Choral Anti-Aesthetics in Performance and Culture in Plato’s Laws, ed. A-E Peponi , Cambridge 2013, pp. 212-39

Cambridge Books Online

http://ebooks.cambridge.org/

Performance and Culture in Plato's Laws

Edited by Anastasia-Erasmia Peponi

Book DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139061674

Online ISBN: 9781139061674

Hardback ISBN: 9781107016873

Paperback ISBN: 9781107630154

Chapter

Chapter Eight - Choral Anti-Aesthetics pp. 212-240

Chapter DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139061674.010

Cambridge University Press

212 �

��

CH O R E I A and Spectatorship

As any modern spectator of highly skilled dance productions

knows, a large, coordinated group of dancers moving harmo-

niously can be enthralling. There is no reason to doubt that

Greek choruses of the archaic and the classical periods –

usually nonprofessional groups trained by professionalised

chorus teachers – provided a similarly enticing spectacle. For

one thing, in Greek choral shows the blending of kinetic with

vocal action would further enhance the overall musical glam-

our. Although audience responses to choral performances are

very rarely mentioned in extant Greek texts, there is some evi-

dence to suggest that a taste for delightful choral productions

was well developed in a large part of the archaic and classical

Greek world. 1 Athenian spectators, in particular, must have

cultivated an advanced connoisseurship for things choral,

since a considerable number of civic performances (including

dramatic ones) relied to a large or full extent on ef ective choral

execution. 2 Moreover, the inclusion of choral performance in

prestigious Athenian contests indicates that some criteria for

choral excellence must have been devised and applied.

Political and social investment in the large number of

Athenian dithyrambic productions in particular is a good

indicator of the attention that was paid to choral activity, as

Chapte r E ight

CHORAL ANTI -

AESTHETICS

Anastasia-Erasmia Peponi

Downloaded from Cambridge Books Online by IP 171.67.216.22 on Wed Nov 04 16:47:03 GMT 2015.http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139061674.010

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2015

Choral Anti-Aesthetics

213�

the spectacle put on by the tribal dithyrambic choruses had

to prove worthy of the generous choregic expenditures. 3

Audiences of the last quarter of the i fth century b.c . especially

must have experienced an outburst of instrumental, vocal,

and most probably kinetic experimentations in modernising

dithyrambic practices that seem to have af ected dramatic cho-

ral trends as well. 4 Although the fourth century provides less

evidence about the practices and the imaginary of Athenian

choreia , there is no question that an Athenian citizen of this

century as well, including Plato, would have been repeatedly

exposed to choral productions in his life-span, possibly as per-

former but, for the most part, customarily as spectator. 5

But what made a choral show enjoyable and pleasing for both

audience and judges? In other words, what was the aesthetics

of the frequently performed choreia in Athens? Unfortunately,

no description and evaluation of choral dance as perceptive as

the well-known one in the eighteenth book of the Iliad sur-

vives from the classical period. The analogy between the airy

dance of youths and the maidens who hold each other’s hands

while running on their ‘skilled feet’, and the seated potter

who tests his wheel, remains a unique illustration of the way

a choral spectacle could be envisioned and appreciated from

the viewpoint of a fascinated spectator. 6 Yet, from the scanty

and disappointingly brief references to choral performances in

fourth-century b.c . sources, we can still get a sense of allure-

ment in the spectacle that a large party of choreuts provided to

its audience. Kosmos , for instance, a term with deep roots in the

Greek conceptualisation of beauty, depicting at the same time

i ne structure, ornamentation, and appropriateness, comes up

in at least two texts of the fourth century that refer to dif erent

aspects of choral practices. ‘The golden crowns that I ordered

as ornaments ( kosmos ) for the chorus he plotted to destroy’,

says Demosthenes with both pride and anger, when referring to

his ambitious but ill-starred dithyrambic choregia that became

the target of Meidias’ envy. 7 Although this passing reference to

the ornamentation of the dithyrambic chorus lacks the vivid-

ness with which Homer describes the costumes enhancing the




214 �

spectacle of the dancing maidens and youths in the Iliad (light

robes, i ne tunics, pretty crowns, golden knives), it neverthe-

less indicates that fourth-century choral performances strove

to be awe-inspiring for their audiences and that embellishing

accessories were still considered a noticeable part of the overall

choral glamour. 8

There is another, quite idiosyncratic, reference to the

kosmos of the choral show in fourth-century sources. In a rather

compulsive manifesto on the signii cance of orderliness in one’s

household, Xenophon claims that not only cloaks, blankets, and

table furnishings but also pots and pans, when nicely arranged,

are beautiful to look at. ‘There is nothing, in short, that does

not gain in beauty when set out in order ( kata kosmon )’. 9 For

in this state of orderly perfection, he adds, not only does each

‘chorus’ of utensils make a clear impression on the viewer, but

also the empty space among the various household sets looks

more appealing, precisely the way an orderly circular chorus

( kyklios choros ) not only provides a beautiful spectacle in itself

but also enhances the beauty of its empty centre. 10

At least two points can be made about this astonishing

osmosis between choral and household aesthetics. First, the

point of view of Xenophon’s speaker is none other than that

of a spectator, very likely one sitting in an elevated construc-

tion, the theatre, and looking down at the choral show as a

visual, almost geometric, structure. The faultless circle dei ned

by the perfectly shaped outline of the performing choreuts

can be seen from there as accentuating the clear blankness of

the interior open space. Second, the structural beauty of the

choral spectacle (apparently quite traditional in this case) is

evoked as a handy, easily shared paradigm. 11 It is likely that

the immediate visual appeal of Xenophon’s choral example

underscores its commonly shared i eld of reference: choral per-

formance perceived – and enjoyed – as a spectacle, essentially

a theatrical one.

Much beyond the strictly dramatic enterprises, spectator-

ship and theatricalisation, apparently typical traits of Athenian




215�

culture in the fourth century, seem to have played a decisive

role in the overall musical activity of the city. 12 Although the

term ‘theatricalisation’ is used here to underline the impor-

tance placed by a given culture on spectatorship, regardless

of whether a performance is taking place in a theatrical con-

struction strictly speaking (‘theatre’ meaning originally a

place for viewing), it is nevertheless important to recall that

at the Great Dionysia the dithyramb was danced and sung

in the theatre of Dionysus by all ten tribes competing for

victory. 13

In the context of the present examination, then, it is par-

ticularly important to note that the theatrocracy Plato talks

about in a much-discussed passage of the Laws (700–701b)

refers not to dramatic performances in particular but to what

the Athenian interlocutor considers the damaging ef ects of

the overall theatricalisation of the city’s musical culture with a

remarkable focus on choral genres. It is mainly choral genres,

namely paeans, hymns, laments, and dithyrambs (with a sig-

nii cant reference to a genre traditionally executed solo, the

kitharodic nome, soon to be blamed by the Athenian as imitat-

ing aulodia in current vogue) that are explicitly named by the

Athenian as having been clearly distinguished in the deeper

past, yet mixed up and overly complicated in more recent

times. This remarkable reference to the notion and practice of

musical genres , for which both the term eidos (category, type)

and the term schema are used, suggests the continuing ef ec-

tiveness of some forms of chorality in fourth-century musical

culture and their perceived relevance to the phenomenon of

theatrocracy. 14 At the same time the emphasis on the increased

role of spectatorship in what the Athenian considers musi-

cal degeneration and cultural decline is illuminating. It is the

mob’s unmusical yelling and uproar ( amousoi boai plethous )

that have taken the place of strict and authoritative judgement,

he says, and the applause by means of clapping ( krotoi epainous

apodidontes ) has trumped the educated silence of disciplined

listeners of the past. It is because of this increased prevalence




216 �

of spectatorship that the poets, possessed by a spirit of plea-

sure ( katechomenoi huph’ hedones ), capitalised on excessive

musical innovation, while considering the pleasure of the lis-

tener ( hedone tou chairontos ) the best criterion for their music.

