Books by Andrea Capra
Introduction
Andrea Capra
Part I: Comedy in the Elenctic Dialogues
i. Comedy and Laug... more Introduction
Andrea Capra
Part I: Comedy in the Elenctic Dialogues
i. Comedy and Laughter in Plato’s Early Dialogues
Edith Hall
ii. The Cook, the Relish-Maker, and the Philosopher
Kathryn Morgan
iii. Flatterers and Philosophers: On the ‘Pleasure Principle’
of the Protagoras
William Strigel
iv. The Mask of ‘Socrates’: Metatheatrical Comedy and
Self-Knowledge in Hippias Major
Sonja Tanner
v. Platonicomic Business: Comedy and Platonic Theatre
In Theages
Sarah Miles
Part II: Comedy in the Transitional Dialogues
vi. Comedy in the Shadow of Death: Plato’s Menexenus
Andrea Capra
vii. The Deadly Play of Plato’s Euthydemus
Gwenda-Lin Grewal
viii. Plato and the Philosophical Art of Mockery
Pierre Destrée
Part III: Comedy in the ‘Middle’ Dialogues
ix. Plato’s Use of Parody
Franco V. Trivigno
x. The Comic Worldview: Plato’s Symposium 189c ff.
Anthony Hooper
xi. Plato and the Discourse of Humour in Republic 10
Richard Hunter
xii. Aristophanic Utopia s and Plato’s Kallipolis
Michele Corradi
xiii. The Last Laugh: Plato and the Comedy of Death
Gabriele Cornelli
The book addresses the impact of post-truth politics, the new nationalisms, and gender inequality... more The book addresses the impact of post-truth politics, the new nationalisms, and gender inequality on the practice of scholarship, taking inspiration from an unlikely find: a tale posing as the work of the imaginary ancient author Aristaeus of Megara, but actually written by the Neapolitan revolutionary and classical scholar Luigi Settembrini (1813–76). The Neoplatonists, a joyous and explicit tale of love between men, as well as between men and women, long remained censored and unpublished to protect the reputation of Settembrini, a founding father of the Italian nation. Offering the first English translation, the book sets this tale in dialogue with Settembrini’s incomplete Memoirs, his Dialogue on Women, his translation of Lucian (written while serving a life sentence in an infamous island prison), his political pamphlets, and several unpublished materials, written by both Settembrini and his wife, the indomitable Gigia Faucitano. Through their historical and literary analysis the book demonstrates the revolutionary and reparative potential of classical scholarship, arguing that a commitment to social justice and an investment in classical antiquity can—and even should—be rooted in an egalitarian practice of love. Classics, Love, Revolution: The Legacies of Luigi Settembrini demands a reassessment of the history of Italian sexuality, revolutionary thinking, and classical scholarship—while telling an adventurous story of love and resilience along the way.
Intertextuality is a well-known tool in literary criticism and has been widely applied to ancient... more Intertextuality is a well-known tool in literary criticism and has been widely applied to ancient literature, with, perhaps surprisingly, classical scholarship being at the frontline in developing new theoretical approaches. By contrast, the seemingly parallel notion of intervisuality has only recently begun to appear in classical studies. In fact, intervisuality still lacks a clear definition and scope. Unlike intertextuality, which is consistently used with reference to the interrelationship between texts, the term ‘intervisuality’ is used not only to trace the interrelationship between images in the visual domain, but also to explore the complex interplay between the visual and the verbal. It is precisely this hybridity that interests us. Intervisuality has proved extremely productive in fields such as art history and visual culture studies. By bringing together a diverse team of scholars, this project aims to bring intervisuality into sharper focus and turn it into a powerful tool to explore the research field traditionally referred to as ‘Greek literature’.
The aim of the book is to reconstruct Plato’s self-portrait as an author through a fresh reading ... more The aim of the book is to reconstruct Plato’s self-portrait as an author through a fresh reading of the Phaedrus, with an Introduction and Conclusion that contextualize the construction more broadly. The Phaedrus is Plato’s most self-referential dialogue, as I argue on the basis of largely neglected data, both internal and external. I take my cue from Plato’s reference to four Muses in Phaedrus 259c-d (Terpsichore, Erato, and the couple Ourania and Calliope), which I read as a hint at the “ingredients” of philosophical discourse. Plato’s dialogues—and this is the book’s main contribution to the field of Hellenic Studies—turn out to be, among other things, a form of provocatively old-fashioned mousikê.
My Introduction steers clear of the usual question “why did Plato write (dialogues).” More radically, I ask what is a Platonic dialogue. My starting point is Plato’s “self-disclosures,” that is those passages where he implicitly refers to his dialogues as poetry and music. Such “self-disclosures” have been partially studied by Konrad Gaiser, Stephen Halliwell, and others. The Introduction, together with the Appendix, aims to provide the most complete discussion of this aspect so far and to pave the way for my reading of the Phaedrus, where I detect a new set of powerful “self-disclosures.” In order to introduce the reader to the Phaedrus, I also provide some general background for its interpretation and new evidence on its self-referential character.
Chapter 1, “Terpsichore,” argues that the first half of the Phaedrus is also a consistent re-enacting of Stesichorus’ Helen poem and, more specifically, of its performance, as I demonstrate by discussing unexplored linguistic, philological, and metrical data. By appropriating Stesichorus, who was highly valued by Plato’s Pythagorean friends, Plato builds on the opposition between Stesichorus and Homer, and thus conceptualizes philosophy as a topical or flexible discourse as opposed to “rhapsodic,” or crystallized, rhetoric. In this formulation, philosophical discourse is unique in its capacity to adjust itself “musically” to the needs of different listeners.
Chapter 2, “Erato,” focuses on Helen. I argue that, in his great speech, Socrates reproduces the quadripartite structure of Gorgias’ Encomium and also toys with Isocrates’ Helen. Both works allude to Sappho 16 Voigt, and so does Plato, who makes Helen’s presence felt through the Phaedrus’ plane-tree, which refers to the arboreal cult of Helen. The as yet unnoticed reworking of 16 Voigt is integral to Plato’s definition of philosophy as eroticized rhetoric. Plato inherits from Sappho a notion of erotic oblivion: lyric eros proves crucial for severing the ties that bind us to the sensible world, and for sparking the process of recollection. Plato’s recollection, however, differs markedly from Sappho’s in that it uncovers the general as opposed to the particular.
