David Wiles’ new book title turns out to be remarkably transparent in how it states, from the very beginning, the three keywords structuring the whole work: democracy, theatre and performance. Performance is argued to be the connection between the other two. The book brings to mind works such as Rehm 2003, Sewell 2007, Chou 2012 or Laera 2013[1]; its main difference with these is that it takes the reflection on both theatre and politics beyond ancient Athens toward other historical eras.
Wiles starts the introductory chapter by asking an essential question: ‘…is democracy inherently a form of theatre?’ (1), also stating his main objective: arguing that democracy is and has always been an art of performance. Affirmations about cancellation culture in the face of transphobia (6) are arguable, but the initial reflections on Trump and Johnson’s contemporary populism effectively exemplify the problem of the absence of positive rhetorical ideals in Western democracy. Basing on Runciman’s idea that many people prefer an evident hypocritical politician to a liar trying to go unnoticed (16), a crucial notion is introduced: democracy ‘needs audiences attuned to the pleasures, tricks and techniques of rhetoric’ (17). This idea will be present throughout the whole book.
The first two chapters (1, ‘Rhetoric in Athens’ and 2, ‘Acting versus Sincerity: Aeschines versus Demosthenes’) approach the central matter of study in ancient Athens, beginning with the symbiosis between drama and political persuasion (1) and following with the case study of the verbal confrontation between the tragic actor Aeschines and the orator Demosthenes (2). The first chapter accurately brings up the most problematic aspects of Athenian democracy (slavery, misogyny, war) and its parallelisms with contemporary regimes (19) at the same time that it underlines the importance of orality, drawing from Pericles’ funerary speech (21) and from Cleon and Diodotos’ agons in the Athenian Assembly. This way, the performative, sometimes demagogic nature of institutional rhetorics is strongly emphasised, also through exploring the relationship between the tragic chorus and democracy, both in dramatic festivals and the Assemblies that took place in the theatre (22-23). ‘Democracy was always a species of performance’, Wiles notes (22), and the oratory duels between Aeschines and Demosthenes in chapter 2 further confirm the point, supporting the definition of Athenian democracy as ‘an exchange between an orator and a crowd’ (58-59). A curious paradox, explained in detail by the author, can be noted in how Aeschines, a theatre actor, focuses on keeping a distance from what he argues, while Demosthenes the orator passionately embraces his character and beliefs (39-40), even training to overcome his physical limitations and weaker voice (41). This chapter perfectly serves, in the end, as a demonstration of how what matters, in the context of democracy, is not only the rational, but also the emotions (60).
The rest of the book interrogates the theatricality of democracy in a similar way through different historical eras. Chapter 3, ‘Puritan Democracy: The English Revolution’, addresses the English Puritan revolution, particularly in the Putney Debates that took place in October-November 1647 to decide about the future of England and its Constitution, the Parliament and the Monarchy after the Civil War. In order to underline the deeply dramatic nature of the event, Wiles skilfully portrays it as a sort of theatre play in which each of the three days that were recorded and documented would be an act: day 1, focused on discussing the reform of the House of Commons, opposing the predominance of religion to the notion of a freeborn English people; day 2, centred on universal male suffrage, and day 3, about the debate and approbation of propositions. The book’s train of thought essentially describes how the Debates confronted the people’s voice and the desire for a democratic Constitution, represented by radical soldiers, with the need for public order and peacekeeping, as seen by officers like Oliver Cromwell and Henry Ireton (87). Wiles also addresses the background conflict between rationalism and the puritanism of Presbyterians like William Prynne, who rejected and criticised what he regarded as the hypocrisy of acting and theatre (71). The underlying contradiction is thus accurately pointed out: Prynne was against the implied lies of performance, but he himself resorted to dramatic strategies when conveying his message.
Going on with the book’s dynamics of exploring oppositions, Chapter 4, ‘Oratory in the French Revolution’, expands this central analysis of the relationship between politics and theatre by offering a sort of panoramic view of the confrontation between republicanism and democracy in revolutionary France (90). For doing so, Wiles takes once more into account the importance of the Church as an institution that clearly conditioned the political climate of the moment, particularly by causing radical anticlerical opinions to emerge, together with the ascension of the bourgeoisie and the power of the masses. The main question posed in the chapter is what the secret of a convincing performance is, and, in order to answer, Wiles analyses the thoughts and positions of six personalities from the Revolution: actor and playwright Philippe Fabre d’Églantine[2]; aristocrat and lawyer Hérault de Séchelles; the Marquis de Condorcet; lawyer and Assembly member Joseph-Marie Lequinio; Honoré Gabriel Riqueti, Count of Mirabeau, and Jacobin leader Maximilien de Robespierre. Even though it might at first seem slightly confusing because of the characters’ varying backgrounds, this chapter undeniably accomplishes the objective of illustrating, precisely, how oratory, theatrical resources and democracy can be interrelated in different, even contradictory circumstances, like the anticlericalism and radicalism in some of the aristocrats. Wiles conclusion, in a way that undeniably connects with the whole purpose of the book, is that there can be no democracy without rhetoric (116).