This is how the theatres became vocal instead of voiceless and

how theatrocracy replaced aristocracy. 15

The political connotations of this hapax Platonic coinage,

pointing at democracy, are evident and much discussed. But

on the level of pure denotation, the term ‘theatrocracy’ con-

cisely emblematizes what Plato conceived of as the predomi-

nance of spectatorship in overall musical matters, with choral

categories and variations at its core. It thus foregrounds the

decisive role that an impulsively pleased audience might have

played not only in the generally prevailing musical taste but

also, and more specii cally, in choral trends.

Redefining Choral Pleasure

In stark opposition to this intense theatricalisation of cur-

rent musical practices, an alternative and opposed model of

communal musical delight seems to be suggested in the Laws .

Although, as I wish to show, this diverse type of pleasure is con-

sistently inferred (and thus ai rmed) in crucial passages of the

dialogue, it is never openly addressed as such by the Athenian,

and thus has remained largely unnoticed. 16 This quite deviant

model appears to be the following: although almost all other

performance genres that are discussed in the Laws are treated

as objects of spectatorship and consequently as the objects of

the audience’s pleasure, the endorsed choral performances

and the type of pleasure attached to them are consistently not

thought of and described in these terms. On the contrary, in

cases where choral practices are discussed in some detail, spec-

tatorship tends to recede and the pleasure of choreia , though

usually ai rmed, comes with substantial and often intriguing

ambiguities. This interesting Platonic approach to choral plea-

sure, which appears prominently in the second book of the

Laws , calls for detailed description.




217�

A programmatic statement about the pleasure of choreia is

made close to the beginning of the second book of the Laws :

We, in contrast, have been given the aforementioned gods as fellow-dancers, and they have given us the pleasant ( meth’

hedones ) perception of rhythm and harmony. Using this they move us, and lead us in choruses, joining us together with songs and dances; and that is why they bestowed the name ‘choruses’ – from the joy ( chara ) which is natural to these activities. (654a) 17

In Chapter 6 in this volume, Leslie Kurke discusses several

important aspects of this crucial passage. The particular aspect

I focus on is the interesting etymology of ered by the Athenian,

by which the term choreia is presented as associated semanti-

cally with the word chara ( joy). With this inventive linguistic

twist, joy becomes not just essential for the Platonic view of

choreia but also embedded in it. 18 Chara ( joy) has to be under-

stood as an organic part of choros . Furthermore, it is worth

noticing that in this programmatic statement joy ( chara ) and

pleasure ( hedone ) are seen as intertwined, complementary, and

almost identical conditions of choral activity. Gods give them

both to mortals. And while they name the song and dance

activity choreia , from the chara implanted therein, they also

provide the sense of rhythm and harmony to be enjoyed with

pleasure ( meth’ hedones ). In the following sections of the text,

the twin concepts chara ( joy) and hedone (pleasure) will alter-

nate with no signii cant semantic dif erentiation. 19

Joy and pleasure are thus established as inherent aspects of

Plato’s approach to choreia . At this early stage of the discus-

sion, however, there is vagueness as to whose joy and pleasure

the Athenian refers. This ambiguity becomes sharper when

the Athenian raises a crucial question: ‘Do we all feel a simi-

lar joy in every choral performance?’ (655b–c). The verb used

here is chairomen , and the discussion will now focus on the

ethical component of choral pleasure as a criterion of judge-

ment. But as for the identity of the agents of this judgement

and the physical bearers of joy, there is still a remarkable lack




218 �

of specii city. For the Athenian’s statement, ‘Most people, how-

ever, do say that the criterion for correct music is its power to

provide pleasure ( hedonen ) to the souls’ (655c), with its gen-

eral formulation leaves wide open the question of the identity

of the pleased subject. Whose pleasure and whose soul is the

Athenian referring to?

It is the immediately following and remarkably intricate

passage that will eventually give the answer to this question

(655d–656a). The passage is one of the most comprehensive

yet complex descriptions of the function of choreia as mimesis

(enactment of general disposition, character, and emotion) and

deserves separate detailed analysis. From the many important

issues it raises, I focus specii cally on the problem of the iden-

tity of those depicted by the Athenian as experiencing plea-

sure in choral performances.

Ἐπειδὴ ῴιῴήῴατα τρόπωῶ ἐστὶ τὰ περὶ τὰς χορεῥας , ἐῶ πράῷεσῥ τε παῶτοδαπαῖς γιγῶόῴεῶα καὶ τύχαις , καὶ ἤθεσι καὶ ῴιῴήσεσι διεῷιόῶτωῶ ἑκάστωῶ , οἷς ῴὲῶ ἂῶ πρ9ς τρόπου τὰ ﾀηθέῶτα ἢ

ῴεῳﾌδηθέῶτα ἢ καὶ ὁπωσοﾁῶ χορευθέῶτα , ἢ κατὰ φύσιῶ ἢ κατὰ

ἔθος ἢ κατ ’ ἀῴφότερα , τούτους ῴὲῶ καὶ τούτοις χαῥρειῶ τε καὶ ἐπαιῶεῖῶ αὐτὰ καὶ προσαγορεύειῶ καῳὰ ἀῶαγκαῖοῶ , οἷς δ ’ ἂῶ παρὰ φύσιῶ ἢ τρόποῶ ἤ τιῶα συῶήθειαῶ , οὔτε χαῥρειῶ δυῶατ9ῶ οὔτε ἐπαιῶεῖῶ αἰσχρά τε προσαγορεύειῶ . οἷς δ ’ ἂῶ τὰ ῴὲῶ τ､ς φύσεως ὀρθὰ συῴβαῥῶῃ , τὰ δὲ τ､ς συῶηθεῥας ἐῶαῶτῥα , ἢ τὰ ῴὲῶ τ､ς συῶηθεῥας ὀρθά , τὰ δὲ τ､ς φύσεως ἐῶαῶτῥα , οὗτοι δὲ ταῖς ἡδοῶαῖς το;ς ἐπαῥῶους ἐῶαῶτῥους προσαγορεύουσιῶ · ἡδέα γὰρ τούτωῶ ἕκαστα εἶῶαῥ φασι , ποῶηρὰ δέ , καὶ ἐῶαῶτῥοῶ ἄῳῳωῶ οὓς οἴοῶται φροῶεῖῶ αἰσχύῶοῶται ῴὲῶ κιῶεῖσθαι τﾏ σώῴατι τὰ

τοιαﾁτα , αἰσχύῶοῶται δὲ ᾄδειῶ ὡς ἀποφαιῶόῴεῶοι καῳὰ ῴετὰ

σπουδ､ς , χαῥρουσιῶ δὲ παρ ’ αὑτοῖς . Choral performances are acts mimetic of character, exhibited in all sorts of actions and circumstances, and each brings to bear both his habitual disposition and his capacity to imitate. Now those whose character is in accord with what is said and sung and in any way performed – because of nature or habit or both – are accordingly delighted by the performed acts , and praise them and pronounce them i ne. Those, however, who i nd that the performed acts go against nature, character, or




219�

a certain habituation, are unable to delight in them or to praise

them, and pronounce them ugly . Then there are some whose nat-ural predisposition is correct but whose habituation is adverse, and others whose habituation is correct but whose natural pre-disposition is adverse, and these make pronouncements contrary

to their pleasure . They claim that each of these performances is pleasant but wicked, and in the presence of others, whom they think prudent, they are ashamed to move their bodies in such ways and ashamed to sing as though they seriously approved of them. Yet they do delight in them when they are all by them-

selves . 20 (655d–656a)

Pleasure is the central topic of the passage, marked out by the

verb chairein (enjoy), the noun hedone (pleasure), and the adjec-

tive hedea (pleasurable). Furthermore, the passage consists of

two long sections. The i rst one, with its remarkable combi-

nation of passive verbs and impersonal expressions, leaves

entirely – if not deliberately – obscure the identity of the

pleased subjects to whom the Athenian is referring. 21 Equally

obscure is the identity of those referred to as ‘these persons’

( houtoi ) in the second long section. It is only in the last part

of this long passage that the identity of the individuals the

Athenian is referring to is revealed. Only here does it i nally

become clear that the ones experiencing choreia as a pleasur-

able (yet harmful) activity are none other than the choral per-

formers themselves and that Plato’s real concern throughout

the passage is oriented towards the citizens who participate in

choral enactments. 22 As this last clause has a concluding func-

tion, one realises that the Athenian is explicitly referring here

to the same category of individuals he was alluding to in the

i rst section of this long passage.