Chapter 3, “Ourania and Calliope,” takes its cue from Ion’s magnet simile. My argument in this case is that the image applies equally well to philosophy, which the Phaedrus specifically assigns to the two Muses. Sokratikoi logoi take the form of an oral chain of accounts, whereby the human “rings” experience precisely the same symptoms as Ion and his audience. This, once again, points to philosophy as inspired mousikê as against uninspired rhetoric. Philosophy, however, distances itself from epic rhapsodies in that the rings are vigilant and active. Similarly, the story of the cicadas is Plato’s re-enacting of a common myth, i.e. the poet’s initiation as a result of the Muses’ epiphany in the country (cf. Hesiod, Archilochus, Epimenides). Again, deviations from the pattern are the code Plato uses to highlight the special status of his own production, which is, among other things, rationally vigilant and intrinsically dialogic (hence two Muses).
Chapter 4, “The Muses and the tree,” begins with a new interpretation of Socrates’ prayer to Pan in the light of poetic initiation: in fact, Socrates invokes a poetic license and hints at the possibility of heroization. Comparison with similar stories of heroism in fieri (especially Posidippus) and with the relevant honors (I compare Socrates’ statue in the Academy’s mouseion with that of other poet-heroes) allows one to interpret the passage in the light of the cult of Socrates, as developed in the Academy from the fourth century onwards. The setting of the Phaedrus, I argue, prefigures both the cult of Socrates in the Academy, where he was worshipped as a logos-inspirer (i.e. a quasi-poet) and that of Plato, the writer (and quasi-poet too) who constantly disavowed authorship. In other words, the Phaedrus provides an aition for the foundation of Plato’s Academy.
In my Conclusion I argue that Plato’s return to mousikê, a recurring theme in a number of dialogues, amounts to a self-conscious paradox, which I construe to be the hallmark of Plato as author. I conclude with Socrates’ conversion to “demotic” as opposed to metaphorical music in the Phaedo, which, I maintain, closely parallels the Phaedrus and is apologetic in character, since Socrates was held responsible for dismissing traditional mousikê. This parallelism reveals three surprising features that define Plato’s works: firstly, a measure of anti-intellectualism (Plato “musicalizes” philosophy so as to counter the rationalistic excesses of other forms of discourse, thus distinguishing it from prose as well as from poetry); secondly, a new beginning for philosophy (Plato conceptualizes the birth of Socratic dialogue in, and against, the Pythagorean tradition of the birth of philosophy, with an emphasis on the new role of writing); thirdly, a self-consciously ambivalent attitude with respect to the social function of the dialogues, which are conceived both as a kind of “resistance literature” and as a preliminary move towards the new poetry to be performed in the Kallipolis.
While encompassing a wide range of subjects, the commentary is designed to integrate those by Uss... more While encompassing a wide range of subjects, the commentary is designed to integrate those by Ussher, Vetta and Sommerstein through a more specific focus on performance issues.
This book argues that the Protagoras revolves around a philosophical problem, namely the ultimate... more This book argues that the Protagoras revolves around a philosophical problem, namely the ultimate incompatibility between Protagoras’ relativism and Platonic dialectics. Socratic elenchus rests on two assumptions: the validity of the epistemological paradigm provided by technai and, from an ontological perspective, the existence of a rational relationship between ta onta. Whereas in Plato’s dialogues all other interlocutors implicitly concede these two points, which proves crucial for the way Socrates eventually refutes them, Protagoras explicitly denies both, thus taking the wind out of Socrates’ sails. This explains why the dialectic exchange between Socrates and Protagoras degenerates into an eristic contest, in which the consensus of the spectators proves crucial in determining who is the winner and Socrates and Protagoras end up exchanging positions. This dialogue of the deaf is the living embodiment of the problems Plato had in coming to terms with Protagoras’ positions: the Protagoras is in fact the dialectical and ‘performative’ counterpart of the Theaetetus, in which the same problems are analysed in a more theoretical perspective. In turn, eristics, though a trivial activity in the eyes of Plato, is something that the philosopher cannot steer clear of, insofar as it is his duty to return to the cave. The triviality of eristics, moreover, explains why Plato resorts to comedy in order to describe the duel and appropriates the literary form of the comic agon, with a number of remarkable echoes from the Clouds that may be construed as a structural and ultimately apologetic reversal: Plato’s Socrates undresses the Aristophanic part of the pointy-headed antagonist only to resemble Aristophanes’ positive heroes; conversely, Plato depicts Socrates in a way that calls to mind Aristophanes’ Socrates, thus having him dress the part of the villain. In sum, an insoluble philosophical problem, i.e. the irreducibility of Protagoras’ relativism, determines the peculiar form taken by dialectics in the Protagoras. This in turn is responsible for the peculiar literary form of the Protagoras.
The argument unfolds in reverse, i.e. it begins from the literary form. Thus, the book is divided into two parts, both centred on the notion of communication: the first one explores the way Plato addresses his audience over the heads of his character; the second one is devoted to the way Socrates addresses his interlocutors. The structure of the book, thus, reflects a hermeneutical distinction that is crucial for a correct understanding of the dialogue (the Premise is in fact intended as a chapter in Platonic hermeneutics). The first part of the book discusses the peculiar literary form Plato adopts in order to describe the duel between Socrates and Protagoras, whereas the second part revolves on the dialectical method of Socrates and his interlocutor as well as on the philosophical problems that are responsible for the peculiar dialectics and literary form of the Protagoras.
