puppet theater in plato's cave

The Classical Association of the Middle West and South is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toThe Classical Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

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. 119-129Published by: The Classical Association of the Middle West and SouthStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3298308Accessed: 25-08-2015 20:17 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

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 [email protected].

This content downloaded from 66.171.203.117 on Tue, 25 Aug 2015 20:17:59 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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


120 ASLI GOCER

suppose this is the case. In what follows, I shall offer some suggestions an the shadow puppet theater I think to which Plato likens the activity in the cave; my assumption is that if we can get clear on the kind of art form Plato has in mind, we might be able to make better sense of the meaning of the parable.

Why the reference to thaumatopoioi has failed to grip the interest of commentators is a question that falls outside the concerns of this paper. Suffice to note, however, that interpretations of the parable mainly focus on the meaning of the ascent out of the cave, and produce non-complimentary conclusions. F.M. Comford famously sees the story of the cave as a religious parable, for instance, that refers to the sacred initiation rites of the Mysteries.2 On his view, the ascent out of the cave points to the Orphic doctrine of releasing the mind from the prison of the body.3 Arguing against the religious interpretation Julia Annas takes a decidedly secular route to the meaning of this parable and treats the ascent as a symbol of intellectual enlightenment, in particular, the power of philosophy.4 Alan Bloom argues for a different conclusion entirely, and alleges that this is a political parable in essence. His interpretation treats the artifacts as representing the mental impressions of prisoners, and their carriers the manipulators of thoughts. If this is true, Bloom argues, then the release represents a freeing of the mind from mob thinking that is molded by politicians.5 In addition to the religious, intellectual, and political interpretations, some attempts have been made to draw parallels between the effects of the shadows in the cave and cinema or television in contemporary setting.6 Finally, Scott Shershow has recently argued that the meaning of the parable is hidden in Plato's metaphysics. On his view, the puppets reflect Plato's disdain both for the ontological "lowness" of artifacts in his metaphysical hierarchy and the aesthetic "lowness" of puppetry in the cultural milieu of Athens.7 Surprisingly, however, little effort has been made to determine the precise form of art referred to

2 Cornford, p. 227. 3 While agreeing on the religious nature of the image, other scholars differ on

what religious tradition it depicts. For a discussion of Orphism in the image, see Guthrie, p. 518; others suggest Parmenidean roots, Ferguson, p. 191-193, e.g.

4 Annas, p.253-257. 5 Bloom, p. 404-405; Waterfield, p. 424 agrees with the essentially political nature

of the fable. 6 Most recently by Nehamas, p. 230-234. 7 Shershow, p. 16-19.


PLATO'S PARABLE OF THE CAVE 121

in the image.8 The significance of the reference lies not just in the metaphysics of shadows but more importantly in the aesthetic (thus ethical) triviality of this kind of theater for Plato.9 I also want to suggest that Plato's choice of shadow puppet theater heralds more than his now notorious attack on art, because it singles out a peculiar form of comedy that embodies the burlesque, the vulgar, fantasy, and satire. In addition to being popular entertainment, therefore, I suggest that the puppet theater in the cave must be evaluated as a certain comedic performance-the kind most memorably represented by Aristophanic theater.

Let us turn, then, to exploring the comedic character of the shadow puppet theater, which was appropriated by Aristophanes. Although there is little doubt that they were familiar with it, no

one knows exactly whence puppet theater came to the Ancient Greeks. There is some suggestion that it was in the 4th century B.C. that a group of popular entertainers arrived in Athens from the Dorian Megara by way of Sicily and ushered in a new tradition of popular entertainment. So hilarious was their routine that even a new phrase, "Megaran laughter," was coined to distinguish their comic performances from other merry-makers." Aristotle, Aristo- phanes and Xenophon all refer to them as thaumatopoioi.12 Though a generic term for a conjurer, it is clear that thaumatopoios came to be associated with a new style entertainer, which we might today call a street performer: mimic, acrobat, juggler, and more importantly, puppeteer. It is plausible that Plato has in mind such performers when he likens sophists and poets (Homer in particular) to thaumatopoioi, for he accuses them of caring only for amusement and entertainment rather than provoking thought and reflection (Sph. 265c ff.; R. 602c; L. 663c.). Time and again, Plato compares the thaumatopoioi to visual artists as well, who are depicted as charming their viewers as the puppeteers do their audiences (Phdr.

8 Except for a brief speculation by Guthrie, p. 518. Guthrie fails to note,

however, that there is no shadow theater per se in the cave; there only is an analogy to such a performance.

