Origins Greek Theatre Emerges Theatre Is a Complex Art Which Requires the Coming Together
©Damen, 2021
Classical Drama and Theatre
Return to Chapters
SECTION i: THE ORIGINS OF WESTERN THEATRE
Chapter 4: The Origins of Greek Theatre, Part 1
I. Introduction: Standards Views of the Origin of Greek Drama
The standard views of the origin of Greek drama and theatre center for the near role around three distinct and incompatible pieces of data: (i) accounts concerning Thespis who is the purported "inventor" of tragedy, (2) the significant and development of the Greek word tragoidia ("tragedy") and (3) the historical business relationship of early Greek theatre found in the fourth affiliate of Aristotle's Poetics.
• That is, some ancient sources report that tragedy was the invention of a person named Thespis who was famous for riding around in a cart and performing dramas.
• Others see an important inkling to tragedy's rise in the Greek give-and-take tragoidia, meaning literally "caprine animal-vocal," and from that assume a caprine animal was the prize for the winning playwright at archaic Greek festivals featuring drama. In the words of Oscar Brockett, one of the pre-eminent theatre historians of the modern historic period, "the chorus danced either for a caprine animal as a prize or around a goat that was then sacrificed." (note)
• Finally, the renowned fourth-century (i.e. post-classical) philosopher Aristotle, the offset person we know to have researched the origins of drama, ended in his famous work on drama and theatre, The Poetics, that tragedy evolved out of another form of performance pop in the twenty-four hours, a type of choral singing chosen dithyramb.
As nosotros will run into, there is much that tin can be said in opposition to all these assertions, so much that no real hope exists of achieving consensus by using these data.
A. Thespis
Starting time, except for what we are told concerning the origin of drama, Thespis is entirely unknown, a name that means essentially nothing to us except every bit the purported founding male parent of Greek drama. Worse yet, all sources that talk about him are belatedly, none even vaguely contemporary. For instance, our data about his cart comes primarily from Horace, a Roman poet who wrote more than than half a millennium after the historic period when Thespis would have lived. Moreover, that very few before sources mention him is particularly troubling if indeed we are to ascribe to him the invention of tragedy.
All this makes him audio more than similar a fabrication of after ages attempting to simplify theatre history by assembling what scant information there are nether ane name, in much the same way that young children in America are taught "George Washington was the founding father of the U.s.a.." Yet historians will note that the reality of early America is vastly more than complicated, involving hundreds, if non thousands, of "founding fathers." The inflation of George Washington is a way of simplifying the complex history of the American Revolution for those who have little room in their lives for the bodily and complex realities of the by. Is Thespis' role in history comparable?
The historicization of George Washington tin can be telling in other means as well. For one, the American general actually existed and is not a fictitious icon. One might conclude the same virtually Thespis except that in that location is no main evidence for his existence as there is for the American founding fathers—the records of the Pre-Classical Age were scant, even in artifact—thus, it would have been much easier dorsum and then to contrive a Thespis than it would be today to counterfeit a George Washington. Moreover, that very lack of testify would also have driven the need to explain tragedy's origin somehow. One simple solution to the innocent question, "Where did Greek drama begin?," would have been to personify the complex evolution of early on Greek theatre past forging a fictional "founder," making it easier in general to make a long and convoluted by coherent.
Whatever the truth, by all fair standards of history, Thespis is undated, unattested, and unassociated by whatever apparent primary source with any particular practices in early theatre. In other words, except for the legends surrounding his name, nosotros have no outside corroboration even of his beingness, much less his contribution to drama. If he resembles any personage in the "forest primeval" of America, it is Evangeline or Paul Bunyan, non George Washington.
B. Tragoidia
Second, the Greek word tragoidia presents fifty-fifty more of a mystery. That information technology means "goat (trag-) song (-oidos)" is sure considering at that place is no other way to interpret the word satisfactorily in Greek, only to what the "caprine animal" refers is not at all articulate. Goats are not known as prizes for winning playwrights in any other ancient venue, nor would one make a very bonny reward. Frankly, one hopes ancient playwrights competed for something a bit more condign. Goats, in fact, feature nowhere in the extant principal records of aboriginal Greek theatre, so to conclude that they were sacrifices, every bit Brockett and others do, is pure speculation. However in that location is no writing off the goats entirely, the way one can with Thespis, because "goat" is firmly anchored in the very name of the genre and that term goes dorsum to the origin itself of the artform.
The desperation of this situation has led otherwise conservative and judicious critics to make uncharacteristically wild guesses at the reason goats are found grazing effectually the ancient phase. For instance, Margarete Bieber suggests that "goats" may be a nickname for the worshipers of Dionysus, the god in whose accolade drama is performed at Athens. (note) While information technology is truthful that such nicknames be for the adherents of other gods, for example, "bears" or "bees" for devotees of Artemis, in that location is no such recorded appellation for the celebrants of Dionysus. In fact, few gods beside Artemis accept worshipers with nicknames—information technology seems to be something largely peculiar to her cult—so, on closer examination, the extrapolation stands on shaky ground.
