Antike Dramentheorien und ihre Rezeption

274 Pages·1992·24.98 MB·German

by  Bernhard Zimmermann (eds.)

Antike Dramentheorien und ihre Rezeption
Drama
Beitrage zurn antiken Drama
und seiner Rezeption
Herausgegeben von F. De Martino -
]. A. L6pez Ferez - G. Mastromarco -
B. Seidensticker - N. W. Slater -
A. H. Sommerstein - R. Stillers - P. Thiercy
B. Zimmermarm
MJ>
VERLAG FUR WISSENSCHAFT
UNO FORSCHUNG
Bandl
Antike Dramentheorien
und ihre Rezeption
Herausgegeben von
Bernhard Zimmermann
M~P
VERLAG FOR WISSENSCHAFT
UNO FORSCHUNG
Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsauinahme
Antike Dramentheorien und ihre Rezeption / hrsg. von
Bernhard Zimmennann. - Stuttgart: M und P. Verl. fUr Wiss.
und Forschung, 1992
(Drama; Bd. 1)
ISBN 978-3-476-45022-7
NE: Zimmermann, Bernhard [Hrsg.]; GT
ISBN 978-3-476-45022-7
ISBN 978-3-476-04180-7 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-476-04180-7
Dieses Werk ist einschliefilich ailer seiner Teile geschiitzt. Jede VeIWertung auBer
halb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Ver
lages unzulassig und strafbar., Das gilt insbesondere fiir VervielfaJ.tigungen, tiber
setzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und Einspeicherung in elektronischen Systemen.
M &: P Verlag fUr Wissenschaft und Forschung
ein Verlag der J. B.Metzlerschen Verlagsbuchhandlung und
Carl Ernst Poeschel Verlag GmbH in Stuttgart
© 1992 Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland
UrsprOnglich erschienen bei J. B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung
und Carl Ernst Poeschel Verlag GmbH in Stuttgart 1992
Vorwort
Auf einer von Alan Sommerstein im Jahre 1990 in Nottingham
organisierten Tagung wurde die Idee aufgebracht, eine Moglichkeit der
engeren Zusammenarbeit aUer am antiken Drama Interessierten zu
schaffen. Dankenswener Weise hat sich der Metzler und Poeschel-Verlag,
vertreten durch Herro Dr. Lutz, bereit erklllrt, in der M & P - Reihe des
Verlags die Publikation von DRAMA zu enn6glichen.
Der erste Band enthlilt die Vortrage, die anlafilich einer Tagung in
ZUrich im September 1991 zu dem Thema "Antike Dramentheorien und
ihre Rezeption gehalten wurden. Die Tagung wurde durch einen
It
namhaften Zuschu6 der Thyssen-Stiftung und dec Hochschulstiftung des
Kantons ZUrich unterstiilZt. Beiden Insitutionen sei an dieser Stelle dafur
gedankt.
Auch fUr die weiteren Sande von DRAMA sind, jedenfalls teilweise,
Rahmenthemen wie im vorliegenden ersten Band geplant. So wird Bd. 2 /
1993 eine Reihe von Beitrligen enthalten. die sich mit Performance
Criticism of Greek Comedy befassen. Daneben soli jedoch immer die
Moglichkeit geboten werden, auch Arbeiten aufzunehmen, die sich nieht
dem jeweiligen Ralunenthema zuordnen lassen.
DRAMA will auch Berichte tiber aktuelle Auffiihrungen antiker DrdIDen
aufnehmen. Es ist geplant, Theaterwissenschaftler und Regisseure oder
Schau spieler zu Wort kommen zu lassen. Daneben soil die Rezeption des
antiken Dramas in der Kunst und anderen Medien wie Musik oder Film
niehl unberUcksichtigt bleiben. Besprechungen neuer Publikationen zum
antiken Drama und seiner Rezeption sollen jeweils die Sande beschlieBen.
