Plato and music

[Ed Cryer]

http://theoryofmusic.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/music-in-platos-republic/

Plato wants to ban music that expresses "lamentation and sorrow"; or is
associated with "drunkenness, softness and indolence".
He doesn't like "multiplicity of strings or a panharmonic scale".
That rules out the Lydian and Ionian modes. Leaving just the Dorian and
Phrygian. Whatever those were.

As far as I can make out he wouldn't like any of the following;
Blues
Rock music
Flamenco

I'm wondering what he would have thought of classical music. I get the
feel that he would have hated Wagner, Mussorgsky, Tchaikovsky,Schoenberg
and Stockhausen.
He would have approved of Baroque (Bach, Vivaldi, Handel, Scarlatti,
Haydn). I'm not sure about Mozart and Beethoven; perhaps the works in
major keys as opposed to minor keys. But I feel certain he would have
loved the manly energy and optimism of Beethoven in C minor.

Hhhmm! Maybe I'm completely on the wrong track.

Ed

[Francis A. Miniter]

I have to disagree with your interpretation of the Republic. You are
referring I take it to Book IV, where Socrates is talking with
Adeimantus, not Glaucon.

Adeimantus was the eldest brother of Plato, and Glaucon was older than
Plato, but younger than Adeimantus. That they had different temperments
comes out clearly in the long dialogue. Adeimantus cared little for the
arts and more for good breeding. In Book IV, he is against innovation
in music. It too must be sober. But Glaucon was very different. He
was a musician in fact, appreciated the arts and culture. He would
never have agreed to what Adeimantus blithely lets fly by.

Socrates uses these differences in personalities to bring out the
answers he wants at the moment. If you look at what Socrates and
Glaucon agree upon in the later books of the Republic, you will notice
the concentration not just on music, but its source, the Muses
themselves, all of which would have been hogwash to Adeimantus.

The question to ask is not whether Plato had this or that view on music,
but why Plato has Socrates use each brother when he does and does that
reflect a weakness in the argument, which the other brother would have
caught?

Notice as well, as I have mentioned before, Plato never appears in the
dialogues. He puts his brothers in them. But he himself is always absent.


Francis A. Miniter

[Ed Cryer]

Does Plato appear in any of his books? All I can recall is in the
Apology where he doesn't so much appear as be mentioned; and then just once.
In the "Phaedo" he wrote "Plato was ill"; another one-off mention.
Was he maybe "The Stranger" in the "Laws"?

Another question; to what extent did Plato endorse the views he put into
the mouth of Socrates? Well, you know as well as I do that people have
argued and disagreed about that for millennia. Which gives you good food
for your usual claim that the dialogues are all encouragements to
philosophy rather than views held by Plato himself; and that "Platonism"
was never openly taught by Plato.

And, of course, all the attacks down the centuries from people who say
that Plato advocated censorship and even a "noble lie".

You'll be telling me next that Plato never promoted philosopher kings.
And if you do I'll mention to you the stories we have about Plato and
Dionysius II of Syracuse; and how they tried to reorganise the constitution.
Now then, that would be a good exchange!

Ed

[Francis A. Miniter]

Hi Ed,

It is one thing to try to improve a constitution, it is another to
believe that a philosopher king is possible, let alone desirable. Plato
had Socrates put the first city in an ontological past, beyond reach,
and the purpose was to temper political ambitions, I believe. Then,
too, if we view Socrates as a character used by Plato, we should not
ascribe Socrates's arguments to Plato. I think Plato wanted his readers
to work, and work hard, to find errors in Socrates's arguments when
there are errors to be found. Otherwise, he could have written
treatises. But he did not. And so we have to consider with whom it is
that Socrates is speaking on any occasion.

As to Plato in the dialogues, the closest he comes to being present for
a dialogue is by way of a pun. In the Phaedrus, Socrates and Phaedrus
decide to have their conversation sitting under a Plane Tree by a
stream. In Greek the word for plane tree is πλατον, the same as Plato.
So, in a sense they are speaking in the shade of Plato. I might give
that dialogue more emphasis, then, as possibly more closely reflecting
the views of its author.