Some other avenue leads to more than productive results. Some scholars have suggested that "goat-song" may refer not to goats as such, just to an ancient Greek slang term, "to goat," referring to the breaking or cracking of a young man's vocalisation during puberty. (annotation) If aboriginal tragic choruses were performed past young men, this could make an odd sort of sense. (note) The term tragoidia would then be a joke, based on the slap-up of the young men'southward voices—though not during an bodily performance, i hopes!
Names for dramatic genres are, in fact, known to exist based on jokes elsewhere, for case, the modern performance genre called "soaps." Later on all, could the reason for the name "soap" be easily reconstructed two millennia from now, if information technology were non known that there was once a connection betwixt daytime drama and the detergent industry which provided the funding for soap operas? Without such noesis, future scholars might attain for simplistic but reasonable-sounding explanations, such as, "These emotional melodramas were seen to 'cleanse' the soul, and thus the genre came to be called 'soaps'." It would be much harder to recreate the real reason for the proper name, that it is essentially an ironic jab at the early commercialism of this art course. All in all, the reason why there are goats in tragedy is an unresolved puzzler, though in lite of theatre and ancient history the "goating vocalisation" explanation makes better sense than suggesting that goats once served equally prizes.
C. Aristotle's Poetics
Third, Aristotle and the theory of the origin of Greek drama he presents in his treatise on theatre, The Poetics , deserves to be read in full.
Aristotle, The Poetics, Chpt. 4.1-6 (1449a) [The Poetics, according to one modernistic commentator, "is often elliptical in expression, and some of its ideas seem inadequately, at times almost incoherently, developed." (note) Thus, it is hardly possible to situate Aristotle'southward analysis of the origins of tragedy inside the larger context of what Aristotle is proverb prior to this passage. Suffice it to say, he turns abruptly from a description of mankind's "instinct for imitation (mimesis)" out of which he claims tragedy arises, to the origin of Greek dramatic forms. Afterward that, without stating any reason for making the transition, he moves on to the general nature of tragedy and comedy. In both tone and style The Poetics reads more than like lecture notes than a polished critical thesis. In light of all this, I have translated the text with the aim of capturing both Aristotle's exact words and besides his punctuated and compressed mode. If the English below makes hard reading, believe me, and then does the Greek.]
Arising from a showtime in improvisation, both itself (i.eastward. tragedy) and comedy, the erstwhile (arising) from those leading the dithyramb, and the latter from those (leading) the phallic songs which still even at present in many of our cities remain customary, little by little it (i.e. tragedy) grew making advances equally much equally was obvious for it to do, and after having undergone many changes, tragedy came to a stop, when information technology attained its own nature. Aeschylus increased the number of actors (literally, "interpreters" or "answerers") from 1 to ii for the first time and he reduced the chorus' business and prepared the dialogue to take prominence. Sophocles (introduced?�in that location is no verb hither) iii (i.due east. actors) and scene-painting. And also the grandeur (or "length," i.e. of tragedy; was increased? by Aeschylus? Sophocles?—again, no verb!). From slight (or "short" ) stories and joking expression, since it evolved out of satyric forms, it became reverent (merely) rather late, and the meter inverse from tetrameter (i.due east. comical, fast-paced) to iambic (i.e. normal, conversational). At showtime they used tetrameter since drama was satyric and more trip the light fantastic-related, only with the rising of speech (i.e. equally opposed to "song") the nature (i.e. of tragedy) on its own found its proper meter. Indeed, the most conversational of meters are iambics. The evidence of this, we speak iambs (i.eastward. daDUM daDUM) most of all in conversation with ane another; (nosotros speak) hexameters (i.e. the meter of ballsy, DUMdada DUMdada), on the other manus, infrequently and when nosotros depart from a conversational tone. And too the number of episodes (or "acts" ; was increased? –no verb). And every bit to the other matters, equally each is said to have been set in order, let that exist said by u.s.. For it would be perhaps a great task to explain each affair individually.
Consider the comments of the classicist D.Westward. Lucas on Aristotle's views of early on Greek drama. (note)
Finally, it is worth observing that Aristotle's business relationship of the origin of tragedy from a basically ludicrous course fits so desperately with the scheme of evolution presented in the commencement office of the chapter that he would non take been probable to offer it unless he had been reasonably confident that it was true. Here again information technology is important that he knew more nosotros practise about the early satyr play.
But did he? Lucas raises a central question faced by all who encounter Aristotle's conclusions here: "How much meliorate was his information than ours?" Aristotle conspicuously had a few advantages we do not. He lived much closer in time to early Greek drama than we exercise and, to judge from the dramas he cites and quotes, had access to 5th-century (classical) plays we do not. Furthermore, he spent at least some of his life in ancient Athens and was personally involved in Athenian culture. Whether or non he did, he certainly could have gone to the aboriginal theatre, and then he speaks from at to the lowest degree the assumption of having seen Greek tragedy in action in its day, something far beyond our grasp.
