The Context of Ancient Drama

247 Pages·2002·8.27 MB·English

by  Eric Csapo, William J. Slater

The Context
of Ancient Drama
Eric Csapo
and
William ]. Slater
Ann Arbor
THE ll.NIVERSI'IT OF MICHIGAN PR.Ess
Copyright © by the University of Michigan 1994
All rights reserved
Published in the United States of America by For Heather and Bob Jordan
The University of Michigan Press
Manufactured in the United States of America
e
Printed on acid-free paper
2001 2000 1999 1998 5 4 3 2
A GIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Csapo, Eric.
The context of ancient drama/ Eric Csapo and William J. Slater.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references (p. - ) and index.
ISBN 0-472-10545-0 (hardcover : acid-free). - ISBN 0-472-08275-2
(acid-free)
1. Classical drama-History and criticism-Theory, etc.
2. Theater-Greece-History-Sources. 3. Theater-Rome-History
Sources. 4. Civilization, Ancient-Sources. I. Slater, William J.
II. Title.
PA3024.C75 1994
792'.0938-dc20 94-24681
CIP
Preface
This book has some of the qualities of an adjustable wrench, a standard
all-purpose implement for the general handy(wo)man, but one that is
useful to the specialist only when the right tool is out of reach. It is a
series of selections from the evidence about ancient drama, translated
and grouped under what we trust are suitable subtitles, and introduced
by essays designed to make the the ancient sources accessible and intelligi
ble. It grew (alas slowly) out of an urgent need. Both authors, working
at neighboring institutions, found themselves teaching undergraduate
courses on the "History of the Greek and Roman Theater," titles that
implied a heavy concentration on the mechanisms that created drama,
the festivals, audience, actors, theaters, political, religious, and social
contexts. No adequate text or texts existed for these topics. Unlike many
classicists who find themselves in a similar predicament, we did not
resort to the common subterfuge of substituting a course in dramatic
literature; but our refusal to capitulate may have been due less to idealism
than to the fear that students in large translation classes do not have the
same tolerance for the tedium of textual commentary that we demand
of language specialists. The results have been more than satisfactory.
Our students have taught us that there are few topics as rich and
fascinating as the social and institutional history of ancient drama. Our
primary reason for writing this book was to facilitate the creation of a
new approach to teaching the ancient theater for colleagues who may
be no less aware of the topic's enormous appeal but are less reckless
with their time and energy.
But since this book is the first of its kind, we have not attempted to
imagine a single individual reader. We found it equally undesirable to
prescribe its use with precise parameters. For the Greekless and Latinless
undergraduate with little or no background in classical antiquity, it 1s
designed to be accessible and challenging, but it is not entirely self-
,;'·~
!'-.
viii Prefa ce Preface ix
••
the documents listed contain obvious lies or highly questionable state
contained and presupposes an instructor with independence, interest, and
\••.•
ments, but they appear simply because they were often cited in the
imagination. It is less well suited to courses that require virtual redun
•
literature, or often misused, or because they are characteristic of the
dancy between lecture and text. For more advanced students of classics,
-. drama, or theater history, undergraduate or graduate, this book serves ancient testimony on a topic or they pose interesting and typical problems.
Exhaustiveness was not possible: we would rather invite those who are
a still more pressing need. Most classical graduates, even those specializing
more conscious of their pocketbooks to admire our economy in treating
in ancient drama, are woefully ignorant of the background to their texts,
·-· a topic of such scope.
largely because of the inadequacy of traditional training methods; and
\l _~_ · the same is true of graduates in theater and drama because of the Thanks are due to Dr. Ellen Bauerle, who, throughout the production
of this book, has given us encouragement, understanding, and wise advice.
inaccessibility of the primary evidence. We have also tried to envision
the needs of our colleagues in literature and drama departments who are
•
~isadvantaged because of language and discipline barriers. We even hope
•
that this book will be useful to most general professional classicists, or
specialists in ancient drama, who do not have easy access to large
••
libraries, or who are in need of a quick reference. No doubt many will
•
find that the book lacks focus and tries to serve too many needs at once,
•• but we hope that nearly everyone with an interest in the ancient theater
wiH find in it much that is useful, and will be enabled to pass over easily
•
that which is not specifically relevant to their task .