Francis A. Miniter

[Francis A. Miniter]

On 3/23/2013 5:47 PM, Peter J Ross wrote:
> In humanities.classics on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 22:14:09 -0400, Francis A.

> Miniter wrote:
>
>> On 3/16/2013 12:29 PM, Ed Cryer wrote:
>>> http://theoryofmusic.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/music-in-platos-republic/
>

> <...>

>
>> I have to disagree with your interpretation of the Republic. You are
>> referring I take it to Book IV, where Socrates is talking with
>> Adeimantus, not Glaucon.
>

> The text translated on the referenced page is from Book III, and
> Socrates' interlocutor is Glaucon.
>
> <...>

>
>> The question to ask is not whether Plato had this or that view on music,
>> but why Plato has Socrates use each brother when he does and does that
>> reflect a weakness in the argument, which the other brother would have
>> caught?
>

> The questions you ask are interesting, but so are Ed's.
>




The passage I was referring to was from Book IV:

---------------------------------
Then to sum up: This is the point to which, above all, the attention of
our rulers should be directed, --that music and gymnastic be preserved
in their original form, and no innovation made. They must do their
utmost to maintain them intact. And when any one says that mankind most
regard the newest song which the singers have, they will be afraid that
he may be praising, not new songs, but a new kind of song; and this
ought not to be praised, or conceived to be the meaning of the poet; for
any musical innovation is full of danger to the whole State, and ought
to be prohibited. So Damon tells me, and I can quite believe him;-he
says that when modes of music change, of the State always change with them.

Yes, said Adeimantus; and you may add my suffrage to Damon's and your own.
--------------------------------


Francis A. Miniter

[Francis A. Miniter]

On 3/23/2013 5:47 PM, Peter J Ross wrote:
> In humanities.classics on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 22:14:09 -0400, Francis A.
> Miniter wrote:
>

>> On 3/16/2013 12:29 PM, Ed Cryer wrote:
>>> http://theoryofmusic.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/music-in-platos-republic/
>

> <...>

>
>> I have to disagree with your interpretation of the Republic. You are
>> referring I take it to Book IV, where Socrates is talking with
>> Adeimantus, not Glaucon.
>

> The text translated on the referenced page is from Book III, and
> Socrates' interlocutor is Glaucon.
>

As an aside, my preferred translation of the Republic (I did read it in
Greek all those decades ago) is that by Allan Bloom, for many reasons,
not the least of which is his approach to the dialogue is similar to
mine, though our conclusions differ, and also because he identifies on
every page who the parties conversing are making the analysis somewhat
easier.

The translation that I wished had never been made is that of Cornford,
because he does not even bother with the dialogue format, treating it as
a straight treatise.


Francis A. Miniter

[Ed Cryer]

Peter J Ross wrote:
> In humanities.classics on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:29:08 +0000, Ed Cryer

> wrote:
>
>> http://theoryofmusic.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/music-in-platos-republic/
>>
>> Plato wants to ban music that expresses "lamentation and sorrow"; or is
>> associated with "drunkenness, softness and indolence".
>> He doesn't like "multiplicity of strings or a panharmonic scale".
>> That rules out the Lydian and Ionian modes. Leaving just the Dorian and
>> Phrygian. Whatever those were.
>

> Whatever they were, it's safe to say that our major and minor modes
> have nothing like the same associations.
>
> So Plato would be unlikely to say that music written in E flat major
> was good, but music written in C minor was bad, or vice versa. For one
> thing, a composition in either of those keys is likely to contain
> contrasting sections in the other. For another, both keys could be
> associated equally well with a military march or a despairing love
> song.