Books (popular) by Andrea Capra
Per secoli, le tracce di amore queer nel mondo antico sono state dimenticate o rimosse. Persino o... more Per secoli, le tracce di amore queer nel mondo antico sono state dimenticate o rimosse. Persino oggi, solo poche testimonianze sono ricordate: l’amore selvaggio tra Achille e Patroclo, quello doloroso che traspare dai testi di Saffo e i tre generi introdotti dal Simposio di Platone. Eppure, esiste una ricca tradizione letteraria degli amori queer di epoche greca e latina che vanno ben oltre le pruriginose traduzioni di poche opere note. In “300.000 baci” il premiato poeta Seán Hewitt e l’illustre artista Luke Edward Hall raccolgono una grande quantità di storie, comprese alcune delle più belle e toccanti del canone classico, riportandole in vita. Accanto ai celebrati versi di Omero, Saffo, Ovidio e Catullo, si svela una vasta gamma di opere raramente riportate nelle antologie: poemi erotici, dialoghi intensi, dissertazioni filosofiche e persino il testo di un graffito salvato dalle rovine di Pompei. Grazie alla sensibilità letteraria di Hewitt e le vivide illustrazioni di Hall, scopriamo relazioni che sono allo stesso tempo spirituali o lussuriose, tenere o crude, immortali o tormentate. Un’imperdibile antologia in grado di cambiare il nostro sguardo sul mondo antico, “300.00 baci” è un affascinante viaggio attraverso l’amore in tutte le sue forme.
Il libro consiste in una traduzione del Protagora con testo originale a fronte. Testo e traduzion... more Il libro consiste in una traduzione del Protagora con testo originale a fronte. Testo e traduzione sono preceduti da un'ampia introduzione, e il testo greco è corredato di note grammaticali. Seguono il testo una guida alla lettura articolata per segmenti di testo e una serie di approfondimenti su alcuni temi più specifici.
Organized conferences by Andrea Capra
Aristophanes by Andrea Capra
The present paper reinterprets Assemblywomen by providing a new reconstruction of the staging, wh... more The present paper reinterprets Assemblywomen by providing a new reconstruction of the staging, which results in a radically different understanding of both the plot and the “message” of the play. In terms of methodology, it is crucial to take into account a number of performative factors. In particular, this paper will focus on actors and performance as opposed to characters as literary constructions, with a view to removing modern prejudices that stem from a character-oriented tradition and perhaps from a latent anti-feminism. The result will be twofold: on one hand, in terms
of utopianism, it will become clear that Assemblywomen does not differ
significantly from its fifth-century counterparts, though it breaks new ground in recognizing the needs of diversified audiences; on the other, Assemblywomen will prove a remarkable example of experimentalism as regards formal structure and staging. The play’s innovations have eluded scholars, yet unraveling them is key to understanding its unrecognized coherence and, indeed, its profound continuity with Aristophanes’ earlier plays.
Socrates and the Socratics
In this paper I sketch what is in my view Aristophanes’ main contribution to the history of Socr... more In this paper I sketch what is in my view Aristophanes’ main contribution to the history of Socratism. Aristophanes, I argue, provided Socrates with a (literally) “iconic” status that proved a major influence for Socratic writers and for Plato in particular, to the extent that it would be hard to imagine Plato’s Socrates in the absence of Aristophanes’. In many ways, Socrates’ aspect, behavior, and even views as they appear in Socratic literature were ultimately shaped by Aristophanes’visual characterization.
Si propone qui un nuovo approccio a un luogo degli Acarnesi di Aristofane (v. 709). verosimilment... more Si propone qui un nuovo approccio a un luogo degli Acarnesi di Aristofane (v. 709). verosimilmente corrotto. La soluzione proposta, accettabile dal punto di vista paleografico, si raccomanda dal punto di vista dello stile di Aristofane, del contesto del passo e di un possibile rapporto intertestuale con Omero. Ne risulta fra l'altro una nuova interpretazione di uno snodo importante (vv. 702-712) della commedia.
Lessico del Comico, 2016
Fugace comparsa nei versi di Alceo e Teognide e, più tardi, in un episodio erodoteo, la personifi... more Fugace comparsa nei versi di Alceo e Teognide e, più tardi, in un episodio erodoteo, la personificazione di Povertà diviene personaggio a tutto tondo solo nel Pluto di Aristofane. Polo antitetico a quello intorno a cui muove il nucleo ideale della commedia – la diffusione egualitaria delle ricchezze – Penia risulta però particolarmente efficace dal punto di vista drammatico, ed è descritta con inedita dovizia di dettagli: livida, gialla e paurosa, come lo stato che rappresenta, ma straordinariamente eloquente, Povertà riuscirà a mettere in dubbio l’intrinseca bontà del progetto comico persino di fronte a coloro che ne sono stati i principali fautori.
A interessare gli eruditi antichi e gli studiosi di oggi è in particolare il paragone, proposto dal personaggio Blespidemo, tra Penia e “un’Erinni da tragedia” (v.423): Aristofane mette dunque in atto – come indicano già gli scoli – una parodia delle Eumenidi di Eschilo? Non è certo privo di rilevanza il gioco di rispecchiamento tra i due generi: Povertà ha uno sguardo “tragico e folle” (v. 424) e parla in uno stile elevato e ricco di citazioni (di cui già Tzetzes rintraccia la matrice euripidea). Ma più che a una puntuale lettura paratragica, si deve pensare – così suggerisce, per esempio, Sommerstein – alla riproposizione in chiave comica di un fortunato cliché tragico, che ha il suo archetipo nella antica tragedia eschilea (458 a. C.) ma che doveva essere ben noto, per successive riprese, anche agli spettatori del Pluto (388 a.C.). Penia rappresenta dunque un personaggio mostruoso, tragico, serio, e del tutto incompatibile con il mondo della commedia: per questo motivo sarà bruscamente scacciata dal protagonista.
Una ulteriore riprova della forza drammatica di Penia è la sua fortuna negli allestimenti contemporanei: contrariamente a quello che accade ad altri disturbatori, eliminati o fortemente rivisti nelle diverse riletture registiche, Povertà non manca mai in scena e diviene non di rado un personaggio chiave (così nell’allestimento di Massimo Popolizio), specialmente nelle messinscene poco orientate al disimpegno, che marcano zone d’ombra e inquietudini del testo aristofaneo.
Al di fuori della commedia, la personificazione di Povertà farà la sua comparsa in Teocrito, Plutarco, Luciano e Alcifrone; ma il caso più interessante è senza dubbio rappresentato dal Simposio di Platone, opera che viene composta, probabilmente, pochi anni dopo la rappresentazione del Pluto. Penia si accompagna qui non a Pluto ma a Poros; e la raffinatezza del filosofo nel coniugare l’astratto della personificazione e il concreto del personaggio non può che far pensare al modello aristofaneo e alla commedia antica.
