The Puppet Theater in Plato's Parable of the Cave Author(s): Asli Gocer Source: The Classical Journal, Vol. 95, No. 2 (Dec., 1999 - Jan., 2000), pp. 119-129 Published by: The Classical Association of the Middle West and South, Inc. (CAMWS) Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3298308 Accessed: 24-06-2019 00:02 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms The Classical Association of the Middle West and South, Inc. (CAMWS) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Classical Journal This content downloaded from 141.2.140.67 on Mon, 24 Jun 2019 00:02:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE PUPPET THEATER IN PLATO'S PARABLE OF THE CAVE Although there has been much discussion about the shadows of artifacts the prisoners watch in Plato's parable of the cave (Republic 514a-519a), little has been said on the art form to which this shadow-play is likened. The famous image is, of course, that of the chained prisoners looking at the shadows projected an to a surface in front of them. The shadows are of the various paraphernalia some people are carrying in front of a fire behind the prisoners. The setting is described in this manner: "There is a path stretching between them [the prisoners] and the fire. Imagine that along this path a low wall has been built, like the screen in front of puppeteers [hosper tois thaumatopoiois] above which they show their puppets [ta thaumata]" (R. 514bl-6).1 The prisoners are amazed and amused by the flickering shadows thinking that they are seeing real things moving in front of them. This is because they cannot distinguish shadows as shadows. According to the fable, only a few of the prisoners will be freed to go out of the cave to see objects themselves in the sun light and then be made to come down to share with the prisoners the bad news that the shadows they have been looking at are merely shadows. In doing so they will be ridiculed, and even killed. There are as many layers to this parable as there are attempts to account for its meaning. I can neither list nor evaluate them all here. I shall consider only the similarity that Plato draws between the activity in the cave and shadow puppet theater. Since I assume that few things in the Platonic dialogues are said casually, I take the reference to thaumatopoioi seriously and presume that the description of puppeteering in the allegory is not an abstraction. My suspicion is that the comparison within the allegory, paradoxically, refers to an actual form of puppet theater. Indeed, as I shall try to show, we have good circumstantial evidence to 1 All English quotations and abbreviations are from Cooper and Greek from Shorey and Bury. THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL 95.2 (1999) 119-129 This content downloaded from 141.2.140.67 on Mon, 24 Jun 2019 00:02:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 120 ASLI GOCER suppose this suggestions is an the the case. shadow I likens the activity in the cav clear on the kind of art form make better sense of the mea Why the reference to th interest of commentators is a of this paper. Suffice to not parable mainly focus on the and produce famously instance, On his that view, doctrine against non-complim sees of the story refers the of the ascent releasing the to the religious s o min interp secular route to the meaning a symbol of intellectual enlig philosophy.4 Alan Bloom arg and alleges that interpretation impressions of thoughts. a If freeing this of is the politicians.5 political this is a treats the a prisoners, a In true, mind Blo fro addition interpretations, t so parallels between the eff cinema or television in co Shershow has recently argu hidden in Plato's metaphys Plato's disdain both for the o metaphysical hierarchy and in the cultural milieu of A effort has 2 Cornford, 3 While what been p. to deter 227. agreeing religious made on the tradition religious it depicts Guthrie, p. 518; others suggest Parm 4 Annas, p.253-257. 5 Bloom, p. 404-405; Waterfield, p. of the 6 7 fable. Most recently by Nehamas, Shershow, p. 16-19. This content downloaded from 141.2.140.67 on Mon, 24 Jun 2019 00:02:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms p. 23 PLATO'S PARABLE OF THE CAVE 121 in the image.8 The significance of the reference metaphysics of shadows but more important (thus ethical) triviality of this kind of theate want to suggest that Plato's choice of shado heralds more than his now notorious attack on a out a peculiar form of comedy that embodies vulgar, fantasy, and satire. In addition to entertainment, therefore, I suggest that the pup cave must be evaluated as a certain comedic per most memorably represented by Aristophanic th Let us turn, then, to exploring the comedic shadow puppet theater, which was appropriate Although there is little doubt that they were fa one knows exactly whence puppet theater cam Greeks. There is some suggestion that it was in t that a group of popular entertainers arrived in Dorian Megara by way of Sicily and ushered in popular entertainment. So hilarious was their r new phrase, "Megaran laughter," was coined t comic performances from other merry-makers." phanes and Xenophon all refer to them as thaum a generic term for a conjurer, it is clear that th be associated with a new style entertainer, wh call a street performer: mimic, acrobat, ju importantly, puppeteer. It is plausible that Plato performers when he likens sophists and poets (H to thaumatopoioi, for he accuses them of caring o and entertainment rather than provoking thou (Sph. 265c ff.; R. 602c; L. 663c.). Time and agai the thaumatopoioi to visual artists as well, w charming their viewers as the puppeteers do the 8 Except for a brief speculation by Guthrie, p. 518. G however, that there is no shadow theater per se in the cave; t such a performance. 