>
>> As far as I can make out he wouldn't like any of the following;
>> Blues
>> Rock music
>> Flamenco
>

> I don't know if he'd like them or not, but they're comparatively
> simple genres, so he might be able to form the same simple opinions
> that he expressed (or had Socrates and Glaucon express) about the
> Greek modes.

>
>> I'm wondering what he would have thought of classical music. I get the
>> feel that he would have hated Wagner, Mussorgsky, Tchaikovsky,Schoenberg
>> and Stockhausen.
>

> He approved of patriotic martial music, so he might have liked
> Wagner's Rienzi and Tchaikovsky's Marche Slave, even though they use
> the same harmonic techniques as music that he'd presumably label
> degenerate.

>
>> He would have approved of Baroque (Bach, Vivaldi, Handel, Scarlatti,
>> Haydn).
>

> Haydn is hardly Baroque. He was the first convincing exponent of the
> Classical style. Some of the stuff he wrote as a teenager might count
> as Baroque.
>
> Would Plato have approved of the emotional wallowing of Bach's St
> Matthew Passion or Handel's operas?

>
>> I'm not sure about Mozart and Beethoven; perhaps the works in
>> major keys as opposed to minor keys. But I feel certain he would have
>> loved the manly energy and optimism of Beethoven in C minor.
>

> He might have banned it (and Mozart in G minor) for being played far
> too often. :-)
>
> The optimistic transition from minor to major is common in Mozart and
> Haydn as well as in Beethoven, while Schubert and Mahler prefer the
> opposite, pessimistic transition. Our music - even our pop music - is
> far more sophisticated than any music Plato ever heard an aulētēs
> performing. Most likely he'd find it all cacophonous and baffling.

>
>> Hhhmm! Maybe I'm completely on the wrong track.
>

> You (and I) very probably are, but uninformed speculation can be fun.
>
> Aristotle would find the problem easier than Plato. Palestrina is the
> mean between Victoria (too much emotion) and Gombert (not enough).
> Handel is the mean between Bach (too much counterpoint) and Pergolesi
> (not enough). And so on.
>

I've always liked David's picture The Death of Socrates.
http://tinyurl.com/cad53az
Plato is the man sitting at the base of the bed. He looks older than
Socrates. But in reality he wasn't there, he was 27, and ill at the
time. But the imagery with the archway leading out and Socrates pointing
skyward is beautiful.

Another painting I like is Raphael's The School of Athens;
http://tinyurl.com/d9j3fzw
The two central figures are Plato on the right, Aristotle on the left.
Plato pointing upward, Aristotle with a levelled hand. All the famous
philosophers over several centuries are there; including Socrates (who
was long death before Aristotle was born) in the old robe and to Plato's
right. I think the drunken guy sprawling on the steps is Diogenes the Cynic.

Ed

[Francis A. Miniter]

On 3/26/2013 7:43 PM, Peter J Ross wrote:
> In humanities.classics on Sat, 23 Mar 2013 21:21:24 -0400, Francis A.

> Are you familiar with the /Parmenides/? Plato puts his own "Theory of
> Forms" into Socrates' mouth, and Parmenides demolishes it. For whole
> pages, Socrates is hilariously reduced to "Yes, by Zeus!", "Indeed!"
> and "How could it be otherwise, O Parmenides?" This is enough to prove
> that nothing Socrates says in the other dialogues is to be regarded as
> immutable wisdom.
>

Excellent observation!

> It seems to me that Plato is closer than any other philosopher before
> Nietzsche to understanding that his own opinions may be an interesting
> symptom of the way he happens to think, rather than "truth".


I fully agree with you.


Francis A. Miniter

[Ed Cryer]

Peter J Ross wrote:
> In humanities.classics on Sat, 23 Mar 2013 21:21:24 -0400, Francis A.