In the Symposium, Alcibiades famously compares Socrates to a Silenus statuette that, once opened,... more In the Symposium, Alcibiades famously compares Socrates to a Silenus statuette that, once opened, reveals god-like qualities (215a4ff.). It is widely believed that this arresting comparison, which proved a crucial influence for Socratic iconography, is Plato’s invention. My paper challenges this view: Plato, I argue, appropriates and ‘transcodes’ a comic image so as to promote philosophy. The image of ‘Socrates-silenus’ was in fact Aristophanes’ invention: Plato and his followers, both writers and sculptors, just appropriated it. Scholars have long recognised that ancient portraits of Socrates belong to two different types, conventionally called ‘A and ‘B’. Portraits ‘B’ are likely to derive from an official statue made by Lysippus, whereas ‘A’ can be traced back to a privately sponsored work, to be identified with a bust of Socrates erected by Plato and his associates in the Academy. In type ‘B’, Socrates is ‘normalised’ and portrayed as a good citizen, whereas type ‘A’ is more silenus-like and wild: Paul Zanker has famously interpreted it as a self-conscious provocation against the ideal of the good citizen, by definition ‘good and beautiful’ (kalokagathia). This fascinating argument can be further developed: Socrates’ very first words in the Clouds at line 223 feature a generally overlooked Pindaric quote, through which Socrates implicitly presents himself as Silenus. This, I argue, is safe evidence that the actor’s mask was ‘silenic’ in character. Socrates-Silenus, then, was not Plato's invention. The bulk of my paper explores some consequences of this reconstruction. The celebrated Silenus simile in the Symposium, as well as the bust in the Academy, is an example of self-deprecatory irony, namely the philosopher’s appropriation, for the sake of truth rather than laughter, of comic images originally designed to ridicule him. Like other dialogues, the Symposium plays with Socrates’ comic image, with the result that comic images are transcoded to break new semantic ground. This is explicitly suggested by Alcibiades himself, as he introduces the silenic image: ‘I’ll try and praise Socrates through images (δι΄ εἰκόνων). And maybe he’ll think I want to be funny, but the purpose of the image is not laughter but truth’ (215a). I take this as a golden interpretative rule, which - I maintain - has a huge potential and amounts to a self-conscious interpretative hint on Plato's part: Plato consistently ‘opens’ and transcodes comic images with a serious goal. Along with other passages from the Symposium, this pattern is clearly seen e.g. at 321b, where Alcibiades quotes Clouds 362. Originally intended as abusive, this description of Socrates’ bull-like gait and countenance is ‘opened’ and transcoded so as to convey Socrates’ unsurpassed military prowess. This neatly matches the case of Socrates’ silenus-like features: an abusive image in Aristophanes’ Clouds, Socrates’ silenus mask becomes the hallmark of Socrates’ virtue in the Symposium.
L'articolo affronta la meno esplorata delle versioni classiche di Sanguineti: le Tesmoforiazuse d... more L'articolo affronta la meno esplorata delle versioni classiche di Sanguineti: le Tesmoforiazuse del 1979. L'analisi mette in luce alcune peculiarità interessanti della versione di Sanguineti, che spesso divergono dalle tendenze osservabili nelle prove ‒ pur molto diverse fra loro ‒ di versione tragica: nell’uso di metri e metremi tradizionali (palesi o occulti), nei dosaggi dell’impasto paratragico, nelle sbrigliate neoformazioni lessicali. Così, la Festa sembra un testo singolarmente autonomo, a tratti iper-aristofaneo, in deroga ai dettami della consueta ‘decalcomania’ traduttiva così tipica di Sanguineti.
In Greek tragedy, characters, masks and actors form a compact unity, whereas comic masks are usua... more In Greek tragedy, characters, masks and actors form a compact unity, whereas comic masks are usually perceived as an object, almost a plaything in the hands of the actor. This peculiarity is one ingredient of the so-called “metatheatrical” spirit of old Greek comedy, whereby theatrical props, masks, etc. are often referred to as such. A similar antithesis between the two genres emerges from the pictorial record: some much discussed vases depict both tragic and comic actors on the same scene, yet the latter wear a very conspicuous mask, whereas the former are unmasked, as if to show the compact unity of character, mask and actor. Building on this generic opposition, we make a few observations about the masks of the three hags in Aristophanes’ Assemblywomen. A close examination of lines 1056-1057 is a good case in point, revealing the theatrical possibilities of the actor’s playing with his mask: the two hags are not ‘characters’ in the modern sense, but different instantiations of the metamorphic ability of one and the same actor, whose changing look is designed to render the face of the new regime, foisting power and seduction on the reluctant citizens.
The constant pointing to the presence of an audience, of a stage, and, in a broader sense, the reality of the theatrical representation itself are yet another problem for those who want to stage Aristophanes nowadays. The obstacle lies in the approach that, from Stanislavsky onwards, has influenced to some extent every modern actor, aiming at a total emotional identification with the character and a detailed reconstruction of his/her interiority. This approach clearly clashes with what has been previously described.
We therefore present the case of a theatrical representation which proved particularly successful in our perspective, namely, Aristophanes’ Assemblywomen directed by Serena Sinigaglia, staged at Milan’s Piccolo Teatro in April 2007 (we have videos of the staging). The direction chose to characterize women strongly from the aesthetic point of view; acting is also marked by grotesque tones and is consistent with the stylistic features of the commedia dell’arte.
The work on facial expression relies on clownesque techniques, supported by unnatural and heavy make-up, which is a clear reference to the comic mask used in ancient staging. Such a strong characterization, together with a grotesque deformation of human physiognomy, has been misunderstood or even not appreciated at all by Italian critics, while it is definitely consistent with some fundamental features of the ancient comic genre, such as caricatural and folk elements.
Uploads
Books by Andrea Capra
Andrea Capra
Part I: Comedy in the Elenctic Dialogues
i. Comedy and Laughter in Plato’s Early Dialogues
Edith Hall
ii. The Cook, the Relish-Maker, and the Philosopher
Kathryn Morgan
iii. Flatterers and Philosophers: On the ‘Pleasure Principle’
of the Protagoras
William Strigel
iv. The Mask of ‘Socrates’: Metatheatrical Comedy and
Self-Knowledge in Hippias Major
Sonja Tanner
v. Platonicomic Business: Comedy and Platonic Theatre
In Theages
Sarah Miles
Part II: Comedy in the Transitional Dialogues
vi. Comedy in the Shadow of Death: Plato’s Menexenus
Andrea Capra
vii. The Deadly Play of Plato’s Euthydemus
Gwenda-Lin Grewal
viii. Plato and the Philosophical Art of Mockery
Pierre Destrée
Part III: Comedy in the ‘Middle’ Dialogues
ix. Plato’s Use of Parody
Franco V. Trivigno
x. The Comic Worldview: Plato’s Symposium 189c ff.