Ztirich, im Juni 1992
1m Namen der Herausgeber
Bemhard Zimmermann
Inhalt
KJ. Dover
The Language of Criticism in Aristophanes' Frogs
A.H. Sommerstein
Old Comedians on Old Comedy 14
M. Erler
Held und Protagonist 34
S. Halliwell
Plato and the Psychology of Drama 55
A. L6pez Eire
Aristoteles tiber die Sprache des Dramas 74
N.W. Slater
Two Republican Poets on Drama: Terence and Accius 85
J.A. L6pez Ferez
Teorfas y datos sobre el drama en la literatura griega del siglo II d.C. 104
F. Perusino
La tragedia greca come spettacolo in un anonimo trattato bizantino 131
R. Stillers
Drama und Dramentheorie der Antike in der Poetik des italienischen
Humanismus 140
R.lohne
Aristophanes-Studien im deutschen Renaissance-Humanismus 159
P. Thiercy
La reception d'Aristote en France a l'epoque de Corneille 169
A. Schmitt
Zur Aristoteles-Rezeption in Schillers Theorie des Tragischen 191
L. Edmunds
The Blame of Karkinos: Theorizing Theatrical Space 214
B. Seidensticker
Peri petie und tragische Dialektik 240
Spielplan 264
Arbeitsvorhaben 266
Adressen der Herausgeber 267
The Language of Criticism in Aristophanes' Frogs
Kenneth 1. Dover, St. Andrews
Frogs is a comedy which we can enjoy for its own sake, but it is also a
document from which we can infer Athenian attitudes to tragedy. But
when we speak of 'Athenian' attitudes, we are bringing together under a
single rubric the ordinary member of the audience, the connoisseurs of
poetry, the established conventional standpoint of comedy, the views of
Aristophanes himself as an individual, and possibly also an intellectual
treatment of tragedy which could reasonably be called 'sophistic'. The
general tendency in our own time has been to elevate the intellectual
element. Pohlenz1 went so far as to suggest that a treatise by Gorgias,
comparing Aeschylus and Euripides, was a source exploited by
Aristophanes for the contest in Frogs. Radermacher, Denniston and
Taillardat2, drawing attention to coincidences between terms used by
Aristophanes in the criticism of poetry and those used by later literary
critics, postulated a 'technical' language of criticism which took shape
before the end of the fifth century B.c. and endured thereafter3. I would
argue that the concept 'technical' has been used with insufficient rigour,
and that the contribution of the sophists has been overrated. The sources
of the terms in which Aristophanes presents the contest are much more
varied than has commonly been allowed.
Let us begin by considering the originality of the central theme of
Frogs. It is just one of a set of comedies of its time in which the criticism
of serious poetry formed a significant part of the subject-matter. One of
these is Thesmophoriazusae, produced six years before Frogs; and the
portion of that play which is most relevant to our assessment of Frogs is
not the extensive parody of Euripides' Helen and Andromeda - the
humour there lies in the adaptation of tragic language and tragic emotion to
a grotesquely comic situation -but the treatment of Agathon in the first
scene of the play. There we find not only an imaginary lyric passage put
into the mouth of Agathon, presumably satirizing characteristic formal
aspects of Agathon's lyrics, but also (52-7, 67-9) treatment of the
composition of verses in terms of the craftsman's manipulation of
physical material, and (130-175) dialogue on the relation between the
Pohlenz, 1920.
2 Radennacher 1954: 257f., 304f.; Denniston 1927; Taillardat 1965: 467f. (where
the ~(cid:97)(cid:112)(cid:111)(cid:83)(cid:39) of verses in Frogs is wrongly compared with the ~(cid:97)(cid:112)(cid:117)(cid:84)(cid:49)(cid:49)(cid:83)(cid:39) of
Arist. Rhet. 1391a 25-9); cf. WimmeI1960: 115.
3 For criticism of this approach see Sicking 1962: 113-135 and Clayman.
-2-
emotional colouring of a poet's composition and his own character and
life-style.
To that we must add the following:
1. The scene of Acharnians (393-479) -twenty years before Frogs -in
which humour is derived not only from allusions to the theatrical portrayal
of some Euripidean characters but also (396-401) from the enigmatic or
paradoxical nature of some Euripidean utterances.
2. Aristophanes' Gerytades. Fr. 156 shows that a delegation of poets
went to the underworld, but it does not reveal whether their journey fell
within the action of the play or preceded it. If fro 591, a commentary on a
play of Aristophanes, is a commentary on Gerytades, the lemma (85f.)
Tli)v oa(llov' ~(cid:118) (cid:97)(cid:118)~(cid:121)(cid:97)(cid:121)(cid:111)(cid:118) Els Ti)V [alyopav aywv lopuawllaL ~(cid:111)(cid:40)
suggests that its theme was the rescue of Poetry, comparable with the
rescue of Peace by Trygaeus.
3. A play entitled Poiesis was generally ascribed to Aristophanes,
though there was an alternative ascription to Archippus (PCG Vita Ar.,
p.4.59). PYale 1625, identifiable as a fragment of Poiesis by its inclusion
(4f.) of fro 451 Kock (assigned to Poiesis by Priscian), points to a
situation in which Poetry herself has withdrawn from the world and has to
be induced to return4•
4. Aristophanes fro 6965, according to Ath. 2If., gives us Aeschylus
speaking of his own choreography (1TotEL TOV AloxUAOV AEyoV-ra
KTA.l, and this is followed (Kat mlALv) by someone who recalls seeing the
chorus dancing in Phrygians and makes a comment of the same type as
that made by Dionysus in Ra. 1028f.