9 For Plato there is no distinction between the beautiful a e.g.); I cannot analyse the point here. 10 The date is said to be around, 480 B.C., see Nicoll, p. 20. Republic is guessed between 380 and 370 BC; see Shorey (vol.I) 1 Presumably, a belly laughter, Nicole, p. 20 12 Aristotle, Poetics iii 1448a; Nichomachean Ethics iv.2; cf. A 60. Xenophon, Symposium iv. 55. For discussion on Corinth involving thaumotopoioi in a puppet show, see Nicoll, p. 20-13 This content downloaded from 141.2.140.67 on Mon, 24 Jun 2019 00:02:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 122 ASLI GOCER 260d, Euth. 305b, G. 518b; S suppose that Plato was fam and cult statuettes, which were also used in various forms of shadow puppet theater.13 W. K. C. Guthrie has suggested, however, that the most plausible candidate for the kind of art form Plato had in mind is the Karagoz theater.14 This is the modem Turkish shadow puppet theater that also figures in the Greek 15 tradition of Karagiozis. Although Guthrie does not go any farther than briefly suggesting it, there is some reason to explore the connection. There is no question that the Karagoz theater comes out of the ancient form of popular entertainment of shadow play and puppetry. Geographically speaking, this is a tradition that spreads from the Far East to eastern Mediterranean. The date of its origin, however, is uncertain.16 Though it is probably Eastern in origin, the likes of which have been documented in India, China, and Egypt, no one really knows when and exactly how Karagoz got 17 to the West. In its modem form still practiced in Turkey and Greece, Karagoz theater consists of mini puppets that have been affixed to sticks. The puppets are cutouts from leather and have articulated body parts that are joined with ties, which are operated by the puppeteer behind a screen. The puppets are thus two-dimensional, and the set pieces are minimal. The light is provided from behind the screen, which causes the puppets to appear only as shadows to the viewing audience on the other side. The puppeteer is typically alone in singing and playing the different parts. Karagoz theater consists of what might be called 'standard' figures. Members are differentiated by their social class and regional differences, which are portrayed by differences in styles of clothing, dialect, and song. The main character is usually a phallic-bearing figure who is preoccupied with food, sex, money, 13 Dodds, p. 194, p. 205 no. 96. 14 Guthrie, p. 518. For an opposition to this view, see Pryzluski p. 596. Pryzluski rejects Guthrie's suggestion on the grounds that in the Karagoz theater the light is behind the screen. This objection misses, however, the point that the shadow puppet theater is merely an analogy in the cave parable; see n. 8. 15 Among the many views on the origins of the Greek Karagoz one theory holds that Ottoman Turks learned the craft from the Byzantines and passed it on to the Ottoman Greeks; Ritter, p. 616; and Bieber, p. 254; for other speculations see Siyavusgil. 16 Myrsiades, p. 195, n.6; also see And. 17 Tietze, p. 16, n. 2. This content downloaded from 141.2.140.67 on Mon, 24 Jun 2019 00:02:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms PLATO'S PARABLE OF THE CAVE 123 and thoughts of revenge against those who wrong have a fixed set of social views, and his mor according to the changes in his environment. Othe troupe are either vulgar braggarts, obsequious w old men, incompetent doctors, cruel authority fig loose and quarrelsome women. The Karagoz "play of improvised buffoonery by these types. It ca satire as a genre, one which involves satirizi everything. The main charge against this tradit it is entirely without moral purpose or dramatic p coarse in exploiting human defects and pecu purposes of satiric entertainment. The tone is som but often wacky and contemptuous of all establish puppet theater that falls out of the Karago entertainment for the masses, which consists of s engaged in verbal jousting, singing, and dancing outrageous humor and miscellaneous spoofs that K embodiment of the ancient Greek comic spirit. Given how little we know of its origin it is of co important not to make any grandiose conclusions Karagoz for 4th century Athens. And yet Plato's c it clear that at least something like it did exist in If this is true, then we may be in a