While these practice, in fact, seem like overwhelming advantages, on close inspection none are then imposing that nosotros cannot question his thesis. Aristotle lived from 384 to 322 BCE, which is nearly two hundred years after the period he is discussing. If that does not seem like a long time, especially in the not bad sweep of history, one should recollect how long two centuries can be. By our standards that is like going back to the early days of the Usa. How much would a person today exist able to remember nigh that period without historical records to go on? Credible oral histories rarely exist at such a remove. Then it is fair to assume Aristotle is dependent on what information he can collect from that menses or, to put it another fashion, The Poetics is by definition secondary evidence—not principal!—about early on Greek theatre.
Nor does it help those who would defend him as an dominance on primordial Hellenic drama that in all of The Poetics he does not quote from one piece of primary historical evidence written in the sixth century BCE: no playwright'south work, no dramatic commentary, no tape of audience reactions, nothing! He either did not have access to such information or chose not to reference his sources in The Poetics. If he did have access to data nigh early drama, it seems likely a researcher who is otherwise so meticulous would take explored those avenues and included them in his finished work. The greater likelihood is that all but no records of early drama had survived to his day.
To come across that more clearly, it may help to think of this situation in modern terms. For instance, in several centuries or more from now at that place volition probably no longer be comprehensive records of the very earliest phases of moving picture-making, such as Edison, D.Westward. Griffith, Cecil B. De Mille's first silent version of The Ten Commandments. (annotation) How will scholars in this future age slice together the origins of that all-important watershed in fine art, the invention of the movie? In the absenteeism of clear information, will they be able to run into its dependence on theatre, the novel, opera and creative movements like impressionism? So, any way yous wait at it, Aristotle'south primacy as a researcher of early Greek theatre is non as not bad an advantage equally it might appear at first.
Nor is his cultural advantage as neat every bit it might look on the surface. The Athens he knew was very different from that into which drama was born. Between the days of early tragedy and Aristotle's lifetime, the Classical Historic period had come and gone, leaving in its wake a very changed civilization and view on life. Aristotle, without incertitude, was acculturated to encounter the world through eyes quite unlike from those which had directed and witnessed the birth of Greek drama.
Moreover, defective immediate experience with the full cultural framework of the time in which drama offset came to low-cal, he was equally prone every bit anyone to make misassessments about the inclinations and motivations of his remote ancestors in the Pre-Classical Historic period. Granted, fifty-fifty if faulty, his reconstructions of the past probably appeared sensible to him and his peers—and perhaps to many today, too—nevertheless, his conclusions will have macerated validity if they practice not accost directly the age in question. In other words, Aristotle was at some run a risk of making the same fault all historians are: his conclusions perhaps say more than most himself and his own times than the bailiwick he is studying.
D. Conclusion: How correct is Aristotle about the origin of tragedy?
With all that in mind, permit us examine Aristotle'southward hypothesis about the origin of Greek drama. In essence, Aristotle looked at theatre-similar entertainments and ritual celebrations that were non tragedy every bit such and that had survived to his day and seemed "primitive" to him. Recall his words: "which still even now in many of our cities remain customary." From that he concluded that these celebrations must somehow accept played a directly role in the evolution of tragedy. The postulates underlying The Poetics—that is, Aristotle's assumptions about what constitutes historical data in the case of early on theatre and how it should exist ordered—are remarkably similar to those adopted by Frazer in The Aureate Bough. When he sees something that looks primitive to him, he assumes it must besides be ancient.
And that opens Aristotle up to the aforementioned criticisms as those which have been directed at Frazer. Basically, Aristotle concludes that primitive ritual in some form led to theatre following a timeline of inevitable "progress" toward more circuitous forms: "[tragedy] grew making advances as much every bit was obvious for information technology to practice, and after having undergone many changes, tragedy came to a stop, when it attained its own nature." But who's to decide what is "obvious" or "its own nature"? Without a articulate and documented basis in data, such assumptions cannot carry much weight.
The dithyramb, what Aristotle cites equally the art grade from which tragedy arose, also poses several obstacles to the structure of a coherent case for some sort of linear development in the performing arts of early Greece. To begin with, no early dithyrambs survive from antiquity. Indeed, until recently we did not have any dithyrambs at all. However, in the last century a few have emerged from the sands of Egypt. Unfortunately for our purposes here, they are later dithyrambs past a classical—not pre-classical!—poet named Bacchylides, and their connection to the earlier dithyrambs about which Aristotle speaks is unclear (run across Reading #1). It is enough to note that Bacchylides' dithyrambs exercise employ only sung language, naught fifty-fifty shut to spoken linguistic communication, nor do they entail elaborate characterization, as tragedy usually does. That means it is questionable even whether dithyrambs represented institutional theatre in whatsoever conventional sense�as opposed to more music-based artforms like opera or ballet�much less served as the predecessor of tragedy.
