
probability plots of a play (cf. A.Pickard-Cambridge The Dramatic
Festivals of Athens 2nd edition rev. by J.Gould and D.M.Lewis
(Oxford University Press 1988) (hence DFA2) 67 n.8).
[13] Qšatronhere cannot mean just the spectators. R.G.Bury
The Symposium of Plato2 (W.Heffer and Sons, 1932), following
Stallbaum, takes it as equivalent to the applause of the audience
(71). I am inclined to think that the semantic field of the word
has been stretched, in the manner of synecdoche, to embrace all
the aspects of the thetrical phenomenon. It is noteworthy that
a parallel construction, possibly echoing the present one, is
to be found at the denouement of the dialogue. When revellers
enter Callias’ house through the open doors everything became
qorÚbou mest£ (223b5).
[14]
In a striking reversal it is Socrates, despite his previous stance,
who tries apparently to reopen the issue and blur once more the
distinction ¹me‹j mn g¦r kaˆ ™ke‹
parÁmen kaˆ Ãmen tîn pollîn ‘we
were at the theater too, you know, part of the ordinary crowd’
(194c4-5).
[15] Tim. 27a-b as an answer to Socrates’ request
in 19c.
[16]
In the Timaeus Critias recalls the first time he heard
the Atlantis story at the festival of Apatouria. There his grandfather
had claimed that if Solon, the original narrator of the story,
had not been prevented by political vicissitudes from composing
poetry oÜte ‘Hs…odoj oÜte "Omhroj oÜte
¥lloj oÙdeˆj poiht¾j eÙdokimèteroj
™gšneto ¥n pote aÙtoà ‘not even
Hesiod or Homer, or any other poet at all would ever have become
more famous than he’ (21d1-3). The verbal correspondence
between this passage and Socrates’ admonition to Critias
in the namesake dialogue that qaumastîjÐ prÒteroj
hÙdok…mhken ™n aÙtù poiht»j
‘the first of the poets to compete in it put on a glorious
performance’ (108b4-5) is too striking to be a matter of
chance (significantly words related to eÙdokimî are
used only in these two passages and nowhere else in either dialogue;
so we may speak of an intended cross-reference). Now in the Timaeus
evidently the milieu is one of rhapsodic performance: there is
an explicit reference to a rhapsodic contest («qla...·ayJd…aj
21b4) and Hesiod and Homer are both epic poets. Are we entitled
to suggest that the poiht»j that Socrates alludes to in
the Critias may have been not a playwright but an epic
poet? I don’t think so. For (a) the presence of the theatrical
term provides the context which conditions the reception of the
passage and (b) in the fourth century we can hardly speak of an
independent rhapsodic discourse. The performances of the rhapsodes
had become part of the theatrical mode of communication. As J.Herington
remarks ‘Plato himself... and his approximate contemporary
Alcidamas similarly treat the performances of the rhapsode and
of the dramatic actor as practically identical’ (Poetry
into Drama: Early Tragedy and the Greek Poetic Tradition Sather
Classical Lectures 49, Berkeley - Los Angeles - London, University
of California Press (1985), 12-13). Theatre was the most powerful
instance of public poetic discourse and, consequently, was in
a position to ‘subdue’ all the other types. Perhaps
Plato wanted to draw attention to this dominance of the theatre
by means of this cross-reference.
[17]
The parallel becomes even more closer if we accept Welliver’s
proposal and take the Timaeus and the Critias as
one dialogue, as argued in W.Welliver Character, Plot and Thought
in Plato’s Timaeus Leiden, J.Brill (1977).
[18]
But the differences between the cases should not be understated.
To begin with, it is Socrates who brings in this imagery, turning
for a moment the series of speeches into dramatic contests. Though
not himself a speaker - whereas Agathon had been - he nevertheless
feels free to modify the framework of the discussion. Significantly
his attempt towards a crossing of the discursive boundaries meets
with general consensus - or at least remains unchallenged (in
opposition to Agathon’s). In his short intervention Hermocrates
apparently bypasses Socrates’ move but does not question
its validity. While Critias himself, to whom the metaphor was
formally addressed, picks it up and manipulates it for his own
benefit: in a bold reversal of the situation, as it has been described
by Socrates, he attempts to ground his self-confidence in a personal
bond with this particular audience, pointing implicitly to a kindred
mentality.