Two points need to be underlined. First, the Athenian’s

interest is clearly placed on the performer of choreia , the per-

former’s contradictions or internal conl icts in relation to his

own pleasure. And, second, although the presence of the audi-

ence does indeed emerge here – notice the phrase in front of

others ( enantion allon ) – it does so only from an unexpectedly

reversed point of view. In other words, what appears to be




220 �

crucial in this case is not the audience looking at the performer

and enjoying or disapproving of his performance. On the con-

trary, it is the choral performer who, while looking at the audi-

ence, or just sensing its presence, is unable to take pleasure

in his own performance. Forced by his internal conl ict, the

performer takes pleasure in his own performance in private

(notice the expression at the very end of the passage: chairousi

par’ autois ). This strikingly reversed image of the spectators,

perceived from the point of view of the choral performer as

af ecting the terms of his own pleasure, is a remarkably rare

instance in Greek approaches to choral – and, more broadly,

musical – pleasure and is very indicative of Plato’s priorities in

his discussion of things choral.

The Athenian’s interest in the pleasure of the choral

performer becomes even more intriguing when one realises the

following pattern: in the upcoming sections of Book 2, when-

ever the dialogue touches on other issues relevant to mousike

and performance, the discussion about pleasure focusses on

spectatorship and on the pleasure of the audience. Conversely,

whenever the Athenian brings the discussion back to choreia

in particular, his interest returns to the pleasure of the per-

former himself. This pattern becomes evident in the passage

where the Athenian introduces the topic of the criteria of vic-

tory in the mousikoi agones :

Μﾎῶ οὖῶ οἰόῴεθα καὶ κοῴιδ･ ῴάτηῶ τ9ῶ ῶﾁῶ ῳεγόῴεῶοῶ ῳόγοῶ περὶ τﾎῶ ἑορταζόῶτωῶ ῳέγειῶ το;ς ποῳῳούς , ὅτι τοﾁτοῶ δεῖ σοφώτατοῶ ἡγεῖσθαι καὶ κρῥῶειῶ ῶικtῶ , ὃς ἂῶ ἡῴtς εὐφραῥῶεσθαι καὶ χαῥρειῶ ὅτι ῴάῳιστα ἀπεργάζηται ; δεῖ γὰρ δή , ἐπεῥπερ ἀφεῥῴεθά γε παῥζειῶ ἐῶ τοῖς τοιούτοις , τ9ῶ πῳεῥστους καὶ ῴάῳιστα χαῥρειῶ ποιοﾁῶτα , τοﾁτοῶ ῴάῳιστα τιῴtσθαῥ τε , καὶ ὅπερ εἶποῶ ῶυῶδή , τὰ ῶικητήρια φέρειῶ . Then do we think that the account the many give about cel-ebrators of holidays is completely vacuous, when they say that

the person who as much as possible gives us joy and delight is the

one who should be considered wisest and judged victorious ? For since we give ourselves over to play on such occasions, the one

who makes the most people enjoy themselves the most should be




221�

the one who is most honoured and, as I just now said, given the victory prizes. (657e)

The subject of pleasure remains central but the point of view is

now dif erent. For it is the spectator’s, the audience’s, pleasure

that becomes the issue in question. Certainly, the Athenian’s

goal is to problematise the common perceptions regarding the

audience’s pleasure in mousike . But, given the focus of the pres-

ent discussion, it is interesting that, exactly at the point where

performance reappears as an ‘object’ of the audience’s pleasure,

choreia disappears. The one whose exclusive goal is to compete

only for the pleasure of the audience is at the moment a generi-

cally unspecii ed performer. 23 Yet, in the immediately follow-

ing section, specii c genres of performance are i nally named.

These are: Homeric rhapsody, kitharody, tragedy, comedy, and

puppet shows (658b).

And although the broader frame and cause of the discussion

is choreia , references to choral genres are absolutely absent from

this quite extensive list. One could perhaps claim that choreia

may be implied in the Athenian’s references to tragedy and

comedy. If so, it is latent rather than thematised, especially if

one recalls that Platonic discussions of drama hardly ever seem

to focus on the choral parts. To make this point even clearer:

one should at least wonder why in this discussion about the

audience’s pleasure in the mousikoi agones , and in this other-

wise detailed list of performance genres, the Athenian never

mentions the choral and agonistic genre par excellence: the

dithyramb. 24

Although absent from this crucial section of Plato’s

approach to mousike , choreia resurfaces later in his discussion

when the Athenian returns to the topic of the relationship

between choreia and paideia (659). Practicing choreia reappears

there as the way to cultivate in society an acceptable vehicle

of pleasure. In this broader frame the Athenian proposes the

establishment of three citizen-choruses based on age-class: the

children’s choruses, the young people’s choruses, and the older

people’s choruses. Indeed, a theatrical setting is evoked here,




222 �

albeit momentarily: the children’s chorus is said to ‘come for-

ward i rst to sing these things before the whole city ’ (664c). Yet

there is no further reference to the children’s performance as a

theatrical event to be enjoyed by its spectators, whereas both

the presence and the pleasure of the audience recede when

the Athenian makes a vital statement on choral pleasure in a

following passage. The statement, to which I shall return sev-

eral times in the course of this chapter, is emblematic of Plato’s

overall view of chorality in the Laws :

Τ9 δεῖῶ πάῶτ ’ ἄῶδρα καὶ παῖδα , ἐῳεύθεροῶ καὶ δοﾁῳοῶ , θ､ῳύῶ τε καὶ ἄρρεῶα , καὶ ὅῳῃ τ･ πόῳει ὅῳηῶ τὴῶ πόῳιῶ αὐτὴῶ αὑτ･

ἐπsδουσαῶ ῴὴ παύεσθαῥ ποτε ταﾁτα ἃ διεῳηῳύθαῴεῶ , ἁῴﾎς γέ πως ἀεὶ ῴεταβαῳῳόῴεῶα καὶ πάῶτως παρεχόῴεῶα ποικιῳῥαῶ , ὥστε ἀπῳηστῥαῶ εἶῶαῥ τιῶα τﾎῶ ὕῴῶωῶ τοῖς ᾄδουσιῶ καὶ ἡδοῶήῶ . That every man and child, free and slave, female and male – indeed the whole city – should never cease chanting to (and

enchanting) the entire city, itself to itself , these things we have described, which must in one way or another be continually changing, presenting variety in every way, so that the singers

will take insatiable desire and pleasure in their hymns . (665c)

The transgression of gender, age, and class boundaries (man

and boy, slave and free, man and woman) seems to be essential

for the Athenian’s vision of choreia . Even more, the image of

the entire polis singing to the entire polis , itself to itself , makes

the Athenian’s formulation striking. For in this case the line

separating the sender from the receiver, the performer from

the audience, is deliberately blurred. As the polis itself sings

to itself , the act of listening becomes totally absorbed by the

act of performing. Moreover, given that Plato plays with the

double meaning of epaidein as both chanting and enchanting,

the enchantment of the listener, that is, his superlative plea-

sure, completely overlaps with that of the performer: it is the

singing city that enchants itself. Thus, again, in the Athenian’s

conceptualisation of choral pleasure, the pleasure of the per-

former prevails. This becomes even more explicit in the last




223�

clause: modii cation and variety will guarantee insatiable

desire ( aplestia ) and pleasure ( hedone ) for the singers (notice:

tois aidousin ). Although modii cation and variety are in fact

deeply compromised in Magnesia by mechanisms of censor-

ship, it is nevertheless important to note how in this passage

the Athenian is strongly endorsing a notion of continual plea-

sure for the choral performers. 25

Before I move on to an attempt to interpret the phenomenon

I have been describing, I would like to adduce two more inter-

connected instances that further corroborate my observations

so far. Both instances come from the Athenian’s analysis of the

chorus of the elders. In the i rst instance (665d), the discussion

focusses once again on the pleasure of the performer – albeit in

a negative way. Because of his advanced age, the older citizen

is described as taking less pleasure in singing ( hetton chairei ).