Indeed, one of Bacchylides' dithyrambs includes only a unmarried graphic symbol, while another has no characters at all, but a chorus, something unheard of in extant tragedy. Moreover, these dithyrambs are episodic, meaning they exercise not have conventional plots with a clear beginning, eye and end, again unlike all known Greek tragedies. What they seem to be are short "epics" cast in the form of lyric poems to be performed by a chorus, effected through poetic and elevated linguistic communication that focuses on the genealogies and epithets of heroes and peopled past huge and lofty characters, mostly gods and heroes, non the desperate, stricken mortals who dominate the tragedies available to us. (note)
In sum, none of this adds up to a compelling case, at least superficially, for dithyramb as the precursor of tragedy—put but, the dithrambs we have do not look much like the tragedies which are extant—so is it possible, and so, that Aristotle is wrong about the origin of tragedy? Earlier entertaining such a notion, nosotros must acknowledge that it would be foolish to cast away lightly the stance of i of the finest minds ever and, fifty-fifty if his written report constitutes secondary show, a researcher who stands much closer to the actual upshot in question than we are. But permit u.s. assume for a moment that Aristotle is mistaken. It is notwithstanding incumbent on his prosecutors to show how and why, and to present some better case than he does. No small task!
Suppose, so, that we had access to all the dithyrambs ever written in early Hellenic republic and nosotros could see for ourselves that there were, in fact, no dithyrambs which resembled tragedy closely enough to posit a cause-and-event human relationship, as Aristotle does. He is not an idiot or liar, so it is incumbent on us to find some reasonable explanation for his misconstruction of the data. Fortunately, that is not an insurmountable challenge.
The Poetics does not focus on the upshot of origins with most the sort of attending modernistic theatre historians might wish for. At that place is, in fact, very picayune in this work about the creation of drama and, to gauge from the fractured density of Aristotle's language—if information technology is even his language and not the notes of someone listening to his lectures, as some scholars suppose—he did non revise the work to the caste typical of his other works. Thus, it seems fair to say that the question of the origin of drama was not central in his mind.
Now let united states assume the antipodal, that Aristotle is correct and evidence actually in one case existed that at that place were dithyrambs that looked similar tragedies, at least on paper. He could, later all, never have seen such dithyrambs performed since he lived so long afterward the fact. Aristotle could be making an fault to which many historians of theatre are susceptible. That is, he has assumed a connectedness between theatrical genres which happen to look alike in written form—in this case, dithyrambs and tragedies both include choruses, lyrics, characters, scenes, dramatic tension, climax then on—but, when seen in theatres in performance, they probably looked and were very different. Much the aforementioned could be said for opera and oratorio, or musicals and music videos.
Perhaps, a more modern analogy will help clarify the situation. For instance, compare the screenplays of blithe films and live-action movies. They look, in fact, very similar, but the finished products in operation are worlds apart and, as we know, grew out of vastly different artistic milieux. All in all, if it is true that Aristotle is projecting a hypothesis based primarily on prove from his own mean solar day and non the Pre-Classical Age, he shows himself to have been a purveyor—merely not necessarily a spectator—of plays who has made a classic "reader's error." He saw what looked to him like a similarity between different forms of performance art, when, in fact, it was really only a superficial "papyrus likeness," and from that he assumed in that location was a direct evolutionary relationship between the genres.
It is possible to see that same sort of error elsewhere in The Poetics. Aristotle claims—or seems to merits since the text is gravely abbreviated—that "Sophocles (introduced?) three (actors) and scene-painting." (annotation) But information technology is obvious even at our remove that, if he did, Sophocles must have done this extremely early in his career, since Aeschylus utilizes iii speaking actors in The Oresteia, a trilogy produced in 458 BCE. Sophocles' career had begun only a decade earlier (ca. 468 BCE). How likely is it that a novice, earlier even having earned his dramatic stripes, would have been allowed to reformulate the rules in as rigidly controlled an environment as the prestigious, honour-granting religious festival of the City Dionysia? In all probability Aristotle—if he actually wrote these strangled words—is incorrect on this point, and the reason for this is also not altogether unfathomable.
Though Aeschylus' afterward plays practice, in fact, utilise three speaking actors—and peradventure at i point even four (Cooler-Bearers 900ff.)—never at any moment is in that location a three-way chat on the stage, that is, no "trialogues" anywhere. If one were to read Aeschylus' dramas chop-chop, not following closely the assignment of parts demanded by the text or carefully reconstructing the actors' movements backstage, it would be very easy to conclude that Aeschylus never employed more than than two speaking actors in the execution of his drama. Careful scrutiny of Aeschylus' plays, however, belies this presumption.