[19]
One may discern Timaeus’ religious language (e.g. proseÚcomai
106a4, b6); Hermocrates’ military vocabulary (e.g. paraggšlleij
(b8), trÒpaion (c1), proŽšnai, ¢ndre…wj
(c2), Pa…wna (c3). Cf. C.Gill Plato:The Atlantis story
Bristol, Bristol Classical Press 1980); Critias’ rhetorical
pleading (107a, 108a).
[20]
J.Burnet Greek Philosophy London, MacMillan (1914) 338
n.1 was the first to argue against the identification of this
Critias with the tragedian and opted for a namesake grandfather
instead. He has been followed, among others, by F.M.Cornford Plato’s
Cosmology: The Timaeus translated with a running commentary
(Kegan Paul, 1937) 1 and Welliver Character 50-7. In favour
of the traditional interpretation are J.K.Davies Athenian Propertied
Families 600-300BC (Oxford University Press, 1971)
325-6, C.Gill ‘The Genre of the Atlantis Story’ Classical
Philology 72(1977) 294 n.38, B.K£lfaj Pl£twn:
T…maioj Athens, Polis (1995) 19 n.5. In view of the ramifications
of the theatrical imagery in the present context I find it hard
not to take Critias as Plato’s maternal uncle, the playwright.
[21]
To put it in narratological terms, in relation to the Atlantis
story Critias functions both as narrator and focaliser. See I.
de Jong Narrators and Focalizers: the presentation of the story
in the Iliad Amsterdam, B.R.Gruner (1987) 31-6 for the theoretical
background.
[22]
Cf. Gill ‘Genre’ 291 ‘his language here seems more
appropriate to a mimht»j, a poet or verbal artist, than
to a historian’ . Note also the striking verbal parallel
between Critias’ description of their speeches m…mhsin
mn g¦r d¾ kaˆ ¢peikas…an
t¦ par¦ p£ntwn ¹mîn ·hqšnta
creèn pou genšsqai ‘everything we have all said
is a kind of representation and attempted likeness’(107b5-7)
and the Athenian’s account of the literary creation in the
Laws p£nta t¦ perˆ aÙt»n
[sc. t¾nmousik»n] stin
poi»mata m…mhsij te kaˆ ¢peikas…a
‘all musical compositions are matters of imitation and representation’
(668b10-c1).
[23]
Captatio benevolentiae is a well-attested topos
in Aristophanes. Cf. Knights 228, 233;Clouds 521,
527; Wasps 1175.
[24]
It is noteworthy that Critias, by virtue of the demonstrative
pronoun tùde, draws attention to the communicational act
itself and the respective roles of the participants. Incidentally
deixis is considered the one function that, more than any
other, characterises dramatic discourse. See K.Elam The Semiotics
of Theatre and Drama (Methuen, 1980) 26-7, 139-40.
[25]
This holds true even if the writer himself assumes the part of
the only character of his play. For he does so by appropriating
the function of impersonating the dramatis persona on stage.
He then ceases to be a dramatist and becomes an actor instead.
[26] For a survey of the ancient conceptions of the simile
see M.H. McCall Jr. Ancient Philosophical Theories of Simile
and Comparison (Harvard University Press, 1969) especially
pp. 11-8 where the terms employed by Plato are discussed. It is
significant that Aristotle in his Rhetoric treats Platonic
and Homeric similes as parts of the same continuum (cf. ibid.
32-8).
[27]
In relation to the Homeric similes de Jong Narrators holds
that ‘similes are inserted by the [narrator-focalizer] to
help the [narratee-focalizee] to visualize what is told ... As
such, they must refer to things which are familiar to the [latter]’
(93-4).