Leaving the European continent, chapter 5 (‘American Democracy: From the Founders to Feminism’) and chapter 6 (‘Democracy as a Universal Good: Gandhi, Tagore and the New India’) deal with democracy in the beginnings of the North American Democracy and in 1930’s India. In the former, Wiles explores the circumstances of theatre as a species of barometer for public opinions on morality and social behaviours (117). Once more, the background is the duality of puritanism versus Catholicism, with theatre seen as scandalous and censorable by the former, whereas the latter offered a more positive ground with the importance of chanting, colours and magnificence in its liturgies. Wiles analyses the way in which different social rights movements started to emerge. He focuses particularly on the Astor Place riots, in which working-class labourers protested against the institution of opera performances as a symbol of privilege, class exclusion and the European elites’ luxurious style of life, with American actor Edwin Forrest as a symbol of the rebellion, against British actor William C. Macready (126-127). The book’s tour includes in this point, just like in the former chapter, close examination of different historical figures such as Abigail and John Adams, Frederick Douglass, Angelina Grimké, Fanny Wright, Lucretia Mott or Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The chapter undoubtedly contributes to theorising the progressive tension between the Puritan attempt at homogeneity and moral rectitude and the beginnings of the expression of democratic individualities, voices raised in the context of capitalism and the fight for equality and justice.
In a conveniently illustrative way, Wiles concludes that the sought-after homogeneity was not possible because of ethnic, religious and geographic diversity in North America. This is also the underlying idea in chapter 6 of the book, the last one dedicated to the examination of historical eras, in which a closer look is offered into Mahatma Gandhi’s and Rabindranath Tagore’s political ideas and practices. Wiles begins by stating Gandhi’s rejection of the idea that India was not ready for democracy (145) in combination with Amartya Sen’s similar rejection of the notion of democracy as a Western gift (146). The chapter intelligently adopts a non-Eurocentric perspective which helps reflect how democracy has become a universal notion, not exactly, or not always, spread by European colonisers, but in some cases achieved or claimed in spite of them. Two distinct ways of conceiving democracy in India are thus opposed: Gandhi’s pacific, non-violent protesting methods (fasting, strike, the Salt March) (149-150) and defence of the dignity of manual, working-class labour (151), and Tagore’s rejection of theatre and of Gandhi’s reverent popularity (151-152) as well as his resistance to nationalism, seeing democracy as an imported concept (157). Wiles poses a thrilling question at the end: ‘Whom does the political actor represent? Individuals or communities?’ (168).
The way in which the author finally opens the last chapter turns into a perfectly fitting basic conclusion for the whole of the book: ‘Democracy is and has always been a form of theatre’ (169) in that duality of equality vs. liberty. After having tried to see democracy without theatre, Wiles’ objective is to dedicate the last part of the book to the place of theatre in democracy. In spite of his initial observations on democracy, populism and demagogy, and his awareness that individual determination tends to be more important than collective good, Wiles sees democracy as an essential tool for mutual listening (170). Reason and emotion are strongly linked, and tragedy, seen as an agon or a competition (177), would be very similar to democracy in the end. The book is aware of the uncomfortable realities and wrong decisions of democracy, and in that final part the author states that ‘we live in dangerous times’ (183). The rise of neo-fascism in the United States with the Trump regime would constitute a disturbing example of it.
Concerning the place that Democracy, Theatre and Performance: From the Greeks to Gandhi would have in the current research about this topic, the main conclusion that can be drawn from a first reading is that the book is undoubtedly necessary. Its scope goes beyond other books on tragedy and politics, such as the ones cited at the beginning of this review, in the sense that it explores different moments in time and the diverse political, emotional and personal agents involved in them, and it does so without losing sight of the precedent set in Classical antiquity in chapter 1. Wiles’ skill at looking into several historical periods turns the study into a fruitful point of convergence for several disciplines and perspectives at once, even though it can turn out to be slightly complex to follow, at some points, if the reader has no particular knowledge about the historical eras described.
To sum up, Democracy, Theatre and Performance: From the Greeks to Gandhi (2024) by David Wiles offers a new multi-dimensional perspective of both democracy, as a political system involving direct communication between rulers and ruled, and drama, considering it as an important component of that communication. In this sense, the book can be a valuable reading for classicists, but also for students of classical reception, drama and even political sciences, as it enriches the study of Classical antiquity by analysing its reception through different moments in history, at the same time that it can be considered as a study of democracy in its theatrical dimension. Wiles’ work contributes to shedding light on contemporary matters, and of doing so through reinterpreting and rethinking Antiquity and the ways in which it keeps shaping the present.
Notes
[1] Rehm, R. (2003), Radical Theatre: Greek Tragedy and the Modern World, London, Bloomsbury Academic; Sewell, R. C. (2007), In the Theatre of Dionysos: Democracy and Tragedy in Ancient Athens, London, McFarland & Company; Chou, M. (2012), Greek Tragedy and Contemporary Democracy, New York/London, Bloomsbury Academic; Laera, M. (2013), Reaching Athens: Community, Democracy and Other Mythologies in Adaptations of Greek Tragedy, Oxford, Peter Lang.
[2] A fact worth noting in terms of spelling and proofreading is the fact that ‘Églantine’ is missing an accent in the book, in that first E, something which does not happen with ‘Hérault de Séchelles’, for example.