For example, in the smashing confrontation between Agamemnon and his married woman Clytemnestra in Aeschylus' Agamemnon, the only characters who are given lines to speak are Agamemnon and Clytemnestra�and the chorus, of grade. Yet at that place is another graphic symbol on stage during this scene, Cassandra, though she speaks not a discussion in this scene. Later, however, in another scene�and she never leaves the stage in between�she does finally talk. So, the same actor must be portraying Cassandra throughout this section of the play. (note)
It is clear, then, Aeschylus' Agamemnon does, in fact, demand 3 speaking characters, though a cursory glance at the text would seem to signal not. In sum, the example is strong that Aristotle has made a "reader's error"—if, in fact, he wrote the words "Sophocles 3" and in saying this meant that the tragedian had introduced the third thespian—and has causeless from a cursory overview of Aeschylus' drama what the playwright's scripts called for in terms of performers. That is, Aristotle did not fully envision the requirements of theatrical production in Aeschylus' day. It would accord well with the complete neglect in The Poetics of any word regarding rehearsal and the concrete dimension of stage productions.
All this casts Aristotle's assessment of early theatre in, at best, a mottled low-cal. This type of misconstruction suggests he did not make any serious effort to seek out the theatre recoverable in the scripts he surveyed. In other words, he reads and possibly listens to drama in the "playhouse of his mind," just he does non sentinel it every bit advisedly as the theatre demands, which makes him liable to certain types of critical errors. In the words of Ibn Khaldun, he shows an "inability rightly to identify an event in its real context, attributable to the obscurity and complexity of the situation. The chronicler contents himself with reporting the outcome as he saw it,..."�in this case, in his mind�" thus distorting its significance."
If then, it opens the possibility of consigning Aristotle'south theory linking early on tragedy with dithyramb to the same family of oversights as his purported attribution of the third (actor) to Sophocles. To wit, the philosopher saw credible similarities in the written texts of dithyramb and tragedy and from that causeless some sort of evolutionary connection—it is not an illogical conclusion past a "reader's" standards since these texts would accept looked alike in written form—nevertheless, the graphic similarity may not accept an equivalent validity in the theatre of pre-classical Athens. Or, to put it another way, Aristotle is a "lumper" who postulates a direct line of development in the information past linking together forms he knows to have existed early. The fact is, the data—what few there are!—leave much room to play the "splitter," too.
That opens the door to supposing that dithyramb was non the "father" of tragedy, simply a similar-looking grade of entertainment that grew from the same stalk of the "family tree" every bit tragedy did. In other words, dithyramb was non necessarily a direct ancestor of tragedy or fifty-fifty a shut relative, but rather a sibling or cousin of some sort. All in all, the standard view of the origin of Greek drama in the Pre-Classical Age—whether we orchestrate our hypotheses around Aristotle, Thespis or goats—is hardly unassailable. It is limited at all-time, and a real possibility exists that all three purported data points are only wrong.
II. Those Few Known Facts almost Early Greek Drama
In such a situation, information technology is wise to pace back and re-assess what nosotros know. What are the facts about early Greek drama, where is at that place room to speculate and what limitations should there be to our speculation? This much at least is certain:
• Greek theatre must accept arisen in the early or mid-500's BCE, because drama is simply not mentioned in texts or credible sources prior to that fourth dimension.
• By 534 BCE theatre is clearly underway considering that was when Pisistratus, the tyrant of Athens, inaugurated the urban ceremonies honoring the god Dionysus, a festival that for the first fourth dimension in recorded history included theatrical performances. Thus, all reasonable evidence suggests that Athens was the cradle, if not the birthplace, of early on drama.
• That innovative festival, chosen the City Dionysia, is certainly worth examining in item, because from what is known about its general mood and structure it may exist possible to speculate constructively about Pisistratus' reasons for making drama function of this festival.
• Crucial, too, in all this is Dionysus, a god seen by the Greeks as a foreign import. His worship was said to take originated in Asia Modest (modern Turkey) and to have entailed several non-Greek elements, such as "orgiastic" rituals.
And so, amidst all the conflicting and confusing data, there do exist at least some things we tin rely on. If these information do not form a seamless span to the truth, they are at least stepping stones on which to cross a very treacherous torrent of conflicting information. Let us begin, then, by investigating the worship of Dionysus because it may shed light on the nature of early theatre and, perhaps, even help sort out the testify.
The alien nature of Dionysiac worship is reported to have precipitated more than one crunch in Greek society. As many today would likewise, the ancient Greeks initially distrusted any social forcefulness that preached release of inhibitions, promotion of the downtrodden in society—and women, in particular, conspicuously i audience at whom the cult was directed—and general dancing, drinking and cavorting. (note)The grade of worship sanctioned in Dionysian religion was ecstasy, literally "the human action of standing outside oneself." At the highest pitch of the celebration, information technology was believed that worshipers left themselves, as the god entered their bodies, and they could then perform miracles and wondrous acts across normal homo capabilities. That the "impersonation" of a human by the god bears some resemblance to what an histrion does in performing a drama has led many a scholar to assert an evolutionary connection between this sort of worship and the performance of drama. For this and other reasons, Bieber asserts: "The religion of Dionysus is the only one in antiquity in which dramatic plays would have developed." (annotation)
There is much to applaud in Bieber's approach. To begin with, the festivals of Dionysus regularly included dance, and at the same fourth dimension the impersonation of deities, the use of masks and parades of celebrants who can be seen to resemble tragic choristers. Besides its innate theatricality, Dionysian organized religion was also a later import to Greece and thus, dissimilar amend established cults with historic period-erstwhile rituals, it was open to new formulations in its worship, celebrations that might involve all sorts of "entertainment" (epic narration, lyric singing, choruses, and then on). Furthermore, the story of Dionysus as told in myth is varied and full of unlike events, indeed a rich storehouse of unlike-looking episodes that would make a fine arena for theatre, if a playwright were inclined to dramatize them. In sum, looking on the surface of things, 1 is forced to agree with Bieber that Dionysus' world in early on Greece seems like the perfect womb for fetal drama. Now all that's needed is strong evidence corroborating that was what actually happened.