[28]
If so some useful remarks may be made on the cultural presuppositions
of Plato’s readers. For example, what this might suggest
concerning the extent to which instances from the life of the
theatre had become part of the everyday vocabulary.
[29]
One should bear in mind the distinction between Socrates the narrator
of the story to an unidentifiable audience (Sn) and Socrates the
interlocutor of Critias and Charmides at the palaestra of Taureas
(Si). Sn has the advantage of hindsight that Si obviously lacks.
Given that the simile is put into the mouth of Sn - although purporting
to reflect the reactions of Si- it is given a somewhat authoritative
status, as applying to both temporal levels. For in this case
we are dealing with a special instance of an assimilated simile,
where the point of view of the narrator and a character coincide.
And as de Jong puts it ‘ comparisons and similes are no events
... they are interpretations of events’ (Narrators
125. For assimilated similes see ibid. 126).
[30]
In terms of the situation in the imagery one possible continuation
of the story would be that the dramatist delivers his verses himself
in order to show his actor the proper way of performing them.
Similarly Critias intervenes and replaces Charmides in the discussion
so as to defend his own definition.
[31]
As an answer to Critias’ appraisal of his cousin as both
a philosopher and poet Socrates remarks that these gifts have
been for long a prerogative of their family due to their relation
to Solon. There is then a passing reference to Critias’ acknowledged
capacity as a dramatist.
[32]
Critias falsely tells Charmides that Socrates knows a cure for
the headache. He aptly uses a word of deception prospoioàmai
‘pretend’ when he refers to what he has in mind (155b5).
This is a term of make-believe suitable for describing role-playing.
[33]
Cf. 159b swfrosÚnh enai tÕ kosm…wj p£nta
pr£ttein ‘temperance was doing everything in an orderly
and quiet way’; and 160e kaˆ enai Óper
a„dëj ¹ swfrosÚnh ‘modesty must be
what temperance really is’. See the relevant discussion in
W.T.Schmid Plato’s Charmides and the Socratic Ideal
of Rationality Albany, (State University of New York, 1998)
22-30.
[34]
It is worth noting that Socrates has already compared Charmides
to a work of art, namely a statue ¢ll¦ p£ntej
ésper ¥galma ™qeînto aÙtÒn
‘but all gazed at him as if he were a statue’ (154c8).
[35]
Notable exceptions are Symposium 194b and Laws 817c.
[36] A rare word in Platonic terms. The only other occurrences
are to be found in the Laws XII 967b1, Ax. 367a4,
c7.
[37]
The meaning of ‘playing the part of a character’ is
thought to have derived from the fact that the actor had to put
his face under a mask (so LSJ9 s.v. ØpodÚw II.2.c.).
Interestingly, nowhere else in the Platonic corpus has the word
any theatrical connotations. The passage from the Gorgias
seems to be the earliest instance of such a use in the extant
literature.
[38]
See DFA2 137-56.
[39]
The comparison of kolakeutik» to a role is facilitated by
its ontological status. Flattery belongs to the realm of appearances
as do the characters of a play. That is why it is guessing and
not knowledge - which relates to the real world of the Ideas -
that accounts for her action.
[40] E.R.Dodds remarks that ‘this extended personification
almost assumes the proportions of a miniature myth’ (Plato:Gorgias
A revised Text with Introduction and Commentary (Oxford University
Press, 1959, 228 on 464c5-d3).
[41]
The verb is attested in Xenophon in relation to a choral peformance
in the Hellenica 6.4.16.
[42] Or even further to Epicharmus and Sicilian comedy. Cf.
A.Lesky A History of Greek Literature trans. by J.Willis
and C.de Heer (Methuen, 1966) 239.
[43]
Both roles were present in Sicilian and Attic Old Comedy. Cf.
