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
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3298308
Accessed: 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 support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

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

THEPUPPETTHEATERIN PLATO'S
PARABLEOF THE CAVE

Although

there has beenmuchdiscussionaboutthe shadows

of artifacts the prisonerswatch 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
projectedan 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 [hospertois 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.
Accordingto the fable, only a few of the prisonerswill be freed to
go out of the cave to see objectsthemselves 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 accountfor 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 abbreviationsare from Cooper and Greek from
Shoreyand Bury.

THECLASSICAL
95.2(1999)119-129
JOURNAL

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

ASLIGOCER

120

suppose this is the case. In what follows, I shall offer some

suggestionsan 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 commentatorsis a question that falls outside the concerns
of this paper. Suffice to note, however, that interpretations of the
parable mainly focuson 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.3Arguing
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 conclusionentirely,
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 artifactsin his
metaphysical hierarchy and the aesthetic "lowness"of puppetry
in the cultural milieu of Athens.7 Surprisingly, however, little
effort has been made to determinethe precise form of art referred to
2

Cornford, p. 227.

While agreeingon the religiousnature of the image, other scholars differ on

what religioustraditionit depicts. For a discussion of Orphism in the image, see
Guthrie,p. 518;otherssuggest Parmenideanroots,Ferguson,p. 191-193,e.g.
4 Annas,p.253-257.
5 Bloom,p. 404-405;Waterfield,p. 424 agreeswith the essentially politicalnature
of the fable.
6 Most recentlyby Nehamas,p. 230-234.
7 Shershow,p. 16-19.
3

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

PLATO'SPARABLEOF THE CAVE

121

in the image.8 The significance of the referencelies 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 attackon art, because it singles
out a peculiar form of comedy that embodies the burlesque, the
In addition to being popular
vulgar, fantasy, and satire.
I
entertainment, therefore, suggest that the puppet theater in the
cave must be evaluated as a certain comedicperformance-the kind
most memorably representedby Aristophanictheater.
Let us turn, then, to exploring the comedic character of the
shadow puppet theater, which was appropriatedby Aristophanes.
Although there is little doubt that they were familiar with it, no
one knows exactly whence puppet theater came to the Ancient
Greeks. Thereis some suggestion that it was in the 4th centuryB.C.
that a group of popular entertainers arrived in Athens from the
Dorian Megaraby way of Sicily and ushered in a new tradition of
popular entertainment. So hilarious was their routine that even a
new phrase, "Megaranlaughter," was coined to distinguish their
comic performancesfrom other merry-makers." Aristotle, Aristophanes and Xenophon all refer to them as thaumatopoioi.12 Though
a generictermfor 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
performerswhen he likens sophists and poets (Homerin 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 theaterperse in the cave; thereonly is an analogy to
such a performance.
9 ForPlato there is no distinction between the beautiful and the good (Cr.48b,
e.g.); I cannotanalyse the point here.
10 The date is said to be around,480 B.C.,see Nicoll, p. 20. The publicationof the
Republicis guessed between 380 and 370 BC;see Shorey(vol.I),p. xxv.
1 Presumably,a belly laughter,Nicole,p. 20
Ethicsiv.2; cf. Aristophanes,Wasps5612Aristotle,Poeticsiii 1448a;Nichomachean
60. Xenophon, Symposium
iv. 55. Fordiscussionon Corinthvases displaying scenes
in a puppet show, see Nicoll, p. 20-135;cf. Bieber,p. 106.
involving thaumotopoioi

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

ASLIGOCER

122

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 suggestingit, there is some reason to explore
the connection.
Thereis no questionthat the Karagoz theater comesout 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 documentedin 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. Membersare differentiatedby 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-bearingfigure who is preoccupiedwith food, sex, money,
13

Dodds, p. 194,p. 205 no. 96.

Foran oppositionto this view, see Pryzluskip. 596. Pryzluski
rejects Guthrie'ssuggestionon the grounds that in the Karagoztheater the light is
behind the screen. This objectionmisses, however, the point that the shadow puppet
theateris merelyan analogyin the cave parable;see n. 8.
15 Among the many views on the originsof the GreekKaragozone theory holds
that Ottoman Turkslearned the craft from the Byzantinesand 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.
14 Guthrie,p. 518.

17

Tietze, p. 16, n. 2.