Unfortunately, for all the sense Bieber's argument makes to many today, the corroborating evidence that what she proposes did, in fact, have identify is simply non at that place. Moreover, when one looks below the surface, at that place are powerful counterarguments to the thesis that drama arose straight or smoothly from Dionysiac cult practices. While the rituals attested as Dionysian are indeed theatrical, they are not past any means institutional or autonomous theatre. Yes, at that place is impersonation, which assumes that at that place are too watchers and watched, but the nature of the words spoken in these performances is unknown. If the scripts of these ceremonies did not vary simply comprised basically the aforementioned hymnic praise of the god twelvemonth after year, information technology is less like a play than an Easter mass, which is certainly dramatic but not drama equally such. Finally, for all the possibilities of creating new and innovative scripts which the mythic sagas of Dionysus inherently contained, there is little evidence that such play-texts were ever created in classical drama. It's a fine suggestion just things just don't seem to have played out that style in antiquity.
And there is another trouble. A well-known Athenian maxim from the solar day claimed that Greek tragedy had "Nothing to do with Dionysus." This popular saying dates dorsum to at to the lowest degree the Classical Historic period, where it appears to take been assumed, as a joke almost, that, although tragic drama was performed at the Dionysia in honor of its eponymous deity, the plays rarely revolved around Dionysus or his worship explicitly, which is something we can see for ourselves. All but ane of the thirty-three preserved classical tragedies deal with myths that do not center effectually Dionysus. The question, then, is not about the validity of this aphorism, but how far back in time information technology applies. Does the tendency well-evidenced in the Classical Historic period not to perform plays about Dionysus at the Dionysia go back into the Pre-Classical Age, peradventure even to the origin of drama itself?
That, in turn, brings upwards another problem, the very dissimilar modes in which Dionysiac ritual, based every bit it is on ecstatic revelry, and tragedy are conducted. Nearly all the tragedies we take access to are fairly serious in tone, many very serious. If tragedy arose from the riotous, grape-stomping, orgiastic rituals of Dionysus worship, how and when and why did this total changeabout in tone and attitude have place? The result of these questions is that for all its credible validity the quick-and-easy association of Dionysiac ritual and early tragedy is much more problematical than it may seem at offset glance, withal another lesson in the dangers of applying what to us makes sense to a past culture that had sensibilities very dissimilar from our own.
III. Mod Theories well-nigh the Origin of Greek Drama: Murray and Else
Given that, theatre historians must seriously consider the possibility that tragedy did non naturally abound out of Dionysiac ritual just was somehow layered onto it. Indeed in the twentieth century, three important theories were proposed edifice upon that premise: Murray'southward suggestions surrounding the "year-spirit," Ridgeway's "Tomb Theory," and Else's proposal that Greek drama is the product of Thespis' and Aeschylus' genius. Let us review them at present.
A. Murray, Cornford and the Eniautos Daimon
Beginning, Gilbert Murray, and afterward F.M. Cornford, posited that drama evolved out of a celebration of the yr-spirit—in Greek, eniautos daimon ("annual spirit")—a ritual tied to the changing of seasons. (notation) In Murray'south view, comedy began equally a celebration of the spousal relationship of gods and the fertility that results of their happy matrimony; conversely, tragedy originally mourned some god'south death and usually took place in autumn. Much of this work built upon Frazer's theories with all their concomitant biases and positivistic fallacies. When that attitude came under fire, Murray's theoretical infrastructure besides began to crumble.
From another quarter, critics of Murray's work pointed out that, while the term eniautos daimon is attested, in that location is remarkably little evidence for the celebration of a year-spirit in Greece. On height of that, the evidence for such celebrations does not, at least on the surface, suggest that they closely resembles subsequently classical tragedy, at least as we know it. And to cap things off, Greek tragedy was regularly historic in early bound, just as the twelvemonth was renewing itself—the wrong time of year, to guess past seasonal modify—and comedy was performed at the aforementioned festival. Co-ordinate to many scholars, the congruence of diametrically opposed rituals according to the twelvemonth-spirit's religious agenda was a fatal accident to this theory. Except for stopping a bear witness here and in that location, the weather but doesn't seem to have played a large function in Greek theatre.