Anthony Hooper
xi. Plato and the Discourse of Humour in Republic 10
Richard Hunter
xii. Aristophanic Utopia s and Plato’s Kallipolis
Michele Corradi
xiii. The Last Laugh: Plato and the Comedy of Death
Gabriele Cornelli
My Introduction steers clear of the usual question “why did Plato write (dialogues).” More radically, I ask what is a Platonic dialogue. My starting point is Plato’s “self-disclosures,” that is those passages where he implicitly refers to his dialogues as poetry and music. Such “self-disclosures” have been partially studied by Konrad Gaiser, Stephen Halliwell, and others. The Introduction, together with the Appendix, aims to provide the most complete discussion of this aspect so far and to pave the way for my reading of the Phaedrus, where I detect a new set of powerful “self-disclosures.” In order to introduce the reader to the Phaedrus, I also provide some general background for its interpretation and new evidence on its self-referential character.
Chapter 1, “Terpsichore,” argues that the first half of the Phaedrus is also a consistent re-enacting of Stesichorus’ Helen poem and, more specifically, of its performance, as I demonstrate by discussing unexplored linguistic, philological, and metrical data. By appropriating Stesichorus, who was highly valued by Plato’s Pythagorean friends, Plato builds on the opposition between Stesichorus and Homer, and thus conceptualizes philosophy as a topical or flexible discourse as opposed to “rhapsodic,” or crystallized, rhetoric. In this formulation, philosophical discourse is unique in its capacity to adjust itself “musically” to the needs of different listeners.
Chapter 2, “Erato,” focuses on Helen. I argue that, in his great speech, Socrates reproduces the quadripartite structure of Gorgias’ Encomium and also toys with Isocrates’ Helen. Both works allude to Sappho 16 Voigt, and so does Plato, who makes Helen’s presence felt through the Phaedrus’ plane-tree, which refers to the arboreal cult of Helen. The as yet unnoticed reworking of 16 Voigt is integral to Plato’s definition of philosophy as eroticized rhetoric. Plato inherits from Sappho a notion of erotic oblivion: lyric eros proves crucial for severing the ties that bind us to the sensible world, and for sparking the process of recollection. Plato’s recollection, however, differs markedly from Sappho’s in that it uncovers the general as opposed to the particular.
Chapter 3, “Ourania and Calliope,” takes its cue from Ion’s magnet simile. My argument in this case is that the image applies equally well to philosophy, which the Phaedrus specifically assigns to the two Muses. Sokratikoi logoi take the form of an oral chain of accounts, whereby the human “rings” experience precisely the same symptoms as Ion and his audience. This, once again, points to philosophy as inspired mousikê as against uninspired rhetoric. Philosophy, however, distances itself from epic rhapsodies in that the rings are vigilant and active. Similarly, the story of the cicadas is Plato’s re-enacting of a common myth, i.e. the poet’s initiation as a result of the Muses’ epiphany in the country (cf. Hesiod, Archilochus, Epimenides). Again, deviations from the pattern are the code Plato uses to highlight the special status of his own production, which is, among other things, rationally vigilant and intrinsically dialogic (hence two Muses).
Chapter 4, “The Muses and the tree,” begins with a new interpretation of Socrates’ prayer to Pan in the light of poetic initiation: in fact, Socrates invokes a poetic license and hints at the possibility of heroization. Comparison with similar stories of heroism in fieri (especially Posidippus) and with the relevant honors (I compare Socrates’ statue in the Academy’s mouseion with that of other poet-heroes) allows one to interpret the passage in the light of the cult of Socrates, as developed in the Academy from the fourth century onwards. The setting of the Phaedrus, I argue, prefigures both the cult of Socrates in the Academy, where he was worshipped as a logos-inspirer (i.e. a quasi-poet) and that of Plato, the writer (and quasi-poet too) who constantly disavowed authorship. In other words, the Phaedrus provides an aition for the foundation of Plato’s Academy.
In my Conclusion I argue that Plato’s return to mousikê, a recurring theme in a number of dialogues, amounts to a self-conscious paradox, which I construe to be the hallmark of Plato as author. I conclude with Socrates’ conversion to “demotic” as opposed to metaphorical music in the Phaedo, which, I maintain, closely parallels the Phaedrus and is apologetic in character, since Socrates was held responsible for dismissing traditional mousikê. This parallelism reveals three surprising features that define Plato’s works: firstly, a measure of anti-intellectualism (Plato “musicalizes” philosophy so as to counter the rationalistic excesses of other forms of discourse, thus distinguishing it from prose as well as from poetry); secondly, a new beginning for philosophy (Plato conceptualizes the birth of Socratic dialogue in, and against, the Pythagorean tradition of the birth of philosophy, with an emphasis on the new role of writing); thirdly, a self-consciously ambivalent attitude with respect to the social function of the dialogues, which are conceived both as a kind of “resistance literature” and as a preliminary move towards the new poetry to be performed in the Kallipolis.
The argument unfolds in reverse, i.e. it begins from the literary form. Thus, the book is divided into two parts, both centred on the notion of communication: the first one explores the way Plato addresses his audience over the heads of his character; the second one is devoted to the way Socrates addresses his interlocutors. The structure of the book, thus, reflects a hermeneutical distinction that is crucial for a correct understanding of the dialogue (the Premise is in fact intended as a chapter in Platonic hermeneutics). The first part of the book discusses the peculiar literary form Plato adopts in order to describe the duel between Socrates and Protagoras, whereas the second part revolves on the dialectical method of Socrates and his interlocutor as well as on the philosophical problems that are responsible for the peculiar dialectics and literary form of the Protagoras.