Furthermore, there is an explicit reference to the theatre and

its audience as the natural place of choral performances ( en

theatroi kai pantoiois anthropois , 665e). Yet spectatorship

is brought up only as an inversion, similar to the one men-

tioned earlier. 26 That is, the theatre setting and the audience

turn out to be viewed only as the factors that embarrass the

elder choreut. They deprive him of his own pleasure and make

him unwilling to perform. Eventually, however, the Athenian’s

entire analysis of the relationship between pleasure and musi-

cal knowledge restores the elder performer’s pleasure. While

playing a leading role in the musical education of the youth,

the elder performers, still in their choral identity – yet in an

intimate and private setting – can now sing and thus delight

undisturbed in their own harmless ( asineis ) pleasures (670d).

De-aestheticis ing CH O R E I A

I have traced an interesting pattern in the second book of the

Laws as regards the recurrent theme of pleasure in mousike .

Whenever the Athenian refers to or analyses other genres

of mousike , he focusses on the pleasure these genres do – or

should – provide to their audiences. On the contrary, whenever




224 �

he refers to or analyses choreia , the audience’s response to the

choral act is passed over in silence, while the Athenian shifts his

point of view to the pleasure of the choral performer himself.

Even in a few cases where the audience or the theatre is men-

tioned in the broader context of choreia , they are mentioned

either parenthetically or, more importantly, with a remarkable

inversion, that is, as mere impediments to the enjoyment of the

choral act by the choral performer.

This pattern becomes even more intriguing when one thinks

not only of the overall theatricalisation of mousike in fourth-

century Athens, which (as I mentioned in the i rst section of my

chapter) Plato criticises as overly dependent on the audience’s

pleasure, but also of the way in which choral performances are

represented in earlier poetry as well. It is not accidental that

in the famous description of Achilles’ shield, also mentioned

earlier in this essay, the depiction of the spectacular dance of

the young boys and girls is concluded with the reference to a

large audience ( pollos homilos , 603) that is watching the desir-

able dance ( himeroenta choron , 603), and taking pleasure in it

( terpomenoi , 604). 27 That is, not only is the entire scene of the

dance clearly supposed to stimulate our visual imagination –

‘us’ being the external audience of the poem – but an internal

audience is explicitly staged as taking delight while watching

the dance. Similarly, in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo the chorus

of the Delian maidens is represented as a virtuoso ensemble,

able to provide to its audiences, with both song and dance, the

superlative pleasure denoted by the verb thelgousi (enchant). 28

In other words, in Greek thought choral performances fuli l

their social and cultural function when the communication act

between senders and receivers, between choreuts and audi-

ence, comes full circle. Choral performances become fully

meaningful as aesthetic objects to be of ered to, and enjoyed

by, their viewers, actual or imagined, humans or gods. 29

Certainly, it is in modern times that the term aesthetic

object emerged as a quintessential (yet debated) concept in

the area of aesthetics. The point made here, however, is that,

although lacking such terminology, archaic and classical Greek




225�

conceptualisations of the choral were indeed prone to focus-

sing on the experience of chorality as an ‘object’ of an audi-

ence’s viewing, as a spectacle with aesthetic qualities to be

appreciated and enjoyed by a given individual or collective

‘subject’. In such cases, then, we need not understand the

aesthetic ‘object’ as requiring a strictly detached and ‘merely

contemplative judgement’, as Kant, preeminently, understood

the process of aesthetic experience in modern times. Yet, as

mentioned previously, there is evidence from Greek texts that

a contemplative process, with varying grades of detachment,

was indeed key to discourses about musical attendance. By

using the term ‘aesthetic object’ in relation to choreia , then,

I refer to quite complex modes of looking at and taking plea-

sure in choral acts from the standpoint of a viewer. 30 Despite

its modern origins, Beardsley’s general, moderate, and explan-

atory formulation, according to which aesthetic experience

takes place when ‘the greater part’ of one’s mental activity ‘is

made pleasurable by being tied to the form and qualities of

a sensuously presented or imaginatively intended object on

which his primary attention is concentrated’, presents inter-

esting ai nities with the broader mind-set through which chor-

eia is contemplated as a spectacle in Greek texts. 31

How are we, then, to explain Plato’s remarkable focus on

choreia as a pleasurable act for the choral performers themselves ,

a pleasure almost incompatible with the presence of a watch-

ing audience? I suggest that Plato’s treatment of choreia in the

Laws is part of a broader strategy on his part to de-aestheticise

it. 32 In other words, precisely because choreia is not anymore

a spectacle supposed to be heard, seen, and appreciated from

outside but only an action to be performed and enjoyed by its

enacting agents, its ef ect as an aesthetic object recedes and

vanishes – hence, Plato’s depiction of the entire polis sing-

ing to and enchanting the entire polis in a remarkably self-

rel exive way. 33

This de-aestheticisation of choreia can be best interpreted

as Plato’s i nal and novel response to the musical practices he

had been criticising in all his previous works, eminently in




226 �

the Republic . 34 Interestingly, though, his well-known struggle

with the modes of audience response elicited by musical per-

formances in Athens, especially with epic and dramatic poetry,

usually passes over in silence choral practices. Thus, the exten-

sive discussion of choreia in his last work, the Laws , emerges as

his way of fully redeeming mousike , while essentially depriving

it of exactly what he considered a major cause of its decline:

its function as an object of the audience’s pleasure and, conse-

quently, its utter theatricalisation. One may object that a cre-

ative mode of attending and taking delight in performances,

on the one hand, and the unexamined excessive pleasure Plato

talks about in the Laws , on the other, are far from identical.

Indeed, if Plato had been willing to entertain the possibility

of a moderate aesthetic attitude to be practised by audiences

at large, he would have been more likely to address choreia not

only as a fuli lling enactment for the performers but also as

a pleasing spectacle for the viewers. Such an approach, how-

ever, would result in perplexities similar to those we encoun-

ter in the third book of the Republic , where in the context of

the discussion about mousike it eventually becomes clear that

even the most purii ed experience of beauty may run the risk

of causing vehement impulses. 35 That is to say, aesthetic expe-

rience is understood by Plato as an essentially liminal state,

inherently prone to transgressing the boundaries between rea-

son and impulse. 36 Even if the ef ects of this liminality can be

handled by the guardians of the Republic , could they ever be

modulated by the entire body of citizens of the Laws ?