B. Ridgeway and the Tomb Theory
Along similar lines emerged a second theory, one rooted in very different set of data. This thesis sets out to explain why tragedy had "naught to do with Dionysus." This suggestion begins with a passage in Herodotus' Histories which offers, if rather succinctly, another possible artery for the distillation of drama out of not-Dionysian ritual:
Herodotus, The Histories, Volume 5.67.4-v [Herodotus is discussing the rise of Athenian republic which he sees as the fallout of a conflict between 2 men, Cleisthenes and Isagoras. In reporting about the erstwhile, he digresses into a discussion of Cleisthenes' gramps, besides named Cleisthenes. This older Cleisthenes had tried, co-ordinate to Herodotus, to rid Sicyon, a city in southern Greece, of the worship of the hero Adrastus and impose on it that of a hero imported from Thebes, Melanippus. Adrastus had lived much earlier (in mythological times) and later on his spirit was seen to protect the city. Thus, the Sicyonians worshiped Adrastus equally a demigod and performed certain rituals in his behalf, which Herodotus now describes.]
But the Sicyonians by tradition very excessively worshiped Adrastus, the reason being that the state (i.east. Sicyon) was once Polybus' very own and Adrastus was Polybus' maternal grandson, just childless at the time of his death Polybus gave to Adrastus the realm. And so, in other respects the Sicyonians used to honor Adrastus but particularly with respect to his sufferings (or "experiences" ) they held celebrations with tragic choruses, honoring not Dionysus but Adrastus. Cleisthenes (i.eastward. the older) returned (or "delivered over" ) the choruses to Dionysus and the other sacrifices to Melanippus.
This has led some scholars, foremost among them William Ridgeway, to propose the theory that this sort of hero-worship was the font from which Greek tragedy came, in Ridgeway's words: (note)
Tragedy proper did not arise in the worship of the Thracian god Dionysus; only sprang out of the indigenous worship of the dead . . . the cult of Dionysus was non indigenous in Sicyon but had been introduced there . . . and had been superimposed upon the cult of the old male monarch; . . . even if it were true that Tragedy proper arose out of the worship of Dionysus, it would no less have originated in the worship of the dead since Dionysus was regarded by the Greeks every bit a hero (i.e. a man turned into a saint) besides as a god.
This theory, called the "tomb theory" or "hero-cult theory," has certain advantages over the assumption that tragedy arose from Dionysian worship. Principally, information technology direct addresses the content and grade of all later, extant classical tragic dramas which invariably include choruses, most frequently focus on human heroes over immortals, and frequently heart around their mortality. The functioning of a hero's life at his "tomb," presumably a narrative recreation of his life and decease accompanied past a chorus, does indeed bear a strong, if superficial, resemblance to later tragedy.
But there are serious drawbacks to the "tomb theory." Primarily, this testify is so scant that, if the theory is right, the discussion about the origin of Greek tragedy is over. This leaves zippo else to say, for there is no other information almost these Sicyonian rituals to be establish in the historical tape. Herodotus' account constitutes our one and only source of information almost this custom. No other historian, no later commentator, no vase painting, nothing else in antiquity refers to this sort of entertainment, every bit far as nosotros know.
Close attention to Herodotus' language besides raises some serious problems virtually the validity of this perspective. The historian appears to be pushing the very same point as Ridgeway, that tragedy arose from these sorts of celebrations ("the Sicyonians . . . held celebrations with tragic choruses, ..." ). To telephone call them "tragic" choruses is essentially to retroject a later cultural term onto an earlier custom and begs the point that these songs in some way found "proto-tragedy." Note also that Herodotus seems to exist denouncing the cult of Dionysus as the font of tragedy when he says "honoring not Dionysus but Adrastus." The great "Father of History" looks to be asserting the same statement as Ridgeway and his modern followers.
In other words, he does non only happen to tape for us the true origin of drama, but is making the very point on very slender bear witness. If then, and if he'd had more data to this event, Herodotus would surely have cited it. But he does non, and that speaks poorly for the credibility of this thesis. All in all, given the scarcity of information here and Herodotus' potential bias, we must take the "tomb theory" with a grain of common salt, if not a whole shaker. Afterward all, when the facts lead to a dead end, we're at "Thespis" all over again.
C. Else's Theory
Speaking of Thespis, a third theory also downplays the role of Dionysian worship in the formation of early Greek drama and has won by and large wider support. Gerald Else, a twentieth-century classicist, suggested looking at drama, not as the product of some other blazon of ritual or commemoration nor even the development of older forms into something new and dissimilar, but every bit a unique issue without truthful forebears. Else calls Greek drama "the product of ii successive artistic acts by two men of genius," significant Thespis and Aeschylus. (annotation) In other words, tragedy only "happened" considering 2 men in adequately close succession saw possibilities in the art form, and in the procedure of reshaping it they created drama, almost incidentally.