Books (popular) by Andrea Capra
Organized conferences by Andrea Capra
Aristophanes by Andrea Capra
of utopianism, it will become clear that Assemblywomen does not differ
significantly from its fifth-century counterparts, though it breaks new ground in recognizing the needs of diversified audiences; on the other, Assemblywomen will prove a remarkable example of experimentalism as regards formal structure and staging. The play’s innovations have eluded scholars, yet unraveling them is key to understanding its unrecognized coherence and, indeed, its profound continuity with Aristophanes’ earlier plays.
A interessare gli eruditi antichi e gli studiosi di oggi è in particolare il paragone, proposto dal personaggio Blespidemo, tra Penia e “un’Erinni da tragedia” (v.423): Aristofane mette dunque in atto – come indicano già gli scoli – una parodia delle Eumenidi di Eschilo? Non è certo privo di rilevanza il gioco di rispecchiamento tra i due generi: Povertà ha uno sguardo “tragico e folle” (v. 424) e parla in uno stile elevato e ricco di citazioni (di cui già Tzetzes rintraccia la matrice euripidea). Ma più che a una puntuale lettura paratragica, si deve pensare – così suggerisce, per esempio, Sommerstein – alla riproposizione in chiave comica di un fortunato cliché tragico, che ha il suo archetipo nella antica tragedia eschilea (458 a. C.) ma che doveva essere ben noto, per successive riprese, anche agli spettatori del Pluto (388 a.C.). Penia rappresenta dunque un personaggio mostruoso, tragico, serio, e del tutto incompatibile con il mondo della commedia: per questo motivo sarà bruscamente scacciata dal protagonista.
Una ulteriore riprova della forza drammatica di Penia è la sua fortuna negli allestimenti contemporanei: contrariamente a quello che accade ad altri disturbatori, eliminati o fortemente rivisti nelle diverse riletture registiche, Povertà non manca mai in scena e diviene non di rado un personaggio chiave (così nell’allestimento di Massimo Popolizio), specialmente nelle messinscene poco orientate al disimpegno, che marcano zone d’ombra e inquietudini del testo aristofaneo.
Al di fuori della commedia, la personificazione di Povertà farà la sua comparsa in Teocrito, Plutarco, Luciano e Alcifrone; ma il caso più interessante è senza dubbio rappresentato dal Simposio di Platone, opera che viene composta, probabilmente, pochi anni dopo la rappresentazione del Pluto. Penia si accompagna qui non a Pluto ma a Poros; e la raffinatezza del filosofo nel coniugare l’astratto della personificazione e il concreto del personaggio non può che far pensare al modello aristofaneo e alla commedia antica.
The constant pointing to the presence of an audience, of a stage, and, in a broader sense, the reality of the theatrical representation itself are yet another problem for those who want to stage Aristophanes nowadays. The obstacle lies in the approach that, from Stanislavsky onwards, has influenced to some extent every modern actor, aiming at a total emotional identification with the character and a detailed reconstruction of his/her interiority. This approach clearly clashes with what has been previously described.
We therefore present the case of a theatrical representation which proved particularly successful in our perspective, namely, Aristophanes’ Assemblywomen directed by Serena Sinigaglia, staged at Milan’s Piccolo Teatro in April 2007 (we have videos of the staging). The direction chose to characterize women strongly from the aesthetic point of view; acting is also marked by grotesque tones and is consistent with the stylistic features of the commedia dell’arte.
The work on facial expression relies on clownesque techniques, supported by unnatural and heavy make-up, which is a clear reference to the comic mask used in ancient staging. Such a strong characterization, together with a grotesque deformation of human physiognomy, has been misunderstood or even not appreciated at all by Italian critics, while it is definitely consistent with some fundamental features of the ancient comic genre, such as caricatural and folk elements.
Andrea Capra
Part I: Comedy in the Elenctic Dialogues
i. Comedy and Laughter in Plato’s Early Dialogues
Edith Hall
ii. The Cook, the Relish-Maker, and the Philosopher
Kathryn Morgan
iii. Flatterers and Philosophers: On the ‘Pleasure Principle’
of the Protagoras
William Strigel
iv. The Mask of ‘Socrates’: Metatheatrical Comedy and
Self-Knowledge in Hippias Major
Sonja Tanner
v. Platonicomic Business: Comedy and Platonic Theatre
In Theages
Sarah Miles
Part II: Comedy in the Transitional Dialogues
vi. Comedy in the Shadow of Death: Plato’s Menexenus
Andrea Capra
vii. The Deadly Play of Plato’s Euthydemus
Gwenda-Lin Grewal
viii. Plato and the Philosophical Art of Mockery
Pierre Destrée
Part III: Comedy in the ‘Middle’ Dialogues
ix. Plato’s Use of Parody
Franco V. Trivigno
x. The Comic Worldview: Plato’s Symposium 189c ff.
Anthony Hooper
xi. Plato and the Discourse of Humour in Republic 10
Richard Hunter
xii. Aristophanic Utopia s and Plato’s Kallipolis
Michele Corradi
xiii. The Last Laugh: Plato and the Comedy of Death
Gabriele Cornelli
My Introduction steers clear of the usual question “why did Plato write (dialogues).” More radically, I ask what is a Platonic dialogue. My starting point is Plato’s “self-disclosures,” that is those passages where he implicitly refers to his dialogues as poetry and music. Such “self-disclosures” have been partially studied by Konrad Gaiser, Stephen Halliwell, and others. The Introduction, together with the Appendix, aims to provide the most complete discussion of this aspect so far and to pave the way for my reading of the Phaedrus, where I detect a new set of powerful “self-disclosures.” In order to introduce the reader to the Phaedrus, I also provide some general background for its interpretation and new evidence on its self-referential character.
Chapter 1, “Terpsichore,” argues that the first half of the Phaedrus is also a consistent re-enacting of Stesichorus’ Helen poem and, more specifically, of its performance, as I demonstrate by discussing unexplored linguistic, philological, and metrical data. By appropriating Stesichorus, who was highly valued by Plato’s Pythagorean friends, Plato builds on the opposition between Stesichorus and Homer, and thus conceptualizes philosophy as a topical or flexible discourse as opposed to “rhapsodic,” or crystallized, rhetoric. In this formulation, philosophical discourse is unique in its capacity to adjust itself “musically” to the needs of different listeners.