Hence, in the Laws the pleasure of the audience is ques-

tioned in multiple ways. In cases where it is directly addressed,

its legitimacy is distrusted, while an inevitably ideological

principle of correctness ( orthotes ), explicitly opposed to the

audience’s pleasure, emerges as the sole criterion of musi-

cal excellence. 37 One suspects that it is upon this decorum of

orthotes that choral competitions (about the organisation of

which we learn later in the Laws , with no references to attend-

ing audiences) are to be founded. 38 Correctness, the Athenian

says, can be certii ed only by those with profound knowledge




227�

and acute perceptiveness of rhythms and harmonies, a type of

musical proi ciency that the ‘choric Muse’ is insui cient to pro-

vide all by itself. 39 Moreover, ‘it is ridiculous of the big crowds

to believe they can adequately understand what is harmoni-

ous and rhythmical’, the Athenian adds. 40 Unquestionably,

such straightforward precepts shed light on the reasons why

Plato’s discussion of an all-participatory choreia emphasises the

choreuts’ own delight while largely circumventing the audi-

ence’s pleasure. 41

The peculiarity, even bizarreness, of a fourth-century b.c.

vision of an all-participatory yet essentially untheatrical and

de-aestheticised model of musical practice through civic choreia

can be better understood if juxtaposed with Aristotle’s views

on mousike in his Politics . 42 In the eighth book of the Politics –

which is likely to have been composed earlier than other parts

of the Politics and thus to rel ect debates within the Academy –

Aristotle discusses the proper education of the young, while

focussing specii cally on musical training. 43 Several claims for-

mulated in his analysis can be compared and contrasted with

Plato’s views on the same subject in the Laws , a most striking

one being Aristotle’s emphasis on music as a social good to be

apprehended and enjoyed mainly, if not exclusively, in atten-

dance, in direct and explicit opposition to performance. The

following passage is indicative of this view:

ἀῳῳ ’ ἴσως ἂῶ δόῷειεῶ ἡ τﾎῶ παῥδωῶ σπουδὴ παιδιtς εἶῶαι χάριῶ ἀῶδράσι γεῶοῴέῶοις καὶ τεῳειωθεῖσιῶ . ἀῳῳ ’ εἰ τοﾁτ ’ ἐστὶ τοιοﾁτοῶ , τῥῶος ἂῶ ἕῶεκα δέοι ῴαῶθάῶειῶ αὐτούς , ἀῳῳὰ ῴή , καθάπερ οἱ τﾎῶ Περσﾎῶ καὶ Μήδωῶ βασιῳεῖς , δι ’ ἄῳῳωῶ αὐτ9 ποιούῶτωῶ ῴεταῳαῴβάῶειῶ τ､ς ἡδοῶ､ς καὶ τ､ς ῴαθήσεως ; καὶ γὰρ ἀῶαγκαῖοῶ βέῳτιοῶ ἀπεργάζεσθαι το;ς αὐτ9 τοﾁτο πεποιηῴέῶους ἔργοῶ καὶ τέχῶηῶ τﾎῶ τοσοﾁτοῶ χρόῶοῶ ἐπιῴεῳουῴέῶωῶ ὅσοῶ πρ9ς ῴάθησιῶ ῴόῶοῶ . εἰ δὲ δεῖ τὰ τοιαﾁτα

διαποῶεῖῶ αὐτούς , καὶ περὶ τὴῶ τﾎῶ ὄψωῶ πραγῴατεῥαῶ αὐτο;ς ἂῶ δέοι παρασκευάζειῶ . But perhaps it might be thought that the serious pursuits of boys are for the sake of amusement when they have grown up to be men. But if something of this sort is the case, why should




228 �

the young need to learn this accomplishment themselves, and not, like the Persian and the Median kings, participate in the

pleasure and the education of music by means of others perform-

ing it ? For those who have made music a business and a profes-sion must necessarily perform better than those who practice only long enough to learn. But if it is proper for them to labour at accomplishments of this sort, then it would be also right for them to prepare the dishes of an elaborate cuisine. (1339a–b; trans. Rackham ( 1932 ))

Mousike , then, fuli ls its goal when enjoyed by a body of adult

listeners who are in all possible ways marked as other than the

performers. Thus, instead of Plato’s emblematic imagery of the

unceasing choreia of the polis, where all age, gender, and social

groups participate actively in the chant (and in the enchant-

ment) of the entire city, Aristotle seems to model his musical

ideal upon the Median and Persian kings who participate in

the pleasure of music by means of others performing it . Musical

artefacts are like culinary masterpieces: they are meant to be

consumed, appreciated, and judged not by those who create

them but by others.

Another passage in the eighth book of the Politics (1341b)

further illuminates Aristotle’s views on musical culture in rela-

tion to Plato’s in the Laws :

ἐπεὶ δὲ τﾎῶ τε ὀργάῶωῶ καὶ τ､ς ἐργασῥας ἀποδοκιῴάζοῴεῶ τὴῶ τεχῶικὴῶ παιδεῥαῶ ( τεχῶικὴῶ δὲ τῥθεῴεῶ τὴῶ πρ9ς το;ς ἀγﾎῶας · ἐῶ ταύτῃ γὰρ ὁ πράττωῶ οὐ τ､ς αὑτοﾁ ῴεταχειρῥζεται χάριῶ ἀρετ､ς , ἀῳῳὰ τ､ς τﾎῶ ἀκουόῶτωῶ ἡδοῶ､ς , καὶ ταύτης φορτικ､ς , διόπερ οὐ τﾎῶ ἐῳευθέρωῶ κρῥῶοῴεῶ εἶῶαι τὴῶ ἐργασῥαῶ , ἀῳῳὰ θητικωτέραῶ · καὶ βαῶαύσους δὴ συῴβαῥῶει γῥγῶεσθαι · ποῶηρ9ς γὰρ ὁ σκοπ9ς πρ9ς ὃῶ ποιοﾁῶται τ9 τέῳος · ὁ γὰρ θεατὴς φορτικ9ς ὢῶ ῴεταβάῳῳειῶ εἴωθε τὴῶ ῴουσικήῶ , ὥστε καὶ το;ς τεχῶῥτας το;ς πρ9ς αὐτ9ῶ ῴεῳετﾎῶτας αὐτούς τε ποιούς τιῶας ποιεῖ καὶ τὰ σώῴατα διὰ τὰς κιῶήσεις ), σκεπτέοῶ ἔτι περῥ τε τὰς ἁρῴοῶῥας καὶ το;ς ﾀυθῴούς . And since we reject professional education in the instruments and in performance (and we count performance in competi-tions as professional, for the performer does not take part in it




229�

for his own improvement, but for his hearers’ pleasure, and that

vulgar pleasure, owing to which we do not consider performing

to be proper for free men , but somewhat menial; and indeed performers do become vulgar, since the object at which they aim is a low one, as vulgarity in the audience usually inl uences

the music , so that it imparts to the artists who practice it with a view to suit the audience a special kind of personality, and also a bodily frame because of the movements required), we must therefore give some consideration to tunes and rhythms. (trans. Rackham ( 1932 ))

No doubt, Aristotle’s reference to the uncontrolled power of the

audience’s pleasure over things musical is an accusation against

musical trends very similar to Plato’s major concerns, those cap-

tured very concisely in the Laws through the term theatrokratia .

In other words, the elder Plato and the much younger Aristotle

were very likely diagnosing, perhaps over approximately the

same time, the same problem in Athenian musical matters. But

although sharing the same diagnosis, the two philosophers seem

to come up with diametrically opposite solutions. Aristotle

takes the theatricalisation of musical culture as a given, nega-

tive, condition, only to be controlled by a further dif erentia-

tion, in fact total separation, between professional performers

and an audience of citizens. If, as he claims, the performer does

not take part in performance for his own improvement, but for

his hearers’ pleasure, and that vulgar pleasure , then perform-

ing should not be considered anymore the activity of free men.