•
Others will say unkindly that this book has the qualities of an over
• stuffed sofa-the lumpiness of too much here, not enough there. We
should plead that the evidence itself has come to us in extraordinary
-.
lumps and holes, and smoothing it out for the use of others has not
•
always been easy, or successful, or desirable. Nevertheless, while we
cannot promise total comfort, we do try at least to provide solid support .
•
We have therefore refrained from burdening readers with the many
•
interesting details of Euripides' domestic problems that may derive from
• the comedy industry, while on the other hand we have made demands
-. on their patience with long festival inscriptions. There are, and will _be,
large holes, or, more often, disconnected scraps, in what was once a
• coherent fabric. Thus some matters of stage design proved too insubstan
• tially woven from modern or ancient speculation. Discussions of dramatic
genres or purely literary topics were both too vast and easily accessible
l elsewhere. For mime and pantomime, however, we made an exception,
• since the principal evidence for these genres is documentary. Costume
• received no continuous treatment, but is touched on at various places in
the text. This is because the artifacts provide the only really reliable
evidence, and this made comprehhensive treatment impracticable. The
l
criterion for the selection of passages on any given topic has also not
•
always been consistent. The inclusion of a particular source does not
• necessarily mean that we assign it some kind of "truth-value." Some of
I
'
Contents
Explanatory Note xiii
Abbreviations xv
I. Kinds of Evidence: Their Nature and Reliability 1
IA. The Texts 1
IAi. The Dissemination of Athenian Drama
and the Survival of the Texts to·
Hellenistic Times 1
IAii. Legacy of Ancient Scholarship 18
IB. Inscriptions 39
IC. Artifacts 53
ID. Theater Buildings 79
II. Origins of Greek Drama 89
ill. Organization 103
IDA. Classical Athens 103
IIIAi. Festivals 103
IIIAia. The Great Dionysia 103
IIIAib. The Lenaea, Rural Dionysia, and Anthesteria 121
IIIAii. Regulation 139
IIIAiia. The Choregic System 13 9
IIIAiib. Judges 157
IIIAiic. Freedom of Expression 165
IIIB. The Greek World from Hellenistic
to Imperial Times 186
IIIC. The Roman World 207
IV. Actors and Audience 221
IVA. Actors and Acting 221
IVAi. Actors in the Classical Period 221
IVA ii. The Artists of Dionysus 239
IVAiii. Classical and Hellenistic Acting 256
c ..;
' ~
t -~
xii Contents
'·•·~
( IVAiv. Republican and Imperial Actors and Acting 275
IVB. The Audience 286
'··~
IVBi. The Athenian Audience in the
·~ Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C. 286
:· IVBii. Roman Audience and Society 306
~
IVBiii. Emperors and Theater 318
•. ~ IVC. Music 331
Explanatory Note
'·~ IVD. The Chorus 349
.. V. Mime and Pantomime 369
. ~.~
Appendices 391
\ Appendix A: Pollux, Onomasticon 4.99-154 393
\ ..~ Appendix B: Chronological Tables 403 Brackets Used in Translating Sources
Bibliographical Notes 407
\~
Glossary/Index 425 [ ... ] A lacuna exists in the text that is being translated.
~ fndex of Personal Names and Places 437 A passage is omitted from the text translated.
Source Index 443 (factio) The original word that is being translated is italicized
·~
Plates 453 and attached to the translation.
~ (this is not true) The words in parentheses represent an editorial com
ment or explanation inserted by the translator.
•·~
<word> The translators have supplied a word not in the origi
. ·•···~
nal to make the sense clearer, e.g., <Augustus> for
'·~ "him."
•
Dates
•
All dates are A.D. if not otherwise specified.
-
··~ Greek Names
•••
All Greek names sufficiently well known to merit separate entries in the
. ~
Oxford Classical Dictionary are spelled as they appear in that work
~ (normally Latinized). Other names and all Greek words appear in stan
dard transliteration .
••
••
Referencing
' f
: The text is not necessarily designed for the linear reader. There is a
~
minimal amount of redundancy to allow easy flipping back and forth.