9 For Plato there is no distinction between the beautiful and the good (Cr. 48b, e.g.); I cannot analyse the point here.

10 The date is said to be around, 480 B.C., see Nicoll, p. 20. The publication of the Republic is guessed between 380 and 370 BC; see Shorey (vol.I), p. xxv.

1 Presumably, a belly laughter, Nicole, p. 20 12 Aristotle, Poetics iii 1448a; Nichomachean Ethics iv.2; cf. Aristophanes, Wasps 56-

60. Xenophon, Symposium iv. 55. For discussion on Corinth vases displaying scenes involving thaumotopoioi in a puppet show, see Nicoll, p. 20-135; cf. Bieber, p. 106.


122 ASLI GOCER

260d, Euth. 305b, G. 518b; Sph. 224e). There is also good reason to suppose that Plato was familiar with Egyptian hieratic puppets 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.



and thoughts of revenge against those who wrong him. He does not have a fixed set of social views, and his morality changes according to the changes in his environment. Other figures in the troupe are either vulgar braggarts, obsequious weaklings, foolish old men, incompetent doctors, cruel authority figures, and sexually loose and quarrelsome women. The Karagoz "plays" mostly consist of improvised buffoonery by these types. It can be classified as satire as a genre, one which involves satirizing anything and everything. The main charge against this tradition is in fact that it is entirely without moral purpose or dramatic plot, and that it is coarse in exploiting human defects and peculiarities for the purposes of satiric entertainment. The tone is sometimes political, but often wacky and contemptuous of all established customs. The puppet theater that falls out of the Karagoz tradition is entertainment for the masses, which consists of shadows of puppets engaged in verbal jousting, singing, and dancing. Precisely for its outrageous humor and miscellaneous spoofs that Karagoz is also the embodiment of the ancient Greek comic spirit.

Given how little we know of its origin it is of course exceedingly important not to make any grandiose conclusions about the modem Karagoz for 4th century Athens. And yet Plato's comparison makes it clear that at least something like it did exist in Ancient Athens. If this is true, then we may be in a better position to explain why Plato chooses to represent this specific form of theater in this, what is purported to be a parable of the effects of education on the mind rather than a generic reference to theatrical performance. If Plato's sole point in the cave parable were that it is easy to mistake images for reality, then surely even better examples than shadows would do. It would even be preferable to refer to skiagraphia and other illusory forms of painting, which Plato often does, to register his complaints about the deceitfulness of shadows and inherent inaccuracy of perspective.19 The comedy of Aristophanes provides corroborating evidence for my thesis that something like the Karagoz theater is at play in the analogy of the cave. For Aristophanic theather reflects the very attitude and tone of Karagoz-like comedy. To be sure, the origins of Attic comedy are obscure, but the resemblence between it and what we know of the merry-making tradition of the Megarian mimic drama

S8 Myrsiades, p. 26. '9 R. 586b-c; Tht. 208e; Prm. 165c; L. 663c; Phd. 69b, e.g. For the nature and origin

of skiagraphia, and Greek attitudes toward shadow painting, see Keuls, Ch. 4.


124 ASLI GOCER

and puppeteering is striking." Nor is it a stretch to suggest that Aristophanic comedy is an amalgamation of the Megaran laughter and the that of the proto-Karagoz puppetry.2 The comic spirit of the Karagoz finds its expression most particularly in the Aristophanic burlesque. Even while satirizing them Aristophanes seems to mimic some of the methods of satire and buffoonery 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.



metaphysics, and for that reason in the entire Platonic Corpus. Similarly, his references to shadows in other contexts underscore his image metaphysics. The most famous example of the dual work the term 'shadow' performs can be found in his repeated doctrine that the less real an entity the more shadow-like it is, and the more you know the better you will be able to discern shadow as shadow (R. 520c, e.g.). Plato's entire philosophical thesaurus consists, therefore, of terms pertaining to puppets and shadows.

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


126 ASLI GOCER

misfortune, deformity, weakness, and so on (Phlb. 48b). While children are ignorant of the effects of natural malice upon their souls, they must be prevented from laughing or viewing laughter. This is because, "imitations practiced from youth become part of nature and settle in to habits of gesture, voice, and thought" (R. 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. 381bl- 2). 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 is based an this,

24 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.



laughter, and characters that are vicious, unrestrained, slavish, and graceless (R. 401b; 403e; L. 637b). Use of profane language and representation of profane language are also objected to an the same grounds. For Plato art that depicts such things aims merely at amusement. As such, it feeds the childish side of our psyche that enjoys profanity and obscenity, and is amused by depravity and perversion. This is why for Plato art that appeals to children, like puppet theater, is utterly devoid of psychological value and hence lacks moral purpose. He says, "it is because they exploit this weakness in our nature that tromp l'oeil painting [skiagraphia], conjuring [thaumatopoiia], and other forms of trickery have powers that are short of magical" (R. 602d). And precisely because of this power that Plato thinks that the kind of nonsense that makes us laugh like children is to be excluded from good society.