In brief, theatrokratia prompted him to envision and encour-

age a total schism between performance and attendance, while

further establishing mousike as an aesthetic object to please a

knowledgeable audience. The same phenomenon, theatrokratia ,

prompted Plato to conceive of a universalised, all-participatory

civic choreia to please the performers themselves, while passing

over in silence the presence and the role of spectatorship and,

along with it, the conceptualisation of choral performance as an

aesthetic experience for the viewer. 44

If de-aestheticisation is a reasonable way to understand

Plato’s vision of choreia in the Laws , then a parallel reading




230 �

of the second book of the Laws with the tenth book of the

Republic might illuminate further the interpretation suggested

here. In crucial passages of his analysis of choreia in the Laws ,

the Athenian tends to use the terms epoide and epaidein . 45 Both

terms seem to imply the performance of enchanting speech

acts, possibly akin to prayers. Furthermore, the act of simply

aidein (chanting) is many times deliberately blurred with that

of epaidein (enchanting), even presented as almost identical to

it. 46 If one takes into account this interesting association and

the almost mutual interchangeability between choral aidein

and epaidein in the Laws , then it seems that the tenth book of

the Republic can be a great help for our interpretation of the

phenomenon described in the Laws :

Εἰ δέ γε ῴή , ὦ φῥῳε ἑταῖρε , ὥσπερ οἱ ποτέ του ἐρασθέῶτες , ἐὰῶ ἡγήσωῶται ῴὴ ὠφέῳιῴοῶ εἶῶαι τ9ῶ ἔρωτα , βῥr ῴέῶ , ὅῴως δὲ ἀπέχοῶται , καὶ ἡῴεῖς οὕτως , διὰ τ9ῶ ἐγγεγοῶότα ῴὲῶ ἔρωτα

τ､ς τοιαύτης ποιήσεως ὑπ9 τ､ς τﾎῶ καῳﾎῶ ποῳιτειﾎῶ τροφ､ς , εὖῶοι ῴὲῶ ἐσόῴεθα φαῶ､ῶαι αὐτὴῶ ὡς βεῳτῥστηῶ καὶ ἀῳηθεστάτηῶ , ἕως δ ’ ἂῶ ῴὴ οἵα τ ’ U ἀποῳογήσασθαι , ἀκροασόῴεθ ’ αὐτ､ς ἐπsδοῶτες ἡῴῖῶ αὐτοῖς τοﾁτοῶ τ9ῶ ῳόγοῶ , ὃῶ ῳέγοῴεῶ , καὶ ταύτηῶ τὴῶ ἐπﾌδήῶ , εὐῳαβούῴεῶοι πάῳιῶ ἐῴπεσεῖῶ εἰς τ9ῶ παιδικόῶ τε καὶ τ9ῶ τﾎῶ ποῳῳﾎῶ ἔρωτα . ᾀσόῴεθα δ ’ οὖῶ ὡς οὐ σπουδαστέοῶ ἐπὶ τ･ τοιαύτῃ ποιήσει ὡς ἀῳηθεῥας τε ἁπτοῴέῶῃ καὶ σπουδαῥr , ἀῳῳ ’ εὐῳαβητέοῶ αὐτὴῶ ὂῶ τﾏ ἀκροωῴέῶﾌ , περὶ τ､ς ἐῶ αὑτﾏ ποῳιτεῥας δεδιότι , καὶ ῶοῴιστέα ἅπερ εἰρήκαῴεῶ περὶ ποιήσεως . But if not, my friend, even as men who have fallen in love, if they think that the love is not good for them, hard though it be, nevertheless refrain, so we, owing to the love of this kind of poetry inbred in us by our education in these i ne polities of ours, will gladly have the best possible case made out for her goodness and truth, but so long as she is unable to make good her defence we shall chant over to ourselves as we listen

the reasons that we have given as a countercharm to her spell , to preserve us from slipping back into childish loves of the multitude, for we have come to see that we must not take such poetry seriously as a serious thing that lays hold on truth, but

that he who lends an ear to it must be on his guard fearing for




231�

the polity in his soul and must believe what we have said about poetry. ( Rep . 607e–608a; trans. Shorey ( 1930 –5))

The passage is well known and important for many reasons,

including the depiction of the listener’s response to poetry as

eros . 47 For the needs of the present discussion, however, I would

like to focus specii cally on the way the dynamic between lis-

tening and performing is represented and ultimately trans-

formed in this case. Socrates is talking about two distinctive

functions. On the one hand, he refers to the function of lis-

tening to poetry ( akroasometha , akroomenoi ). But while this

condition of attending to poetry as external listeners is clearly

stated in his argument, a striking transmutation takes place at

the same time. That is, according to Socrates the only way for

the listener to not get seduced qua listener is his chanting of

epoidai , the very type of utterance repeatedly mentioned in the

Laws . In this statement, then, where oddly enough the listener

is in ef ect turned into a counterperformer, the act of listen-

ing is clearly abolished. Counteracting poetry’s charm means

undermining the very condition in which its peculiar seduc-

tive power l ourishes: the condition where poetry is an entity

sensed and theorised from the point of view of an attentive

listener – in other words, the condition in which poetry can be

approached as an aesthetic object.

In the passage of the Republic , the chanting of epoidai seems

to have as its content the Socratic type of philosophical dis-

course and is thus used in a rather metaphorical manner; by

contrast, in this part of the Laws , the performance of epoidai

is fully redeemed and rehabilitated as an act of true chanting,

now transfused into the choral song of the polis. And one can-

not resist drawing attention to an intriguing detail: the self-

rel exive chanting of the epoidai in the Republic (notice the

expression hemin autois ) sounds like the kernel that gener-

ates the self-rel exivity of the entire polis’ song to itself in the

Laws . In the Republic the listener is recommended to turn him-

self into a counterperformer and to become a singer of epoidai

to himself, in ef ect cancelling his position as a listener . In the




232 �

Laws, choreia becomes the model for a universal all-participa-

tory chanting of a limited range of poetry approved by the

authorities, where the spectator and the listener have silently

disappeared, yielding to a world of performers. Lacking active

listeners and spectators, this choral world does not lend

itself to contemplation anymore. This is choreia ’s remarkably

de- aestheticised moment.

Choral Matrix

And yet, despite this eclipse of the spectator of choreia , despite

the obliteration of the spectator’s pleasure in watching the

choruses performing, the topic of pleasure, with its remark-

able emphasis on the pleasure of the choral performer , is still

brought up, as we saw, in all crucial passages of Plato’s discus-

sion of choreia . But what does this pleasure consist of ? One

may claim that the pleasure of actively participating in choreia ,

the pleasure of being a choral performer, could be described

as the result of inner inclination and impulse rather than one

of contemplation. 48 In the key passage of the Laws referring to

the choreia of the polis, the whole city is described as ini nitely

chanting to (and enchanting) the entire city, itself to itself,

while continual change, providing variety, helps the singers

take insatiable desire and pleasure in their hymns. 49 As men-

tioned earlier, the Laws is actively hostile to real innovation

in things musical; therefore, ‘change’ and ‘variety’ in this case

must be simply understood as referring to alternating hymnic

or encomiastic compositions to be chosen strictly among those

approved by the authorities. 50 Interestingly, the word used for

insatiable desire is aplestia , a term that in Greek texts, and espe-

cially in Plato, is usually associated with the desire for material

goods or physical needs. 51 This passage, then, is as close as we

can get to choreia ’s pleasure as an almost physical gratii cation

that obeys the laws of bodily consumption and the process of

emptying out and replenishment. It is as close as we can get to

the choral performer’s pleasure as a means of satisfaction simi-

lar to that one i nds in lovemaking, eating, or drinking. 52




233�

This peculiar condition that establishes a primary asso-

ciation between choreia and the physical gratii cation of the

choral performers themselves is quite similar to the type of

pleasure mentioned in Hesiod’s description of the archetypal

choral performers, the Muses. It involves the representation

of the divine chorus in a quasi-processional dance movement,

while they sing hymns:

ἐρατὴῶ δὲ διὰ στόῴα ὄσσαῶ ἱεῖσαι ῴέῳποῶται , πάῶτωῶ τε ῶόῴους καὶ ἤθεα κεδῶὰ ἀθαῶάτωῶ κῳεῥουσιῶ , ἐπήρατοῶ ὄσσαῶ ἱεῖσαι . αἳ τότ ’ ἴσαῶ πρ9ς Ὄῳυῴποῶ , ἀγαῳῳόῴεῶαι ὀπὶ καῳ･ , ἀῴβροσῥῃ ῴοῳπ･ · περὶ δ ’ ἴαχε γαῖα ῴέῳαιῶα ὑῴῶεύσαις , ἐρατ9ς δὲ ποδﾎῶ ὕπο δοﾁπος ὀρώρει ῶισοῴέῶωῶ πατέρ ’ εἰς ὅῶ · Lovely are their voices when they sing and extol for the whole world the laws and wise customs of the immortals. Then they went to Olympus, delighting in their beautiful

voices, and their heavenly song. The black earth resounded with

hymns, and a lovely beat arose as they pounded their feet and advanced towards their father.