·t
One could, for example, read the sources first and then the chapter
f introduction, or read both at once, constantly referring from one to the
·(
·t
xiv Explanatory Note
other. For this reason we have given essential data (name of author, date
of composition) with each numbered source, even when the same author
and date appear earlier or even immediately before. To keep catalog
numbers to a minimum, we have numbered consecutively throughout
entire sections, not through individual chapters. Section numbers (I, II,
ill, IV, V) are added only when the cross-reference is to a passage in a
different section. When a cross-reference is to a chapter, rather than to Abbreviations
a specific source in the chapter, then section subdivisions (A, B, C, or i,
ii, iii) are included in the reference.
BGU Aegyptische Urkunden aus den staatlichen Museen zu
Berlin, Griechische Urkunden
BCH Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique
CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum
CMG Corpus Medicorum Graecorum
C.Ord.Ptol. Corpus des Ordonnances des Ptolemees
CR Classical Review
FD Fouilles de Delphes
FGrH Fragmente der griechischen Historiker
FIRA Fontes Iuris Romani Anteiustiniani
GVI Griechische Versinschriften
ID Inscriptions de Delos
JG Inscriptiones Graecae
IGRR Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas pertinentes
IGUR Inscriptiones Graecae Urbis Romae
ILS Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae
]RS Journal of Roman Studies
MAMA Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiquae
OGIS Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae
OMS L. Robert, Opera Minora Selecta I-VII
ORF Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta
PCG Poetae Comici Graeci
PHibeh Hibeh Papyri
POxy Oxyrhynchus Papyri
SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum
SIG Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum
TAM Tituli Asiae Minoris
TrGF Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta
ZPE Zeitschrift for Papyrologie und Epigraphik
I. Kinds of Evidence:
Their Nature and Reliability
IA: The Texts
IAi. The Dissemination of Athenian Drama and the
Survival of the Texts to Hellenistic Times
The earliest manuscripts of the classical dramatists date from the 10th
or 11th c. In many places they have obvious omissions; in some places
obvious gibberish. The age of a manuscript is a factor of limited impor
tance: better readings can very often be found in much later manuscripts
stemming from an independent tradition; papyrus finds may bring us
800-1200 years closer to the original text of a play but rarely contain
readings not found in the manuscript tradition of preserved plays. This
allows us to feel reasonably confident that our modern critical editions
are close to the texts that were in circulation in the 3rd c. B.C. But how
close are we to the original texts of the 5th c. B.C.? It is generally supposed
that the texts sustained more damage in the first century of their existence
than in the following twenty-three altogether. The transmitted text of
Aeschylus inspires so little confidence that at least 10 percent has been
condemned by one editor or another, while the number of proposed
emendations far exceeds the number of words.
How did the texts suffer so much damage so soon after their conception
and at a time when the fame of the tragedians and interest in their works
was highest? Paradoxically, the popularity of the tragedians in the 5th
and 4th c. B.C. both ensured the survival of their works at this critical
period and led to the massive corruption of their texts. The Greek book
trade did not exist when Aeschylus produced his plays (499-458 B.C.),
was in its infancy during most of Euripides' dramatic career (from 455
B.C.}, and seems not to have become a profitable business until just a few
years before his death (407/6 B.C.). Though we find the dead Euripides
of Aristophanes' Frogs (943) claiming to have nursed the ailing art form
he inherited from Aeschylus with an "infusion drawn from the blather
2 The Context of Ancient Drama The Texts 3
of books," it is not till the last decade of the 5th c. B.C. that we hear of that Greek plays were written and produced for a single performance,
books being widely circulated (10, 11). By the end of the century, books but the statement is misleading. The City Dionysia and the Lenaea were
travel far and wide: in 400 B.C. Xenophon saw the Thracian Black Sea the most important dramatic competitions. Originally, archaic cult prob
coast littered with debris from wrecked cargo ships including "couches, ably required new compositions for presentation to the god; even the
boxes, written books" (Anabasis 7.5.14); Plato mentions Anaxagoras' Hellenistic hymn of the phallophoroi insists on an offering of "virgin
treatise selling for, at most, a drachma at the book stalls in the Athenian song" (II 9). But in addition to the reentry of "revised" plays at the
marketplace (Apology 26d-e). From this it appears that, by the turn of Dionysia and Lenaea (1-3), we hear, by the early 5th c. B.C., of the
the century, books were relatively expensive but easily acquired, and they reperformance of plays at the smaller festivals ··o f the Rural Dionysia
soon came to be collected by cultured Athenians (cf. 10-12). (16; IIIAib), and by the end of the century there is evidence for the
The earliest drama whose survival is attributable to a purely literary reperformance of comedy at the main festivals (18, 19). Sometime after
transmission is in fact a comedy (2). There is conclusive evidence to show the death of Aeschylus, the Athenians voted to allow his plays to be
that our text of Aristophanes' Clouds is not the text of the play performed reproduced at the major festivals (17). From 386 B.C. onward, "old
at the Dionysia of 423 B.C. but a revised version. The sources claim that tragedies" were regularly reproduced at the City Dionysia, and by 339
the revision was undertaken for the purpose of a second production (cf. B.C. the same was true of "old comedies" (22).