Plato's famous worry is that the majority is childlike, because like children most people judge anything on basis of the immediate and primal pleasure it brings about. Certainly the common man thinks that puppet theater is good simply because it makes him laugh. Plato finds the idea laughable itself that the common man can truly judge, art or anything else for that matter (cf. L. 670b). In his view what is truly laughable are a host of practices which should in fact leave us crying, a law that does not reflect the natural law, for instance, (Stm. 296a) or a sophist who engages in distinctions in words instead of investigating how things are (Euth. 278b). Frivolity and nonsense are exactly the kinds of cognitive modes that Plato worries will lead to instability and other such psychological damage. The reason some kinds of art are to be excluded from the republic-included in those are all forms of puppeteering-is that they fail to be the right models for the citizens to emulate. The picture Plato presents is indeed quite stark, and strikingly modern. Like Plato we too seem think that if the weak sides of the psyche binged an mere amusement and diversion, the person would become like the lesser things he is imitating, and thus cease to function as a full human being. Hence the rating systems for cinema and television and so on. On the view we appear to share with Plato, the person who is engaged in passing time with trifling amusement will lose his sense of balance an account of overfeeding the wrong sorts of desires, which in the end will warp his relationship to reality. And if society were largely made up of emotional quasimodos such as those who prefer amusement to enlightenment, Plato worries (and we agree despite our arguments for artistic freedom), justice would be an


128 ASLI GOCER

impossibility. Platonic alarmism about certain art consists, then, in the fact that he takes as given that exposure to and preference for such entertainment threatens to wear down the fabric of the polis.

If what I propose about the comic nature of the puppet theater is anywhere near the mark, Plato's choice of this art form in his 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. Princeton. Bloom, Allan. 1968. The Republic of Plato. New York. Bury, R. G., trans., 1926. The Laws. Cambridge, Massachusetts.



Cartledge, Paul. 1990. Aristophanes and His Theater of the Absurd. London. Cooper, John, ed. 1997. Plato: Complete Works. Indianapolis and Cambridge. Cornford, F.M. 1941. The Republic of Plato. London. David, E. 1984. Aristophanes and Athenian Society of the Early Fourth

Century B.C. Leiden. Dies, A. 1937. Bulletin de l'Assocation Guillaume Bude. April: 45-46. Dodds, E.R. 1951. Greeks and the Irrational. Berkeley. Ettinghausen, Richard. 1934. "Early Shadow Figures." Bulletin of the

American Institute for Persian Art and Archeology 6: 10-15. Gocer, Asli. 1999. "Hesuchia, A Metaphysical Principle in Plato's Moral

Psychology." J. Annas, McPherran, eds. New Essays on Plato's Metaphysics and Epistemology. Apeiron 33 (forthcoming).

-----. 1998. "The Theological Basis of Plato's Criticism of Art with Reference to Icons. The Southern Journal of Philosophy 36.3: 353-365.

Guthrie, W.K.C. 1975. History of Greek Philosophy. Volume IV: Plato, the Man and his Dialogues: Earlier Period. Cambridge.

Jurkowski, Henryk. 1996. A History of European Puppetry. New York. Keuls, Eva C. 1978. Plato and Greek Painting. Leiden. McLeish, Kenneth. 1981. The Theatre of Aristophanes. London. Myrsiades, Linda S. and Myrsiades, Kostas. 1992. Karagiozias: Culture and

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.


Article Contentsp. [119]p. 120p. 121p. 122p. 123p. 124p. 125p. 126p. 127p. 128p. 129

Issue Table of ContentsClassical Journal, Vol. 95, No. 2 (Dec., 1999 - Jan., 2000), pp. 103-204Front Matter [pp. 130-162]Staring at the Pun: "Aeneid" 4.435-36 Reconsidered [pp. 103-118]The Puppet Theater in Plato's Parable of the Cave [pp. 119-129]On Catullus 49 [pp. 131-138] : The Athenians and Time in Aeschylus' "Eumenides" [pp. 139-161]The ForumPerforming Cicero in the Classroom [pp. 163-172]Teaching Latin Word Order for Reading Competence [pp. 173-180]

Book ReviewsReview: untitled [pp. 183-186]Review: untitled [pp. 186-189]Review: untitled [pp. 189-191]Review: untitled [pp. 192-194]Review: untitled [pp. 194-196]Review: untitled [pp. 197-199]

Books Received [pp. 201-203]Back Matter [pp. 181-204]

puppet theater in plato's cave

Documents