better positio Plato chooses to represent this specific form of what is purported to be a parable of the effects of mind rather than a generic reference to theatrical Plato's sole point in the cave parable were th mistake images for reality, then surely even bette shadows would do. It would even be preferab skiagraphia and other illusory forms of painti often does, to register his complaints about th shadows and inherent inaccuracy of perspective. Aristophanes provides corroborating evidence f something like the Karagoz theater is at play the cave. For Aristophanic theather reflects the v tone of Karagoz-like comedy. To be sure, the o comedy are obscure, but the resemblence betwe know of the merry-making tradition of the Mega S8 Myrsiades, p. 26. '9 R. 586b-c; Tht. 208e; Prm. 165c; L. 663c; Phd. 69b, e.g. For of skiagraphia, and Greek attitudes toward shadow painting, se This content downloaded from 141.2.140.67 on Mon, 24 Jun 2019 00:02:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 124 ASLI GOCER and puppeteering is strikin Aristophanic comedy is an a and the that of the proto-K the Karagoz finds its exp Aristophanic burlesque. Eve seems to mimic some of th associated with the professional thaumatopoioi. For he assimilates into his comedies the very routine of the Karagoz puppeteers: puns, dialect, slapstick, taboo subjects, and fantastic grotesquerie. His characters, very much in the tradition of Karagoz performances, are often vicious, always foolish, and never restrained. The language is, as it is in the Karagoz tradition, bawdy and frequently obscene. Aristophanic theater like the Karagoz style puppet theater involves the profoundly banal. Indeed the most important idea Aristophanes appropriates from this tradition is this: No matter how trivial, base, or inane the topic, what provokes laughter is what governs comedy. We are also well versed in Plato's complex attitude toward Aristophanes consistingof antagonism toward his comedy and admiration toward the man. Both in the form of certain kind of puppet theater and in the spirit of Aristophanic theater, it is safe to suggest that at the time Plato was composing the Republic there existed in Athens a comic tradition that thrived on belly laughter. This important historical fact may show that Plato is not only making metaphysical points about shadows and puppets in his parable of the cave, but taking on an entire culture of comedy. Plato's attitude towards puppets is characteristically complex and at times self-conflicting. On the one hand, he worries about "tricksterism" and spell-making of the puppeteers (R. 364c), and declares illegal any kind of image magic through the use of puppets (L. 933b); an the other, he thinks that we are nothing but puppets ourselves in the hands of god (L. 644e; cf. Sph. 266b). The implications of this theology are too wide to be considered here. The point is rather that the puppet image looms large in Platonic 20 For competing theories on the origins of Old Comedy and Aristophanic theater, see McLeish, p. 50-54 and p. 93-108. 21 Whitman, p. 291. 22 For his argument that Old Comedy starts with Aristophanes, see Cartledge, p. 12-15. For an analysis of Aristophanic mockery of Platonic ideals, see. For a discussion of Platonic mockery of Aristophanic ideals, see David, p. 21-29. For an analysis of dueling utopias of Plato and Aristophanes, see Smith. This content downloaded from 141.2.140.67 on Mon, 24 Jun 2019 00:02:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms PLATO'S PARABLE OF THE CAVE 125 metaphysics, and for that reason in the entir Similarly, his references to shadows in other c his image metaphysics. The most famous exampl the term 'shadow' performs can be found in h that the less real an entity the more shadow more you know the better you will be able to shadow (R. 520c, e.g.). Plato's entire philos consists, therefore, of terms pertaining to puppe However important puppets and shadows are to his metaphysics, Plato's reference to the puppet theater in the cave must nevertheless be re-evaluated in connection with the repeated distinction he draws between seriousness and laughter. For Plato's specific criticism is not that we might be fooled by the illusion of puppetry, but that we might be tempted to laugh, and importantly, laugh at nonsense. In a remarkable passage, Plato considers the following thought experiment in the Laws (658b-c): What if, he asks, whatever gave pleasure could be allowed to compete in dramatic contests? Plato imagines that people would enter not only epic poetry and lyric songs, but tragedy and comedy as well hoping to win this pleasure contest. But "it will be no surprise if somebody even reckons his best chance of winning lies in putting an a puppet show [thaumata epideiknus]" (L. 658c2-3). A question is posed: who deserves to win such a contest? Plato's answer is telling. He writes that infants [ta smikra] will think it is the puppeteer who is deserving of the first prize, while older children will pick the comedian (L. 658c9-d3). Young men and ladies of taste will go for tragedians, but