·1, 3), which never materialized. Two other comedies of the late 5th and We have less information about performances outside of Attica during
early 4th c. B.C. seem to owe their survival entirely to book circulation the 5th c. B.C. The earliest were those of Aeschylus in Sicily in 471-469
(4). From the mid-4th c. B.C. the revision of dramas for circulation appears and 458-456 B.C. (23). Euripides' Andromache is said to have been first
to have been taken for granted (5). Nevertheless book circulation cannot produced outside of Athens (24). Later he went to Magnesia and then,
fully account for the survival of 5th-c. drama, particularly drama pro along with Agathon, took up residence at the court of the Macedonian
duced before the last two decades of the 5th c. B.C. Despite general literacy, king Archelaus at Pella (25-27). By the last decade of the 5th c. B.C. the
books had a relatively low appeal to most ancients. Reading was a costly sources imply that Athenian tragedy was having an impact on common
and difficult art. Ancient papyrus books were cumbersome continuous people outside of Attica (27, 28, see also on 2). About the same time,
. rolls, up to seven meters long, without word separation or punctuation, we begin to hear anecdotes about tragic and comic actors touring the
with the lines of verse all strung together like prose, with speakers often Greek world (29-31).
unidentified, with changes of speaker sometimes unmarked, and without The anecdotes about the survivors of the Battle of Syracuse are likely
stage directions. Such technical difficulties conspired to make the average to be greatly exaggerated even if true, but they provide a nice illustration
ancient considerably less bookish than Euripides. Most ancients, even of how dramatic culture might be disseminated even without a perfor
scholars, preferred to cite from memory rather than hunt a passage down mance tradition (9). Even if one takes these tales at face value it is not
in a text. No compulsion was felt for verbatim accuracy: Aristotle owned easy to determine whether they indicate a prevalence or dearth of tragic
the largest library in Athens (15A) but made errors in 80 percent of his performance in Sicily: the former is suggested by the popularity of
citations from Homer. r Euripides, the latter by the lengths to which the Sicilians went to hear
Most Greeks of the 5th and 4th c. B.C. became acquainted with drama his verses. Possibly an active performance tradition was interrupted by
through oral tradition and performance. Choral lyrics and monodies often the war with Athens; this in turn would suggest the absence of native
became popular songs (9) and common entertainments at drinking parties tragic actors in Sicily or Italy at the time. Satyrus' version of the tale
(6 ). The custom of singing songs and reciting iambic speeches from does suggest that no books were available to satisfy the longing for
tragedy at drinking parties, well known from the later period, seems Euripides' verse (9). Plutarch, however, speaks specifically of Euripides'
already to have come into fashion by the late 5th c. B.C. (7, 8). Memorable songs, and, although about eleven dramatic papyri with musical notation
phrases, mostly in succinct, proverbial form (gnomat) embellished conver have been found, it is doubtful whether books were ever an adequate
sation, and schoolboys learned to cite tragic speeches from memory. Of medium for music (IVC). In any case, archaeological finds confirm the
the performance tradition there is little direct evidence. It is often said main point of these anecdotes: South Italian and Sicilian imports and
4 The Context of Ancient Drama I I The Texts 5
local imitations of Attic terra-cotta figurines and vase paintings do attest with than the mixed oral and written tradition that was circulating at
a keen interest in Attic drama from about 420 B.C., and particularly for the time. The official Athenian texts are said to be ancestors of our
Euripides (128, 129). Greeks from Italy and Sicily soon became major manuscripts: Galen describes how Ptolemy stole them for the Museum
exponents of Attic theater: among them we may note the tragic actor in Alexandria (15B), where Hellenistic scholars busied themselves with
Aristodemos of Metapontum, whose first Lenaean victories can be dated the task of producing authoritative versions that became the standard
ea. 370 B.C.; Dionysius the tyrant of Syracuse and part-time tragic poet editions of the plays in later antiquity (see IAii).