> Are you familiar with the /Parmenides/? Plato puts his own "Theory of
> Forms" into Socrates' mouth, and Parmenides demolishes it. For whole
> pages, Socrates is hilariously reduced to "Yes, by Zeus!", "Indeed!"
> and "How could it be otherwise, O Parmenides?" This is enough to prove
> that nothing Socrates says in the other dialogues is to be regarded as
> immutable wisdom.
>

> It seems to me that Plato is closer than any other philosopher before
> Nietzsche to understanding that his own opinions may be an interesting
> symptom of the way he happens to think, rather than "truth".
>

>> As to Plato in the dialogues, the closest he comes to being present for
>> a dialogue is by way of a pun. In the Phaedrus, Socrates and Phaedrus
>> decide to have their conversation sitting under a Plane Tree by a
>> stream. In Greek the word for plane tree is πλατον, the same as Plato.
>

> There are so many derivatives of πλατύς that this particular
> resemblance might be coincidental.

>
>> So, in a sense they are speaking in the shade of Plato. I might give
>> that dialogue more emphasis, then, as possibly more closely reflecting
>> the views of its author.
>

> I'd be wary of giving extra weight to a text merely because its author
> has perpetrated a pun - if it is a pun. Is Villon's best or most
> personal poem the one into which he's prominently inserted the letters
> V I L L O N? Was the concept of such a "signature" even known to the
> Greeks?
>
>

I think that Nietzsche would have felt much at home in the Athens of
Plato's day. The concept of truth as something fixed in reality was
hotly attacked by sophists, most of whose books have gone for ever. I
think that is why Plato shovelled so much time and effort into
"Platonism". He hated the idea of truth being subjective and variable;
especially "man is the measure of all things".

I also feel that Plato was more to Nietzsche's taste than Socrates whom
he dismissed as "rabble" using dialectics in a class battle. Plato was
"aristocratic and noble" in every pore. καλοὶ κἀγαθοί. His language is
noble, his philosophy is noble, the way he portrays Socrates in the
dialogues is noble (a bit different from Xenophon's portrait of the man).

Quite frankly I think it's a great pity that this world we live in isn't
as he wanted it to be.

Ed

[Francis A. Miniter]

On 3/26/2013 7:57 PM, Peter J Ross wrote:
> In humanities.classics on Sat, 23 Mar 2013 21:34:53 -0400, Francis A.

> Miniter wrote:
>
>> As an aside, my preferred translation of the Republic (I did read it in
>> Greek all those decades ago) is that by Allan Bloom, for many reasons,
>> not the least of which is his approach to the dialogue is similar to
>> mine, though our conclusions differ, and also because he identifies on
>> every page who the parties conversing are making the analysis somewhat
>> easier.
>>
>> The translation that I wished had never been made is that of Cornford,
>> because he does not even bother with the dialogue format, treating it as
>> a straight treatise.
>

> That's a shame. The /Republic/ is (among other things) a drama.
> Thrasymachus is as lively a character as anybody in Aristophanes.
>
> I have translations by Desmond Lee and W H D Rouse. Lee is the more
> readable. I don't trust either of them, but Lee succeeds in giving the
> impression that Plato's prose is enjoyable to read.
>
> When T J Sauders translated the /Laws/, he reduced much of the
> dialogue to monologue on the grounds that The Athenian's interlocutors
> contributed nothing more significant than "I agree" for several pages
> at a time. Would you accept Saunders's contention that the /Laws/
> isn't really a dialogue, and therefore the trappings of dialogue form
> can be discarded?
>
>

I have to confess that I am not as well versed in the Laws as in most of
the rest of the dialogues. I have read that Aristotle commented that
this dialogue was a work in progress and never finished. That may
account for the long sections of speeches. Of course, Aristotle may
have been wrong. And in the Phaedrus, Socrates warns us of the danger
of long speeches.

It is interesting to note is that this is one of the very few dialogues
that take place outside of the walls of Athens. Republic and Phaedrus
come to mind. Nor is Socrates a character, but an unnamed Athenian
Stranger in Crete, along with a Spartan lawmaker and a Cretan lawmaker.
Further, the dialogue takes place on a walk toward the cave of Zeus.
That screams for connection to the Republic, which is the source of the
cave allegory and which begins with the metaphorical κατεβην - I went
down - indicating that the whole of the dialogue is the process of
bringing cave dwellers up to the light, with all that entails.