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

PLATO'SPARABLEOF THE CAVE

123

and thoughts of revenge against those who wrong him. He does not
have a fixed set of social views, and his morality changes
accordingto the changes in his environment. Other figures in the
troupe are either vulgar braggarts, obsequiousweaklings, foolish
old men, incompetentdoctors, cruel authority figures, and sexually
loose and quarrelsomewomen. The Karagoz "plays" mostly consist
of improvised buffooneryby 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 dramaticplot, and that it is
coarse in exploiting human defects and peculiarities for the
purposesof satiric entertainment. The tone is sometimes political,
but often wacky and contemptuousof all established customs. The
puppet theater that falls out of the Karagoz tradition is
entertainmentfor the masses, which consists of shadows of puppets
engaged in verbal jousting, singing, and dancing. Precisely for its
outrageous humor and miscellaneous spoofs that Karagozis also the
embodiment of the ancient Greekcomic spirit.
Given how little we know of its origin it is of courseexceedingly
important not to make any grandiose conclusionsabout the modem
Karagozfor 4th century Athens. And yet Plato's comparisonmakes
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 purportedto be a parable of the effects of education on the
mind rather than a generic referenceto 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 corroboratingevidence 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 resemblencebetween it and what we
know of the merry-makingtradition of the Megarian mimic drama
S8Myrsiades,p. 26.
'9 R. 586b-c;Tht.208e;Prm.165c;L.663c;Phd.69b, e.g. Forthe nature and origin
of skiagraphia,
and Greekattitudestoward shadow painting,see Keuls, Ch. 4.

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

124

ASLIGOCER

and puppeteering is striking." Nor is it a stretch to suggest that

Aristophaniccomedy is an amalgamation of the Megaranlaughter
and the that of the proto-Karagozpuppetry.2 The comic spirit of
the Karagoz finds its expression most particularly in the
Aristophanicburlesque. 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 traditionof 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 antagonismtowardhis comedy and admiration toward
the man. Both in the form of certainkind of puppet theater and in
the spirit of Aristophanic theater, it is safe to suggest that at the
time Plato was composingthe 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 entirecultureof 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. 50-54and p. 93-108.
21
Whitman,p. 291.
22
Forhis argumentthat Old Comedystartswith Aristophanes,see Cartledge,p.
12-15.Foran analysisof Aristophanicmockeryof Platonicideals, see. Fora discussion
of Platonic mockeryof Aristophanicideals, see David, p. 21-29. For an analysis of
dueling utopias of Platoand Aristophanes,see Smith.

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

PLATO'SPARABLEOF THECAVE

125

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' performscan 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 pertainingto 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 connectionwith the repeated
distinction he draws between seriousnessand 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
dramaticcontests? 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 reckonshis best chance of winning lies in putting an a puppet
show [thaumataepideiknus]"(L. 658c2-3). A question is posed: who
deserves to win such a contest? Plato'sanswer 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). Youngmen 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'tbe
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
overcomeby 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 66.171.203.117 on Tue, 25 Aug 2015 20:17:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

126

ASLIGOCER

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
underpinningsat work here are complex, but they are intimately
connected. The metaphysical reasons pertain to Plato's general
commitment to permanenceand stability. "Thebest things are least
liable to alteration or change," it is famously said in the Republic
(380e4). "Whateveris in good condition, whether by nature or craft
or both, admits least of being changed by anything else (R. 381bl2). Laughterimplies not only a physical change in the human body
but a psychological transformationas well. Both kinds of change
undermine Plato's project for becoming like the unchanging and
serene Forms,an analysis I cannotprovide here.23 There is also a
theological subtext to aversion to change as well. Plato discusses
god as being in an utterlyserene condition, in a state between excess
of pleasure and pain (L. 792e, 732b;cf. R. 381c;Stm. 269e). God is
said to be not subjectto 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
an this,
pertains to art, education, city administration is based
24
what Plato takes to be the goal of becominggod-like. Plato is
especially anxious, however, for the long-term psychological
consequencesof 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. Continuedpractice of deriving
false pleasures, however, will result in devastating cognitive
mistakes that will ultimately cost the personthe 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 that25 provokes
laughter but also the representationof laughter in art. It would
be a grave transgression, Plato says, to represent whether in
pictures, buildings, or any other works, images of drunkennessand
23For a defense of this point, see Gocer(1999).
See Gocer(1998).
25 R.
389arejectsIlliad1.599-600for this reason.
24