(Hes. Theog . 65–71; trans. Athanassakis ( 2004 ))

The phrase ἀγαῳῳόῴεῶαι ὀπὶ καῳ･ , ἀῴβροσῥῃ ῴοῳπ･ (delight-

ing in their beautiful voices, / and their heavenly song, 68–9)

is remarkable and absolutely relevant to the point in question

here. The chorus of the Muses is depicted as delighting in

their own beautiful voice and song while performing. 53 In this

instance, then, choral pleasure is indeed represented as the

pleasure of the choral performers themselves. More impor-

tantly, these are divine performers , establishing an archetypal

choral matrix. Yet, although one would be tempted to think

that in this musical matrix choral performance is concep-

tualised as a totally self-contained act, independent from its

potential listeners and viewers, it is worth noting that even




234 �

in this case the presence of a viewer and listener is tactfully

and subtly implicated. This is none other than the one whose

imagination is perceiving the musical action of the divine cho-

ral group as a source of desire. The emphatic repetition of the

word eratos/eperatos (lovely, desirable) in the passage, attrib-

uted to both the vocal (65, 67) and the kinetic (70) action of

the Muses, hints precisely in this direction. In other words,

the prototypical choral act is not conceived of only as delight-

ful for its active agents but also as enticing for its potential

viewers. It is the simultaneity and the mutual dependency

of both facets of pleasure that the Hesiodic matrix subtly

explores.

If so, then Plato’s almost exclusive focus on the pleasure

of the choral performer cannot be explained just as a nostal-

gic return to an archetypal model of choreia starkly opposing

itself to the alleged omnipotence of Athenian spectatorship.

For even in these musical archetypes, Greek thought seems to

have consistently made room for the pleasure of the viewer.

It is more likely that, despite his remarkable establishment of

choreia as an all-encompassing model of mousike in his last

work, Plato remained till the end sceptical about and uncom-

fortable with the broader implications of musical artefacts

as objects of aesthetic contemplation. Perhaps he sensed

that even the strictest musical regime he aspires to, the one

founded on notional and moral correctness ( orthotes ), cannot

guarantee the elimination of an active aesthetic imaginary. 54

Once the aesthetic viewer exists, he can forever indulge in

contemplating, that is to say in dreaming anew and reinvent-

ing, performance.

Notes

1 See, e.g., Hymn . Hom . Ap. 156–64 and Peponi ( 2009 ) with fur-ther bibliographical references.

2 On Athenian audiences and choreia , see, e.g., Revermann ( 2006 ) esp. 107–9.

3 Pickard-Cambridge ( 1962 ) 31–59; Wilson ( 2000 ) 93–5. 4 See, e.g., Lawler ( 1950 ); Csapo ( 2004 , 2008 ).




235�

5 As a boy Plato would have performed early in the penultimate decade of the i fth century. It is worth recalling that according to Diogenes Laertius, who in his Lives of eminent philosophers (3.5) refers to Dicaearchus’ testimony, Plato had composed in his youth dithyrambs along with other poetry. Despite the prestige attached to dithyrambic choregia (see for instance Alcibiades’ case in Wilson ( 2000 ) 148–55), one wonders if some elite youth in the last quarter of the i fth century and in the fourth century would resist participating as performers in communal dance. For instance, Charmides’ self-presentation in Xenophon’s Symp . 19 as totally lacking dance education could perhaps be read as a sign of elitist negligence of tribal dance training. As far as the term imag-inary is concerned, I employ it in order to refer to verbal mecha-nisms through which choral action is fantasised in choral song. This includes modes of literal and metaphorical self- reference as well as of projection, both encountered in i fth- century choral poetry, about which see Henrichs ( 1994–5 , 1996 ).

6 Il . 18.590–606. On interesting aspects of this scene, see also Kurke, Chapter 6 in this volume.

7 Meid . 16. 8 See also Isocrates’ Areopagiticus 54; Kosmopoulou ( 1998 ) 165. 9 Oec . 8.20; translation by E. C. Marchant in Marchant and Todd

( 1923 ). 10 For a similar approach, see also Oec . 8.3. 11 About the vocabulary of order as part of elitist conservatism in

things musical, see Csapo ( 2004 ) 237–42. It is not unlikely that new musical trends had come up with choreographic variations and elaborations on the circular formation, about which see, e.g., Lawler ( 1950 ).

12 See, e.g., Wallace ( 1997 ). 13 About the theatre of Dionysus used for the Great Dionysia

performances, including dithyrambic ones, see, e.g., Pickard-Cambridge ( 1962 ) 32; Wiles ( 1997 ) 49; D’Angour ( 2006 ) 270–1.

14 Laws 700a–e. For schema used in the meaning of dance posture in the Laws , see, e.g., 654e, 655a, 656a–e, 660a, 669c, 672e. In this context, where the Athenian discusses the evolution of musical genres, it is quite likely that the word schema refers inclusively to this meaning as well. For a dif erent view, see, e.g., England ( 1921 ) ad loc. For a broader discussion of Plato’s approach to monody and choral performance in the Laws , see recently G. Nagy ( 2009 ) 386–92. It has been repeatedly noted, e.g., Davies ( 1988 ) 58, that in this famous passage Plato does not make an explicit distinction between monodic and choral genres. While this is certainly true, there is no question that for an Athenian of Plato’s era the names of these poetic genres would spontaneously




236 �

bring up associations of their current performance status, and thus would be promptly identii ed as performed predominantly either in choral or in solo coni gurations.

15 Laws 700e–1a. On the audience’s reactions in this well-known Platonic passage, see Wallace’s ( 1997 ) enlightening approach.

16 Although the discussion of the concept of pleasure in the Laws involves an expanded and thorough analysis that exceeds plain references to the term hedone , it is indicative that this term is abundantly used in the i rst two books of the Laws (more than ten times in each one), whereas it is sparsely used in the other ten books – with a slightly increased appearance in Books 5 and 7. What makes the discussion of pleasure in the Laws unique is the interlocutors’ – and especially the Athenian’s – interest not in the nature of pleasure in general but rather in its social func-tion and its manipulation through training and cultural practice. For the concept of pleasure in the Laws , see Gosling and Taylor ( 1982 ) 169–74; Laks ( 1990 ); more recently Bobonich ( 2002 ) 350–73; Mouze ( 2005 ) 149–210; Frede ( 2010 ).

17 Unless otherwise indicated, all translations of the Laws passages are Pangle’s ( 1980 ), in some cases with limited modii cations.

18 For the possible etymologies of choros , which are unrelated to Plato’s ad hoc etymological play, see Chantraine ( 1968 –80) s.v.

19 The noun chara is very rarely used in Plato’s works. In the Laws it is used only once, in the passage under discussion. It is the verb chairein that Plato uses repeatedly in the Laws , often asso-ciated with choral pleasure in particular. See, e.g., 654c, 655c, 655e, 656a, 657c, 665e.