Chapter 2, “Erato,” focuses on Helen. I argue that, in his great speech, Socrates reproduces the quadripartite structure of Gorgias’ Encomium and also toys with Isocrates’ Helen. Both works allude to Sappho 16 Voigt, and so does Plato, who makes Helen’s presence felt through the Phaedrus’ plane-tree, which refers to the arboreal cult of Helen. The as yet unnoticed reworking of 16 Voigt is integral to Plato’s definition of philosophy as eroticized rhetoric. Plato inherits from Sappho a notion of erotic oblivion: lyric eros proves crucial for severing the ties that bind us to the sensible world, and for sparking the process of recollection. Plato’s recollection, however, differs markedly from Sappho’s in that it uncovers the general as opposed to the particular.
Chapter 3, “Ourania and Calliope,” takes its cue from Ion’s magnet simile. My argument in this case is that the image applies equally well to philosophy, which the Phaedrus specifically assigns to the two Muses. Sokratikoi logoi take the form of an oral chain of accounts, whereby the human “rings” experience precisely the same symptoms as Ion and his audience. This, once again, points to philosophy as inspired mousikê as against uninspired rhetoric. Philosophy, however, distances itself from epic rhapsodies in that the rings are vigilant and active. Similarly, the story of the cicadas is Plato’s re-enacting of a common myth, i.e. the poet’s initiation as a result of the Muses’ epiphany in the country (cf. Hesiod, Archilochus, Epimenides). Again, deviations from the pattern are the code Plato uses to highlight the special status of his own production, which is, among other things, rationally vigilant and intrinsically dialogic (hence two Muses).
Chapter 4, “The Muses and the tree,” begins with a new interpretation of Socrates’ prayer to Pan in the light of poetic initiation: in fact, Socrates invokes a poetic license and hints at the possibility of heroization. Comparison with similar stories of heroism in fieri (especially Posidippus) and with the relevant honors (I compare Socrates’ statue in the Academy’s mouseion with that of other poet-heroes) allows one to interpret the passage in the light of the cult of Socrates, as developed in the Academy from the fourth century onwards. The setting of the Phaedrus, I argue, prefigures both the cult of Socrates in the Academy, where he was worshipped as a logos-inspirer (i.e. a quasi-poet) and that of Plato, the writer (and quasi-poet too) who constantly disavowed authorship. In other words, the Phaedrus provides an aition for the foundation of Plato’s Academy.
In my Conclusion I argue that Plato’s return to mousikê, a recurring theme in a number of dialogues, amounts to a self-conscious paradox, which I construe to be the hallmark of Plato as author. I conclude with Socrates’ conversion to “demotic” as opposed to metaphorical music in the Phaedo, which, I maintain, closely parallels the Phaedrus and is apologetic in character, since Socrates was held responsible for dismissing traditional mousikê. This parallelism reveals three surprising features that define Plato’s works: firstly, a measure of anti-intellectualism (Plato “musicalizes” philosophy so as to counter the rationalistic excesses of other forms of discourse, thus distinguishing it from prose as well as from poetry); secondly, a new beginning for philosophy (Plato conceptualizes the birth of Socratic dialogue in, and against, the Pythagorean tradition of the birth of philosophy, with an emphasis on the new role of writing); thirdly, a self-consciously ambivalent attitude with respect to the social function of the dialogues, which are conceived both as a kind of “resistance literature” and as a preliminary move towards the new poetry to be performed in the Kallipolis.
The argument unfolds in reverse, i.e. it begins from the literary form. Thus, the book is divided into two parts, both centred on the notion of communication: the first one explores the way Plato addresses his audience over the heads of his character; the second one is devoted to the way Socrates addresses his interlocutors. The structure of the book, thus, reflects a hermeneutical distinction that is crucial for a correct understanding of the dialogue (the Premise is in fact intended as a chapter in Platonic hermeneutics). The first part of the book discusses the peculiar literary form Plato adopts in order to describe the duel between Socrates and Protagoras, whereas the second part revolves on the dialectical method of Socrates and his interlocutor as well as on the philosophical problems that are responsible for the peculiar dialectics and literary form of the Protagoras.
of utopianism, it will become clear that Assemblywomen does not differ
significantly from its fifth-century counterparts, though it breaks new ground in recognizing the needs of diversified audiences; on the other, Assemblywomen will prove a remarkable example of experimentalism as regards formal structure and staging. The play’s innovations have eluded scholars, yet unraveling them is key to understanding its unrecognized coherence and, indeed, its profound continuity with Aristophanes’ earlier plays.
A interessare gli eruditi antichi e gli studiosi di oggi è in particolare il paragone, proposto dal personaggio Blespidemo, tra Penia e “un’Erinni da tragedia” (v.423): Aristofane mette dunque in atto – come indicano già gli scoli – una parodia delle Eumenidi di Eschilo? Non è certo privo di rilevanza il gioco di rispecchiamento tra i due generi: Povertà ha uno sguardo “tragico e folle” (v. 424) e parla in uno stile elevato e ricco di citazioni (di cui già Tzetzes rintraccia la matrice euripidea). Ma più che a una puntuale lettura paratragica, si deve pensare – così suggerisce, per esempio, Sommerstein – alla riproposizione in chiave comica di un fortunato cliché tragico, che ha il suo archetipo nella antica tragedia eschilea (458 a. C.) ma che doveva essere ben noto, per successive riprese, anche agli spettatori del Pluto (388 a.C.). Penia rappresenta dunque un personaggio mostruoso, tragico, serio, e del tutto incompatibile con il mondo della commedia: per questo motivo sarà bruscamente scacciata dal protagonista.
Una ulteriore riprova della forza drammatica di Penia è la sua fortuna negli allestimenti contemporanei: contrariamente a quello che accade ad altri disturbatori, eliminati o fortemente rivisti nelle diverse riletture registiche, Povertà non manca mai in scena e diviene non di rado un personaggio chiave (così nell’allestimento di Massimo Popolizio), specialmente nelle messinscene poco orientate al disimpegno, che marcano zone d’ombra e inquietudini del testo aristofaneo.
Al di fuori della commedia, la personificazione di Povertà farà la sua comparsa in Teocrito, Plutarco, Luciano e Alcifrone; ma il caso più interessante è senza dubbio rappresentato dal Simposio di Platone, opera che viene composta, probabilmente, pochi anni dopo la rappresentazione del Pluto. Penia si accompagna qui non a Pluto ma a Poros; e la raffinatezza del filosofo nel coniugare l’astratto della personificazione e il concreto del personaggio non può che far pensare al modello aristofaneo e alla commedia antica.