H. Dohm Mageiros: Die Rolle des Kochs in der griechisch-römischen
Komödie Munchen, C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung
(1964) 11-66 (cooks) and L.Gil and I.R.Alfageme ‘La figura
del médico en la comedia lé lática’
Cuadernos de Filología Clásica 3 (1972) 35-92,
esp. 35-50 (doctors). Admittedly Socrates speaks not of a m£geiroj
but an ÑyopoiÒj. But the distinction was not a strict
one as their functions inevitably overlapped. Plato himself is
not consistent as in the Republic distinguishes between
the two (II 373c3-4), whereas in the Theaetetus the preparation
of a banquet, a duty proper of a m£geiroj, is assigned to
an ÑyopoiÒj - who is considered mageirikÒj
(178d8-10). See also W.G. Arnott Alexis: The Fragments A Commentary
(Cambridge University Press, 1996), 313 and 329 with references.
[44]
In the Aspis an unnamed friend of Chaireas is disguised
as a doctor in order to confirm that Chaerestratus is soon to
die of a fatal illness (339-42, 376-9). Cf. A.W.Gomme and F.H.Sandbach
Menander:A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 1973) 90-3,
99-102.
[45]
A number of Aristophanic characters are credited with being afraid
of such a death. For instance the Megarian and the Farmer in the
Acharnians (733-43 and 1044 respectively), the gods in
the Birds (1515-24), the priest of Zeus the Saviour in
the Wealth (1174).
[46]
It may be noted that one of Sophron’s mimes bears the title
‘The Fisherman to the Farmer’ (‘WlieÝj tÕn
‘Agroiètan). Cf. A.Olivieri Frammenti della Commedia
Greca e del Mimo nella Sicilia e nella Magna Grecia Napoli,
L.Loffredo (1930), 196; E.Handley ‘Comedy’ 370 in Easterling
-Knox CHCL , 355-425. It is also striking that in Alexis’
Krateia two of the leading characters were a drugseller
(farmakopèlhj) and, in all probability, an ÑyopoiÒj
(see Arnott Alexis, 312-4).
[47]
Here are some additional passages. The theatrical terms have been
underlined. (a) Rep. X 614d. Er, the resurrected soldier,
serves as a messenger to mankind regarding the things beyond death
dšoi aÙtÕn ¥ggelon ¢nqrèpoij
genšsqai tîn ™ke‹ ‘he was to be a messenger
to human beings about the things that were there’ Cf. Rep.
X 601d. (b) Rep. I 328e. Cephalus, the aged host of the
Republic, is presented in the capacity of an ™x£ggeloj
(‘on the Greek stage, messenger who told what was
doing in the house or behind the scenes - opp. ¥ggeloj,
who told news from a distance’ LSJ9 s.v. II). He is
the messenger who comes out of the domain of old age and is able
to disclose to his listeners the truth about this unknown place
pîj sÝ aÙtÕ ™xaggšleij;
‘what is your report about it?’ Cf. Rep . IX
577b. (c) Rep. IV 420e. Socrates introduces the surrealistic
image of farmers working in the fields wearing the xust…dej,
the luxurious costumes in which the tragic kings usually appeared
on stage kaˆ toÝj gewrgoÝj xust…daj
¢mfišsantej ‘to clothe the farmers with purple
robes’. (d) Apol. 35b. Socrates compares the defendant
who tries to win the sympathy of the jury through histrionics
in order to save his life to a dramatist Óti polÝ
m©llon katayhfie‹sqe toà t¦ ™lein¦
taàta dr£mata e„s£gontoj ‘you
will more readily convict a man who performs these pitiful dramatics
in court’. The following terms also occur: dr©ma (=play)
Symp. 222d, Theaet. 150a; œxodoj (=finale)
Prot. 361a; corÒj (=chorus) Prot. 315a-b;
(tragik¾) skeu» (=attire) Rep. IX 577b; skhn»
(=stage) Laws VII 817c; mhcan» (=a crane for the
appearance of the gods above the stage) Crat. 425d.
[48]
I would like here to express my deepest feelings of gratitude
to my supervisor Professor Pat Easterling not only for her patience
and guidance when reading earlier drafts of this paper. I also
wish to thank Professor David Sedley for his illuminating comments
as well as the anonymous referees for their useful remarks.
|
Classical Receptions in Drama and Poetry in English