older men will prefer epic poetry (L. 658d8-9). Notable here is the fact that for Plato it is the infants who will pick the puppet show, for they are the slaves of easy laughter. We all know about Plato's dislike of violent laughter. "We mustn't be lovers of laughter," Plato famously writes, "for whenever anyone indulges in violent laughter, a violent change of mood is likely to follow... Then, if someone represents worthwhile people as overcome by laughter, we won't approve" (R. 388e4-5, 606c; cf. L. 732c-d). While it is true that violent laughter was considered undignified in general, Plato's reasons seem to go beyond mere convention. As I will discuss below, they lie in his aversion to change, both for psychological and metaphysical reasons. So stark is his aversion to laughter that Plato is unabashedly declares the object of comic laughter to be a form of evil (Phlb. 48cl, 49dll-e4). The nature of the laughable [to geloion], Plato contends, lies in malice, for only a malicious person derives pleasure from watching This content downloaded from 141.2.140.67 on Mon, 24 Jun 2019 00:02:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 126 ASLI GOCER misfortune, deformity, w children are ignorant of th souls, they This is nature must be prevente because, "imitations and settle in to habi 395d1-3; cf. 404e). The metaphysical and psychological underpinnings at work here are complex, but they are intimately connected. The metaphysical reasons pertain to Plato's general commitment to permanence and stability. "The best things are least liable to alteration or change," it is famously said in the Republic (380e4). "Whatever is in good condition, whether by nature or craft or both, admits least of being changed by anything else (R. 381bl2). Laughter implies not only a physical change in the human body but a psychological transformation as well. Both kinds of change undermine Plato's project for becoming like the unchanging and serene Forms, an analysis I cannot provide here.23 There is also a theological subtext to aversion to change as well. Plato discusses god as being in an utterly serene condition, in a state between excess of pleasure and pain (L. 792e, 732b; cf. R. 381c; Stm. 269e). God is said to be not subject to the kinds of upheavals brought about by laughter (R. 375c, 410d, e.g.). As such god is the ultimate model (L. 716d, 803c; Tht. 176a; Stm. 274e; Prt. 326d). All legislation that pertains to art, education, city administration is24 based an this, what Plato takes to be the goal of becoming god-like. Plato is especially anxious, however, for the long-term psychological consequences of laughter. As the discussion in Philebus 48d-50d shows, the main worry is that the innocent laughter here and there creates and feeds false pleasures. Continued practice of deriving false pleasures, however, will result in devastating cognitive mistakes that will ultimately cost the person the harmony of his psyche. In order to do justice to this topic, we must investigate Plato's theory of pleasure, which we cannot do here. Let us also leave aside the question of whether Plato is mistaken about the psychological harms of laughter. Suffice to point out for our purposes that Plato objects not only to art forms that provokes 25 laughter but also the representation of laughter in art. It would be a grave transgression, Plato says, to represent whether in pictures, buildings, or any other works, images of drunkenness and 23 For a defense of this point, see Gocer (1999). 24 See Gocer (1998). 25 R. 389a rejects Illiad 1.599-600 for this reason. This content downloaded from 141.2.140.67 on Mon, 24 Jun 2019 00:02:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms PLATO'S PARABLE OF THE CAVE 127 laughter, and characters that are vicious, unre and graceless (R. 401b; 403e; L. 637b). Use of pro representation of profane language are also objecte grounds. For Plato art that depicts such thing amusement. As such, it feeds the childish side o enjoys profanity and obscenity, and is amused perversion. This is why for Plato art that appeals puppet theater, is utterly devoid of psychologic lacks moral purpose. He says, "it is because t weakness in our nature that tromp l'oeil paint conjuring [thaumatopoiia], and other forms of tric that are short of magical" (R. 602d). And precise power that Plato thinks that the kind of nonsen laugh like children is to be excluded from good soci Plato's famous worry is that the majority is c like children most people judge anything on basis and primal pleasure it brings about. Certainly t thinks that puppet theater is good simply beca laugh. Plato finds the idea laughable itself that can truly judge, art or anything else for that matt his view what is truly laughable are a host of should in fact leave us crying, a law that does natural law, for instance, (Stm. 296a) or a sophi distinctions in words instead of investigating how 278b). Frivolity and nonsense are exactly the ki modes that Plato worries will lead to instabilit psychological damage. The reason some kinds excluded from the republic-included in