(8A), who had a Lenaean victory in 367 B.C.; and Alexis of Thurii, one
of the most important poets of Middle Comedy, whose first Lenaean Sources
victories came in the 350s B.C. Many of the most prominent dramatists
in the first half of the 4th c. B.C. came to Athens from the periphery of Written and Oral Texts
the Greek world.
The oral tradition made a significant contribution to the survival of
l. Hypothesis to Euripides, Hippolytus. The second Hippolytus was
our playtexts. In most cases, indeed, the oral and book tradition are
performed in 428 B.C .
. inextricably mixed. Actors appear to have played a major role in both.
This is the second Hippolytus, also called Garlanded Hippolytus.
Though poets apparently revised their plays in the 5th c. B.C., we are It is manifestly the one written later. That which was distasteful
explicitly told that the rewriting was aimed at reperformance, not circula
and deserved condemnation is corrected in this drama.
tion in book form (1-3). Not until the 4th c. B.C. do we have evidence
2A. Aristophanes, Clouds 522-25. Clouds was performed at the Di
for a regular practice of book publication following production (5), or,
onysia in 423 B.C., but the text was later revised by the author sometime
exceptionally, without production (4). Even then a popular play was not
between 420-417 B.C. as the following passages show, and it is this revised
likely to avoid contamination. In an age that knew no copyright, the
version that survives today. The date of the revision is established by the
poet had little control over the text of his play. Booksellers felt no
references to Eupolis' Marikas, performed at the Lenaea in 421 B.C. (cf.
obligation to use authorized versions of plays, when any one of the
people involved in the production could have sold them working copies Clouds 553), and the ostracism of Hyperbolus in 416 B.C. (cf. Clouds
550-58); Aristophanes implies that the work could have been presented
or memorized texts. Even if an author released his text immediately,
elsewhere, had he not decided to favor the "clever" Athenian audience.
actors traveled faster than books. There is no reason to think that a
We should not assume that first performance of a play was necessarily
bookseller in Syracuse would copy only the best Athenian edition. The
book tradition may never have been independent of the oral tradition, the privilege of the Athenian audience.
and it was subject to the same hazards. The scholia allege a great many I considered this to be most clever of all my comedies and so thought
actors' interpolations in our surviving texts (13), and their assertions are it proper that you should be the first to experience this work upon
sometimes confirmed by the appearance of transposed lines or alternate which I labored harder than on any other. But then I lost out to
versions of whole sections of plays. When important speeches seem to tedious clowns, though I did not deserve such treatment.
ramble on or drift clumsily, suspicion normally, perhaps reasonably, falls 2B. Second Hypothesis to Aristophanes, Clouds.
upon the actors' hamming up the poet's text to magnify their roles and The first Clouds was produced at the City Dionysia during the archon
expand the crowd-pleasers. ship of Isarchos (424/3 B.C.), when Cratinus won with Winefiask,
Around 330 B.C. the Athenian politician Lycurgus attempted to curb Ameipsias <came second> with Konnos. So, Aristophanes, tossed
the degeneration of the texts of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides by out unreasonably, thought it necessary to produce the second Clouds
passing a law requiring the preparation of an official text to which actors and chastise the audience. But his luck was even worse with this
would be forced to adhere when performing "old tragedy" at Attic and he did not thereafter produce the revised version. The second
festivals (14). In composing the official text, there is no reason to believe Clouds dates to the archonship of Ameinias (i.e., 423/2 B.C., which
that the Athenian public secretaries had anything more reliable to work is wrong; the revision was probably never produced).