The constant pointing to the presence of an audience, of a stage, and, in a broader sense, the reality of the theatrical representation itself are yet another problem for those who want to stage Aristophanes nowadays. The obstacle lies in the approach that, from Stanislavsky onwards, has influenced to some extent every modern actor, aiming at a total emotional identification with the character and a detailed reconstruction of his/her interiority. This approach clearly clashes with what has been previously described.
We therefore present the case of a theatrical representation which proved particularly successful in our perspective, namely, Aristophanes’ Assemblywomen directed by Serena Sinigaglia, staged at Milan’s Piccolo Teatro in April 2007 (we have videos of the staging). The direction chose to characterize women strongly from the aesthetic point of view; acting is also marked by grotesque tones and is consistent with the stylistic features of the commedia dell’arte.
The work on facial expression relies on clownesque techniques, supported by unnatural and heavy make-up, which is a clear reference to the comic mask used in ancient staging. Such a strong characterization, together with a grotesque deformation of human physiognomy, has been misunderstood or even not appreciated at all by Italian critics, while it is definitely consistent with some fundamental features of the ancient comic genre, such as caricatural and folk elements.
passages, Aristaenetus’s letter eventually results in a paradoxically anti-Platonic concoction of Platonic texts. Something not altogether different can be seen in 1.3 as well. This letter is replete with allusions – not yet fully explored – to the locus amoenus of the Phaedrus and its rich reception. In Plato’s Phaedrus, however, the landscape points to the hyper-ouranian world and entails an uncompromising devotion to logos as opposed to bodily pleasure. By contrast, Aristaenetus resorts to the same materials in order to celebrate erotic and sympotic pleasures, something that can be arguably construed as an ironic reversal of the model.
αἰγιαλῶν †οιοϲ† μηδ’ ἀνέμων πάταγον
αἰγιαλῶν φλοῖϲβον μηδ’ ἀνέμων πάταγον
The myth of the cicadas (Phaedrus, 259b5ff.) and that of the dying swans (Phaedo, 84e3ff.) occupy a special position among Plato’s myths, in that they are entirely the author’s invention, as scholars have often argued. However, both myths clearly draw on a rich poetic tradition that is already well-established in archaic epic. At the same time, both myths incorporate zoological details into their fabric. By comparing Plato’s myths both with their poetic models and with Aristotle’s zoology, I show how Plato’s cicadas and swans reveal a careful blend of tradition and ‘science’. Plato created a new hybrid, which can be jokingly christened ‘ornitheology’ and ‘entomythology’.
Italian abstract:
La favola narrata da Aristofane nel Simposio rivela la profondità e la passione con cui Platone ha fatto suo il teatro comico: dai fatti di lingua e di stile, con la ripresa di immagini strampalate e grottesche, fino al tema molto generale della nostalgia per una natura perduta, che coglie acutamente il senso profondo della commedia antica. Ma Platone ricerca un uso del comico diverso, come ben chiarisce l’immagine dal rozzo Socrate-Sileno che si dischiude per rivelare al suo interno sublimi profondità. Aprire il comico: è proprio questo il principio in base al quale Platone rilegge le trovate burlesche di Aristofane, in un impasto innovativo di commedia e tragedia. L’intento di aprire il comico, dichiarato espressamente nel Simposio, trova poi applicazione concreta in una girandola di figure che Platone ruba alla commedia: meteorologi chiacchieroni, filosofi-cicala, tafani parlanti, psicagoghi… Si tratta sempre di beffe che la commedia aveva rivolto alla filosofia, e che Platone non respinge ma ironicamente prende sulle spalle e reinterpreta, per poi aprirle fino a scoprirvi significati nuovi e positivi. Il teatro di Aristofane costituisce dunque una sorta di cellula generativa della scrittura platonica."
A differenza della fin troppo discussa ‘ironia socratica’, che interessa le relazioni fra Socrate e i suoi interlocutori, l’‘ironica platonica’ concerne la comunicazione fra autore e destinatario e poggia sul fatto che quest’ultimo conosce le vicende sopravvenute ai personaggi negli anni successivi alla data drammatica del dialogo: le parole dei personaggi platonici acquisiscono un sovrasenso, spesso antifrastico, fondato sulla superiore conoscenza dei fatti che il destinatario condivide con l’autore. In questo, l’‘ironia platonica’ è af-fine all’ironia tragica, ma persegue al contempo finalità satiriche: i fatti noti al lettore sbugiardano speranze e vanterie del personaggio. Di qui una forma di ironia ‘tragicomica’, che si manifesta con particolare efficacia nel Protagora, un dialogo in cui le influenze del teatro sono evidenti. Proprio agli aspetti tea-trali e ‘ironici’ del Protagora sembra richiamarsi il dialogo Sul Piacere dell’anti-edonista Eraclide Pontico. Oltre a gettar luce sul frammentario dialogo di Eraclide, il confronto fra le due opere induce a interpretare in chiave di ‘ironia platonica’ la discussa conclusione del Protagora, ossia la tesi edo-nistica che sfocia nella proposta di una tecnica di misurazione volta a massi-mizzare il bene-piacere. Ne emerge una prova nuova per interpretare la tesi edonistica del Protagora come un argumentum ad hominem.
This narrative pattern has also a cultic dimension, in that the cape, as I argue, is associated with divinatory deities such as Silenus and Apollo. The reconstruction of this cultural background, in turn, allows one to understand an exceptionally rich, if underexplored, literary tradition, which includes famous poems such as Virgil's Aeneid as well as little known texts, such as, for example, an elegy by the 5th century poet and sophist Evenus of Parus . A number of other literary texts, both in prose and in verse, reveal new meanings in the light of this tradition, and in turn cast new light on the tradition itself: these include Philostratus' Life of Apollonius of Tiana, Heliodorus' Aethiopian Stories and especially the anonymous poem known as Orphic Argonautica .
The concluding section of the paper explores later legends and folklore related to Cape Malea, which became a cult site devoted to Archangel Michael and was called "Ali di San Michele". A number of data suggest that pagan and Christian cults, under certain respects, form an intriguing continuum.