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

PLATO'SPARABLEOF THECAVE

127

laughter, and characters that are vicious, unrestrained, slavish,

and graceless (R. 401b;403e; L. 637b). Use of profane language and
representationof profane language are also objectedto an the same
grounds. For Plato art that depicts such things aims merely at
amusement. As such, it feeds the childish side of ourpsyche 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],
and other forms of trickery have powers
conjuring [thaumatopoiia],
that are short of magical" (R. 602d). And precisely because of this
power that Plato thinks that the kind of nonsensethat makes us
laugh like children is to be excluded from good society.
Plato'sfamous worry is that the majority is childlike, because
like childrenmost people judge anything on basis of the immediate
and primal pleasure it brings about. Certainly the commonman
thinks that puppet theater is good simply because it makes him
laugh. Plato finds the idea laughable itself that the commonman
can trulyjudge, 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 nonsenseare 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 strikinglymodern. 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 functionas a full human being. Hence
the ratingsystems 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 accountof overfeeding the wrongsorts of desires, which in the
end will warp his relationship to reality. And if society were
largely made up of emotional quasimodossuch as those who prefer
amusement to enlightenment, Plato worries (and we agree despite
our arguments for artistic freedom), justice would be an

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

ASLIGOCER

128

impossibility. Platonic alarmism about certain art consists, then, in

the fact that he takes as given that exposureto and preferencefor
such entertainmentthreatensto wear down the fabric of the polis.
If what I propose about the comicnature 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
once again the cognitive
example Plato highlights
of
and
inconsequentiality comedy,
especially the kind exemplified
once again the deep divide
His
discussion
shows
by Aristophanes.
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 venturingone 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 condemnationof all such activity but
rather a censureof 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 particularforms of art rather than a
general denunciation of all artistic activity, as it has been
traditionallysupposed. But that is for another project.
ASLIGOCER
University of Toronto

BIBLIOGRAPHY
And, Metin. 1975. Karagoz:TurkishShadowTheater.Ankara.
Annas, Julia. 1981. An Introduction to Plato's Republic. Oxford.

Bieber,Margarete. 1938. TheHistoryof Greekand RomanTheater.Princeton.

Bloom, Allan. 1968. TheRepublicof Plato.New York.

Bury, R. G., trans., 1926. The Laws. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

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

PLATO'SPARABLEOF THE CAVE

129

and His Theaterof theAbsurd. London.

Cartledge,Paul. 1990. Aristophanes
Cooper,John,ed. 1997. Plato:CompleteWorks.Indianapolisand Cambridge.
Cornford,F.M. 1941. TheRepublicof Plato.London.
David, E. 1984. Aristophanesand Athenian Society of the Early Fourth
CenturyB.C. Leiden.
Dies, A. 1937. Bulletinde l'AssocationGuillaumeBude.April: 45-46.
Dodds, E.R. 1951. Greeksand theIrrational.Berkeley.
Ettinghausen,Richard. 1934. "Early Shadow Figures." Bulletin of the
AmericanInstitutefor PersianArt and Archeology6: 10-15.
Gocer, Asli. 1999. "Hesuchia,A Metaphysical Principle in Plato's Moral
Psychology." J. Annas, McPherran, eds. New Essays on Plato's
Metaphysicsand Epistemology.Apeiron33 (forthcoming).
-----. 1998. "TheTheologicalBasisof Plato'sCriticismof Art with Reference
to Icons. TheSouthernJournalof Philosophy36.3: 353-365.
Guthrie,W.K.C. 1975. History of GreekPhilosophy.VolumeIV: Plato, the
Man and his Dialogues:EarlierPeriod.Cambridge.
Jurkowski,Henryk. 1996. A Historyof EuropeanPuppetry.New York.
Keuls, Eva C. 1978. Platoand GreekPainting.Leiden.
London.
McLeish,Kenneth. 1981. TheTheatreof Aristophanes.
1992.
Linda
S.
and
Kostas.
Myrsiades,
Karagiozias:Cultureand
Myrsiades,
Comedyin GreekPuppetTheater.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."
ByzantionXIII:595-603.
Ritter,Hermann. 1903. Der Mimus, ein literarentwick-lungsgeschischtlicher
VersuchI. Berlin.
Shershow, Scott C. 1995. Puppetsand "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 Themesin Aristophanic Comedy,"UtopianStudies 3.1:
84-94.
Siyavusgil, SabriEsat. 1961. Karagoz.Istanbul.
Tietze, Andreas. 1977. TheTurkishShadowTheater.Berlin.
Waterfield,Robin. 1993. Republic.Oxford.
andtheComicHero.Cambridge.
Whitman,CedricH. 1964. Aristophanes

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