Else'south theory has several clear advantages over the others. Offset and foremost, it explains the chronology and locality of tragedy's genesis. There tin be lilliputian doubt that it happened in Athens at some point during the sixth century BCE. Even if at that place are theatre-like entertainments elsewhere in the Greek earth or anywhere prior to the rise of tragedy, there is no competent ancient source that does non recognize the Athenians in some manner as the inventors of drama, and there is not fifty-fifty a shred of credible evidence to suggest otherwise. So to Else, the dynamic combination of Thespis and Aeschylus, non some poorly attested social institution or vague seasonal celebration, was the existent strength behind the bulldoze to create this art form. In Else'due south eyes, tragedy is the unique concoction of men who lived at the right moment in the right place to bring theatre to life.
The form and content of tragedy, then, do not matter in the aforementioned way they do if we suppose that tragedy is an elaboration of sure pre-existing celebrations or rituals. What tragedy became is simply what Thespis and Aeschylus saw as practicable entertainment, considering in manufacturing the artform, they simply used what they wanted to of the culture and arts around them. If tragedy looks like information technology has pieces of Dionysiac ritual or hero-worship or lyric poetry or epic, information technology is because that is what Thespis and Aeschylus selected at will and from these elements forged drama. It must also have been to some extent what their public wanted, in the language of modern advert, what "sold."
Essentially, what Else is doing is subverting the whole mentality of "evolution," the sense that fine art entails cause and outcome which over time lead to visible changes in its presentation. Instead, he has posited a theory of spontaneous generation for tragedy—a student of mine aptly called this the "creationist theory" of Greek drama—inasmuch every bit Else is substantially saying that early on Greek theatre did not evolve, but was "created," born several times, in fact: in Thespis' early touring shows, and again in 534 BCE when Pisistratus instituted the Urban center Dionysia in Athens and decided to include drama amidst its celebrations, and finally in Aeschylus' masterful easily during the early on Classical Age when it took on the shape in which we know it. It's hard to argue against Else's contentions, and thus many scholars today follow his thesis.
But, like all the others, his theory is not without its drawbacks. It leaves lilliputian room for universal application, because it applies by definition only to Athens in the sixth and 5th centuries BCE. In premise, Else's thesis cannot be expanded to include China or India, where we know theatre besides developed. There is no room for a common human chemical element when one sees Greek drama equally "unique." While this may be true, one should promise it is not, because, merely equally with Ridgeway's Herodotus-based theory, the statement would be at a dead finish.
To many scholars, that alone is unsatisfying. Furthermore, although in that location is much to question in Aristotle'south thesis, classicists and theatre historians are�and should be!�sick at ease throwing the great philosopher's notions out the window altogether, even if there seem to exist good reasons for doing so. All in all, it would exist much more than satisfying if we could incorporate Aristotle's ideas in some course at least. And finally, to say that in the stop "geniuses invented drama" seems somewhat obvious. Equally some other student of mine one time blurted out in class when I was outlining Else'southward thesis, "Well, duh!" Unfortunately, I must concur.
D. Conclusion
In sum, the facts about early on Greek theatre announced to lead to shaky or unsatisfying theories at best, and the whole situation looks lamentable. Facing a seemingly insoluble problem, nosotros should probably throw upward our easily and surrender, especially given the underwhelming body of evidence we can bring into play. With little hope of uncovering more than data—remember that Aristotle seems to accept had not much more than to go along than we do, and if he didn't, is there any reasonable expectation we e'er volition?—the gavel should probably come down on this mistrial and we should all leave the courthouse. Unless, of course, the reason at that place isn't ameliorate show is not because of import data take failed to survive but because the development of drama did not take place the fashion any of these theories suggest.
In other words, peradventure nosotros lie at the centre of the problem. Peradventure we are expecting to detect something that is not at that place and never was, or in that location was and then little of it that none is likely to have survived the ravages of time. To put it another style, perhaps nosotros are looking for a preponderance of data that never existed. In that rests the only real hope of finding credible answers about early Greek drama, especially in calorie-free of the grave improbability that nosotros will stumble beyond new data almost the events surrounding the origin of Greek drama. Possibly we already take all the testify we demand and all we need to do is to recognize it equally such. To be continued.
| Terms, Places, People and Things to Know | |
| Thespis [THESS-piss] Tragoidia [trah-GOY-dee-uh] Aristotle The Poetics Dithyramb [DITH-ur-ram] Bacchylides [back-KILL-uh-dees] Trialogue(south) Dionysus [die-oh-NICE-suss] | City Dionysia [die-oh-NISS-se-uh] Ecstasy "Nothing To Exercise With Dionysus" Year-Spirit William Ridgeway Tomb-Theory Hero-Cult Theory Gerald Else |
This work is licensed nether a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike iv.0 International License.
Source: https://www.usu.edu/markdamen/clasdram/chapters/041gkorig.htm
0 Response to "Origins Greek Theatre Emerges Theatre Is a Complex Art Which Requires the Coming Together"
Enregistrer un commentaire