those a puppeteering-is that they fail to be the right citizens to emulate. The picture Plato presents stark, and strikingly modern. Like Plato we too se the weak sides of the psyche binged an mere a diversion, the person would become like the le imitating, and thus cease to function as a full hum the rating systems for cinema and television and s we appear to share with Plato, the person w passing time with trifling amusement will lose his an account of overfeeding the wrong sorts of desi end will warp his relationship to reality. And largely made up of emotional quasimodos such as t amusement to enlightenment, Plato worries (and our arguments for artistic freedom), justice This content downloaded from 141.2.140.67 on Mon, 24 Jun 2019 00:02:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 128 ASLI GOCER impossibility. Platonic alarmi the fact that he takes as give such entertainment threatens If what I propose about the is anywhere near the mark cave parable is a brilliant tour de force. This analogy is thoroughly consistent with Plato's general criticism of popular art, which in his view brings about psychological disaster to the individual soul and political damage to the city. It is also consistent with his metaphysical project of showing that the majority think that what they see is real. Moreover, with this example Plato highlights once again the cognitive inconsequentiality of comedy, and especially the kind exemplified by Aristophanes. His discussion shows once again the deep divide that exists between what he considers the truly laughable and serious and the popular opinion. In this sense, the puppet theater is a splendid example, consistent with his metaphysical, psychological, and political doctrines that underlie his criticism of art in the Corpus, of the multiple layers in Plato's parable. I conclude this paper venturing one other suggestion. If the analysis above is true, then perhaps it is better to think of Plato's criticism of mimesis not as a sweeping condemnation of all such activity but rather a censure of certain specific artistic endeavor. If Plato's disdain for the puppet theater is indeed explained at least in part by his aversion for the psychological and moral deformity caused by childishness and boorish laughter, perhaps his criticism of mimetic activity is targeted to particular forms of art rather than a general denunciation of all artistic activity, as it has been traditionally supposed. But that is for another project. ASLI GOCER University of Toronto BIBLIOGRAPHY And, Metin. 1975. Karagoz: Turkish Shadow Theater. Ankara. Annas, Julia. 1981. An Introduction to Plato's Republic. Oxford. Bieber, Margarete. 1938. The History of Greek and Roman Theater. Pr Bloom, Allan. 1968. The Republic of Plato. New York. Bury, R. G., trans., 1926. The Laws. Cambridge, Massachusetts. This content downloaded from 141.2.140.67 on Mon, 24 Jun 2019 00:02:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms PLATO'S PARABLE OF THE CAVE 129 Cartledge, Paul. 1990. Aristophanes and His Theater of Cooper, John, ed. 1997. Plato: Complete Works. Indiana Cornford, F.M. 1941. The Republic of Plato. London. David, E. 1984. Aristophanes and Athenian Society Century B.C. Leiden. Dies, A. 1937. Bulletin de l'Assocation Guillaume Bude Dodds, E.R. 1951. Greeks and the Irrational. Berkeley. Ettinghausen, Richard. 1934. "Early Shadow Figu American Institute for Persian Art and Archeology 6: Gocer, Asli. 1999. "Hesuchia, A Metaphysical Princ Psychology." J. Annas, McPherran, eds. New Metaphysics and Epistemology. Apeiron 33 (forthcom -----. 1998. "The Theological Basis of Plato's Criticism o to Icons. The Southern Journal of Philosophy 36.3: 3 Guthrie, W.K.C. 1975. History of Greek Philosophy. V Man and his Dialogues: Earlier Period. Cambridge. Jurkowski, Henryk. 1996. A History of European Pupp Keuls, Eva C. 1978. Plato and Greek Painting. Leiden. McLeish, Kenneth. 1981. The Theatre of Aristophanes. Myrsiades, Linda S. and Myrsiades, Kostas. 1992. Ka Comedy in Greek Puppet Theater. Lexington. Nehamas, Alexander. 1988. "Plato and the Mass Media." The Monist 71: 214-34. Nicoll, Allardyce. 1931. Masks, Mimes, and Miracles: Studies in Popular Theater. London and New York. Pryzluski, Jean. 1938. "La theatre d'ombres et la caverne de Platon." Byzantion XIII: 595-603. Ritter, Hermann. 1903. Der Mimus, ein literarentwick-lu ngsgeschischtlicher Versuch I. Berlin. Shershow, Scott C. 1995. Puppets and "Popular" Culture. Ithaca. Shorey, Paul, trans. 1935. The Republic in Two Volumes. Volume II. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Smith, Nicholas D. 1992. "Political Activity and Ideal Economics: Two Related Utopian Themes in Aristophanic Comedy," Utopian Studies 3.1: 84-94. Siyavusgil, Sabri Esat. 1961. Karagoz. Istanbul. Tietze, Andreas. 1977. The Turkish Shadow Theater. Berlin. Waterfield, Robin. 1993. Republic. Oxford. Whitman, Cedric H. 1964. Aristophanes and the Comic Hero. Cambridge. This content downloaded from 141.2.140.67 on Mon, 24 Jun 2019 00:02:32 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