20 The translation of this perplexed passage is a hybrid. It com-bines Pangle’s ( 1980 ) and R. G. Bury’s ( 1926 ) solutions with sev-eral suggestions of mine. Text as in Burnet (1907).

21 The formulation of the passive forms τὰ ﾀηθέῶτα ἢ ῴεῳﾌδηθέῶτα

ἢ καὶ ὁπωσοﾁῶ χορευθέῶτα (literally: what is said , what is sung or put into melody, and in whatever way danced/performed ) cre-ates an ambiguity as regards the identity of those underlying the pronouns οἷς (for those) and τούτους (those). Also note the impersonal syntax in ἀῶαγκαῖοῶ and δυῶατ9ῶ .

22 Because of its dii culty and ambiguity this passage has often been interpreted dif erently. For instance, England ( 1921 ) 282 ad loc. thinks that in the i rst section of the passage ‘the perform-ers here spoken of are not professional actors, but every reader or reciter of a poem with all its accompaniments’. England is right that the passage is not referring to professional actors. Yet it is not referring to readers and reciters either. It is referring to citizen (thus nonprofessional) choruses of unspecii ed (and thus wide-ranging) choral genres. Similarly, England ( 1921 )




237�

283 thinks that it is only in the last section of this long passage ‘that the Athenian has had in mind not spectators, but choreutai themselves’. The agents of choreia , the performers, seem to be consistently the main focus of the Athenian’s concern, from the beginning to the end of this crucial passage. In the beginning of the passage, however, there is indeed a certain vagueness that is gradually clarii ed. Benardete ( 2000 ) 64–5, possibly based on England’s commentary, further elaborates on a similar reading of the passage.

23 This becomes even clearer when the Athenian challenges his interlocutors in 658a–b to suppose that somebody could pro-claim a victory prize, open to anyone who may want to compete ‘regarding pleasure alone’ ( ἀγωῶιούῴεῶοῶ ἡδοῶ､ς πέρι ῴόῶοῶ ).

24 For the Dionysian aspect in the Laws , see Kowalzig ( 2004 ) 60–5 and Panno ( 2007 ). For the possible implicit references to the dith-yramb, see Kowalzig ( 2013 ).

25 For the Athenian’s attack on innovation and for institutions of censorship, see esp. Laws 798b–799c.

26 For the Athenian’s notional interweaving of theatron with choral practices in current cultural activity, see also 667a–b. For the chorus of the elders, see Prauscello’s ( 2011 ) recent analysis and O. Murray, Chapter 5 in this volume.

27 Il . 18.604–5. On other aspects of this Homeric passage, see also Kurke, Chapter 6 in this volume.

28 On these lines, see Peponi ( 2009 ). 29 For the gods as spectators of musical (and choral) performances,

see, e.g., Homeric Hymn to Apollo 146 and 204–6. 30 See Peponi ( 2004a ) where I discuss the conceptualisation of

viewing choral acts as an intense mode of theorein especially in Alcman’s Louvre partheneion .

31 Beardsley ( 1982 ) 81. 32 This can be seen as a broader strategy in the Laws . See, e.g.,

the Athenian’s claims in 654c–d, where performing according to one’s ethical composure is clearly declared as more important than the purely aesthetic accomplishment of the choral act.

33 See discussion of this passage (665c) in a previous section of this essay.

34 On the Republic , see, e.g., Nehamas ( 1999b ). 35 Rep. 401b–403c. 36 For a detailed discussion of this issue in Plato’s Republic , see

Peponi ( 2012 ) 144–53. 37 Laws 668b–670d. 38 Laws 764c–765d. 39 Laws 670a–b. 40 Laws 670b–c.




238 �

41 Plato’s general tendency to circumvent the pleasure of the viewer in the case of choral performances has some interesting excep-tions. See, for instance, 657d, where the elders are watching the dancing youth with nostalgia – interestingly, nostalgia for the days when the elders could perform themselves.

42 In 779d we learn in passing that Plato’s imagined polis includes a theatre. Yet his untheatrical conception of choreia relies on his much deeper understanding of the dynamic of choral perfor-mance as such, no matter whether it is supposed to take place in a theatrical construction or not. On theatre in Plato’s Laws , see also Penelope Murray, Chapter 11 in this volume.

43 On the early composition of Books 7 and 8 of Aristotle’s Politics , see Oswyn Murray, Chapter 5 in this volume and O. Murray ( 2005 ) 202–3 with reference to Jaeger. On the problems of coher-ence in Aristotle’s Politics , see, e.g., Rowe ( 1977 ). On the pas-sages that are relevant to the specii c point made here, see, e.g., Kraut ( 1997 ) 40–6.

44 As Folch shows in Chapter 13 in this volume, in the Laws the Athenian discusses the possibility of establishing performances that included choral acts by professionals and by lower classes or noncitizens. But this arrangement involves only the ‘lower’ genres of performance, namely comedy and lament. The choreia Plato talks about in detail, especially in the second book of the Laws , is remarkably all-inclusive.

45 On epoide in the Laws , see Helmig ( 2003 ) 75–80. See also Mouze ( 2005 ) 165–8.

46 On the conceptual ai nity of the two verbs, see also Laws 666c. 47 On this passage, see, e.g., Halliwell ( 1988 ) 156–7; P. Murray

( 1996 ) 232–3. See most recently Halliwell ( 2011 ) and Peponi ( 2012 ) 128–53.

48 Thus, Plato’s programmatic statement about chara being embed-ded in the word choreia may be understood better as a concept closer to what, many centuries later, has been identii ed by Kant as the agreeable , as opposed to the beautiful . That which is agree-able is understood by him as producing an inner ‘inclination’, which tends to cancel the essentially contemplative character of the purely aesthetic judgement, while providing gratii cation and enjoyment . On these concepts, see Kant ( 1987 [1790]) § 3, Ak. 205–7 and §5, Ak. 209–10. For a discussion of the concept of the agreeable in Kant, see Zangwill ( 1995 ) 167–76. On broader issues regarding ancient Greek and modern approaches to aesthetic pleasure, see Peponi ( 2012 ).

49 Laws 665c. 50 On this issue see note 25 and Calame’s approach in Chapter 4 of

this volume.




239�

51 For aplestia in Plato, see, e.g., Grg . 493b; Rep . 555b, 562b; Ti . 73a; Laws 831d.

52 If my understanding of this statement is correct, that is, if the pleasure of the choral performer is conceptualised as obeying the laws of emptying out and replenishment, similar to a thirsty person who seeks gratii cation through drinking, one can per-haps see an interesting parallel in Pindar’s Pythian 9: ἐῴὲ δ ’ οὖῶ τις ἀοιδtῶ | δῥψαῶ ἀκειόῴεῶοῶ πράσσει χρέος , αὖτις ἐγεῖραι | καὶ παῳαιὰῶ δόῷαῶ ἑﾎῶ προγόῶωῶ „ (103–5). Here the chorus refers to its remedying, quenching, its ‘thirst’ for song.

53 One encounters a similar case in the description of yet another archetypal chorus, the Nereids, in Bacchylides 17.107–8. The Nereids are described there as taking pleasure in their own per-formance: χορﾏ | δ ’ ἔτερποῶ κέαρ ὑγροῖσιῶ ἐῶ ποσῥῶ .

54 For musical orthotes (correctness) in the Laws , see esp. 642a, 655d, 657a–b, 667b–c, 668b, 670b. See also Hatzistavrou ( 2011 ) and Calame’s Chapter 4 in this volume, as well as Barker’s approach in Chapter 15 . On the problem of musical purity and the aesthetic in the Republic , see Peponi ( 2012 ).





Documents

Choral Anti-Aesthetics in Performance and Culture in Plato’s Laws, ed. A-E Peponi , Cambridge 2013, pp. 212-39