5. Aristophanes fro 720, from an unnamed play, speaks of 'darkness
since the death of Aeschylus'.
6. Pherecrates in Krapataloi ff. 100 represented Aeschylus himself (so
svr Pax 749) as saying oanS" < y' add. Porson > aiITOLS" 1TapEowKa
(Porson: -KE codd.) TEXVl)V IlEyaAl)V (cid:69)~(cid:79)(cid:76)(cid:75)(cid:111)(cid:111)(cid:111)(cid:108)(cid:108)~(cid:111)(cid:97)(cid:83)(cid:34)(cid:46)
7. Pherecrates ff. 155 (from Chiron) is a long speech by Mousike
complaining of her treatment by Melanippides, Cinesias, Phrynis and
Timotheus.
8. The Muses of Phrynichus competed with Frogs at the Lenaea of
405. Of the surviving citations, one (fr. 32) is an encomiastic apostrophe
to the dead Sophocles and another (33) is an instruction to someone on
how to vote for acquittal or condemnation. Meineke6 was inclined to think
that Muses, like Frogs on the same occasion, portrayed a contest between
poets, but it is not easy to believe that Sophocles was one of the
4 Lloyd-Jones 1990b: 4-6.
5 '558' in Kaibel's Athenaeus. but actually 677 Kock (= 696 peG).
6 Meineke 1839: 157.
-3-
contestants; Phrynichus can hardly have conceived and composed a play
in time for the Lenaea after the death of Sophocles, and the tenor of the
I.LaKapLOllos in fro 32 is far from suggesting that Sophocles was a
character in the play. It should also be noted that nothing ascribed to
Muses except that llaKaptollos has come through to the biographical
tradition on Sophocles or into the scholia on Frogs.
9. The Tragoidoi or Apeleutheroi (Suda F 763) of Phrynichus: fr. 56 is
atTCav EXEL 1TOVllPOS dvaL (cid:84)~(cid:86) TEXVllV, and fro 58 Tij OLaa8EOH nJv
Em;i'v.
10. Plato Comicus fro 138 (from Skeuai) contrasts modern choral
dancing unfavourably with the older style.
11. In Plato's Lakones or Poietai (Suda p 1708) the speaker of fro 69 is
someone who quarries massive {J11Ilam; the immediate context being
unknown, we must reckon with the possibility that the reference is to
oratory, not poetry. Fr. 70 is spoken by someone who claims to be a soul
returning (cid:40)(cid:97)(cid:118)~(cid:75)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:118)(cid:41) from the dead, but it has a humorous tone somewhat
suggestive of Amphitheus in Ach. 45-8 and may not be central to the play.
12. Plato also wrote a comedy entitled Poietes, but none of the extant
citations from it concerns poetry.
Now, Aristophanes' Poiesis and the plays from which his frr. 696 and
720 are drawn could all be later than Frogs. Phrynichus's Tragoidoi and
Plato's Skeuai, Lakones and Poietes could also be later than Frogs and
could have derived their inspiration in part from it. There are however
indications that Gerytades was earlier7, and the probability that
Pherecrates' Krapataloi and Chiron were earlier is very high. Pherecrates
won his first victory at the Dionysia as early as 438n and his first at the
Lenaea before Herrnippus, Phrynichus and Eupolis (PCG vii 102f.).
Remarkably few citations from his work are datable; we can only say that
his fro 64 (from lpnos or Pannychis) seems to be earlier than 415/4, since
it refers to Pulytion's house as mortgaged, and all Pulytion's property
became forfeit in that year when he fled into exile8. If Krapataloi was
indeed earlier than Frogs, Aristophanes was not the first to bring the ghost
of Aeschylus on to the comic stage. In any case, the motif of summoning
the ghosts of great men of the past was central to the Demoi of Eupolis,
unquestionably earlier than Frogs; and although from the standpoint of
religious belief there is a difference between a VEKUta, in which ghosts are
called up, and a (cid:75)(cid:97)(cid:84)(cid:67)(cid:105)~(cid:97)(cid:111)(cid:76)(cid:83)(cid:44) in which a living person goes down to the
underworld itself to meet them, as far as concerns what the ghost does
and says on stage the difference is not significant.
7 Gelzer 1971: 1410.
8 Sommerslein 1986: 105f.