But beyond that, I am hesitant to comment, as I have never read the
dialogue in full. Perhaps the time has come to do so.


Francis A. Miniter

[Ed Cryer]

I've been reading the Parmenides that Peter J Ross referred to. I'd
never read it before. I have to admit I was quite shocked. The sustained
attack on the central ground of "Platonism" moved me. I think I can now
see better than ever why Alfred North Whitehead said that western
philosophy consists of footnotes to Plato.

I shall some day write a myth story like the ones that Plato uses. It
will take place in a next world beyond space and time. It will be a
dialogue between Plato, Aristotle, Kant and David Hume. It will rise to
the dramatic heights of the Phaedo, the incisive insights of the
Parmenides and first Kritik, and the shocking destruction of Hume's
sceptical cutting-knife. :-)

Hhhmm. Maybe.

Ed

[Francis A. Miniter]

Some (many) years ago, I purchased a copy of Thomas Pangle's
translation of The Laws, in no small part because he dedicated the work
to Allan Bloom, and that gave me some comfort that he would approach the
Laws in a similar way to Bloom's approach to the Republic (even if I
disagreed with some of Bloom's eventual inferences). So last night I
pulled down this translation rather than Jowett or someone else and began.

Pangle begins with a Translator's Preface in which he sets forth his
task, which he declares to be an accurate translation without elegant
paraphrasing of much earlier translators and without the inconsistency
of terminology of more recent ones. In particular, he takes aim at
Saunders. No, that is an understatement. He begins his assault by
saying, "Since the principles that inform what Saunders calls his
'Penguinification' are diametrically opposed to those that inform my
translation, a brief consideration of what Saunders has to say will
delineate more sharply the character of the present translation."

He notes that Saunders does not think the modern reader is capable of
reading through the Laws without aids added by the translator. He
quotes Saunders saying " 'The translator must perforce go to some
trouble to _present_ and _interpret_ his text to his modern readership.
He must, to put it crudely, be something of a showman.' " He goes on
to complain that "given Saunders's attitude of condescension toward both
the reader and what he characterizes as Plato's 'careless' Greek, it is
perhaps no surprise to find that he disdains to preserve consistency in
his translation of important political, psychological, and philosophical
terms in Plato's vocabulary. As a result, the reader using Saunders's
translation is unable to follow the evolution of terms like virtue,
justice, citizenship, the soul, and nature; . . . "

Finally, he expresses shock that Saunders sees it necessary "to import
an alien liveliness into the Laws", as that implies that Saunders is
oblivious to the subtlety of Plato's portrayal of the old characters.
"The Laws is fam more than a set of speeches about law; through the
interaction of the characters Plato intends to show how a philosopher
might win the confidence of powerful old political leaders and guide
them towards a revolutionary refounding. . . . To understand the
meaning of any speech in the Laws, then, one must be keenly aware of its
place in the dramatic context. And this context - the changing moods
and critical junctures of the dramatic interchange - is revealed by such
features as the interlocutors' oaths, hesitations, and repetitions,
their interruptions of one another, and the diversity of the ways they
address each other." These things, he concludes, Saunders actively
obscures.

The early pages of the text are heavily annotated as Pangle correlates
the English words he uses with the Greek words he is translating, giving
the words context that the Greeks would have known. He also has a note
containing a comment about the use of the following responses: καλος,
ορθος, αληθη. Citing work by Seth Bernadete, he notes that καλος is
used to indicate the interlocutor thinks a neat argument has been used
to get around a difficult point, though it does not necessarily express
agreement; ορθος is used to express that a correct statement has been
made; but only αληθη fully expresses the interlocutor's acceptance that
the statement is true. An interesting observation that I will try to
examine.


Francis A. Miniter