Aeschylean Tragedy 28. Where two titles are shown in the form 'A or B this implies that the play actually referred to as 'A or B in at least one ancient source. Other alternative designations listed here mostly reflect the varying habits of modern scholars whe may transliterate, latinize or anglicize the Greek titles 29. For this play, and also for The Women of argos and The Women of salamis(see below), a minority of our sources give the title the ending - oi instead of-ai, indicating a male rather than a female chorus. The medieval catalogue of Aeschylus' plays(see next note) is in the minority each time, and twice it is in a minority of one. 0. We know of this play only from the catalogue of Aeschylus' plays found some medieval manuscripts, where it is listed as Phrygioi Either this title is no nore than a variant form of Phryges, or, as here assumed, we are again dealing with a confusion of the endings -oi and -ai, to which this catalogue is particularly prone(see previous note) 31. The title means only female Aetnaeans, and these may well in fact have been not women of the city, but nymphs of the mountain( Grassi 1956: 208-9; Lucas de Dios 2008: 186). The medieval catalogue mentions both agenuine' and a'spurious' play of this name. There is no other reference to a second play, possibly Aeschylus, having originally produced the play in Sicily, revised the script for a later Athenian produc- tion, and later scholars supposed that the revision was not his work. 32. Many scholars have also posited a play about Cycnus on the evidence of Aristophanes, Frogs 963, and one about Tennes(the eponymous hero of the island of Tenedos)on the evidence of a papyrus fragment (Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 2256 frr 51-3=Aesch. fr dub. 451o Radt 33. But see Biles(forthcoming) for a persuasive attack on the ancient tradition (scholia to Aristophanes, Acharnians 10 and Frogs 868: Life of Aeschylus 13: Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 6.11; Quintilian 10.1.66)that a decree was passed permitting the posthumous restaging of Aeschylean plays in the City Dionysia tragic competition. 34.ML.West1990b:67-72;2000 5. For the possibility that Euphorion may have been the author of Prometheus Bound and Prometheus Unbound-and may have produced them in 431-see $8.5 6. Their genealogy is given in a scholium to Aristophanes, Birds 281 37. Hypothesis II to Oedipus the King, citing Dicaearchus(fr 80 Wehrli 38.lGi22325.44,2318.314,2320.3-6; Diogenes Laertius243; Suda o42645 a161. The compiler of the Suda, though he knew there were two tragedians named Astydamas, seems to have misattributed to the elder some information that actually related to the youn 39. Even two generations later the family still held a leading place in the Athenian theatrical world; in 278/7 we find another Astydamas, probably a edson of the mid-fourth-century dramatist, going to Delphi on a delegation from the Athenian Artists of Dionysus, and securing from the Amphictiony a decree confirming certain privileges enjoyed by the guild (IG ii 1132) 16
28. Where two titles are shown in the form ‘A or B’ this implies that the play is actually referred to as ‘A or B’ in at least one ancient source. Other alternative designations listed here mostly reflect the varying habits of modern scholars who may transliterate, latinize or anglicize the Greek titles. 29. For this play, and also for The Women of Argos and The Women of Salamis (see below), a minority of our sources give the title the ending -oi instead of -ai, indicating a male rather than a female chorus. The medieval catalogue of Aeschylus’ plays (see next note) is in the minority each time, and twice it is in a minority of one. 30. We know of this play only from the catalogue of Aeschylus’ plays found in some medieval manuscripts, where it is listed as Phrygioi. Either this title is no more than a variant form of Phryges, or, as here assumed, we are again dealing with a confusion of the endings -oi and -ai, to which this catalogue is particularly prone (see previous note). 31. The title means only ‘female Aetnaeans’, and these may well in fact have been, not women of the city, but nymphs of the mountain (Grassi 1956: 208-9; Lucas de Dios 2008: 186). The medieval catalogue mentions both a ‘genuine’ and a ‘spurious’ play of this name. There is no other reference to a second play; possibly Aeschylus, having originally produced the play in Sicily, revised the script for a later Athenian production, and later scholars supposed that the revision was not his work. 32. Many scholars have also posited a play about Cycnus on the evidence of Aristophanes, Frogs 963, and one about Tennes (the eponymous hero of the island of Tenedos) on the evidence of a papyrus fragment (Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 2256 frr. 51-3 = Aesch. fr. dub. 451o Radt). 33. But see Biles (forthcoming) for a persuasive attack on the ancient tradition (scholia to Aristophanes, Acharnians 10 and Frogs 868; Life of Aeschylus 13; Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 6.11; Quintilian 10.1.66) that a decree was passed permitting the posthumous restaging of Aeschylean plays in the City Dionysia tragic competition. 34. M.L. West 1990b: 67-72; 2000. 35. For the possibility that Euphorion may have been the author of Prometheus Bound and Prometheus Unbound – and may have produced them in 431 – see §8.5. 36. Their genealogy is given in a scholium to Aristophanes, Birds 281. 37. Hypothesis II to Oedipus the King, citing Dicaearchus (fr. 80 Wehrli). 38. IG ii2 2325.44, 2318.314, 2320.3-6; Diogenes Laertius 2.43; Suda a4264-5, s161 . The compiler of the Suda, though he knew there were two tragedians named Astydamas, seems to have misattributed to the elder some information that actually related to the younger. 39. Even two generations later the family still held a leading place in the Athenian theatrical world; in 278/7 we find another Astydamas, probably a grandson of the mid-fourth-century dramatist, going to Delphi on a delegation from the Athenian Artists of Dionysus, and securing from the Amphictiony a decree confirming certain privileges enjoyed by the guild (IG ii2 1132). Aeschylean Tragedy 16
2 Aeschylus Theatre 2. 1. The performing space We have basically four sources of information about the physical layout and equipment of the theatre in which Aeschylus' plays were originally produced. The first, and least reliable, consists of explicit statements by (mostly late)writers about the conditions of theatrical production. The econd source is the actual physical remains of the Theatre of Dionysus, under the southern face of the Athenian Acropolis, where the perform ances took place; unfortunately, owing to subsequent reconstructions, the evidence these provide about the fifth century, especially its first half, is slight and ambiguous. The third source, to which increasing attention has been paid in recent years, is the remains of other early theatres, especially those in other parts of Attica; their layout is often much less obscured by later alterations, but it must not be forgotten that they were designed for much smaller audiences and probably for a more restricted range of types of performance. And the fourth is the evidence of the plays themselves, principally those which survive complete but also, under due caution those for which we have only indirect information together with fragment of text Considering first the surviving plays, and leaving aside for the time An g the doubtfully authentic Prometheus bound (on which see $8.3), we nd, as Wilamowitz(1886) was the first to see, a clear division betweer the Oresteia and the rest. In the Oresteia -as in every surviving play of Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes and Menander- the text, during at s ast part of the action, makes a clear distinction between an outside area, e normal acting space, and an inside area-usually but not always a building or buildings -of which the facade and entrance are visible to the audience but the interior normally is not(though interior scenes may be presented in certain circumstances: see below). In Agamemnon and the second half of Choephoroi the inside area represents the palace of the Atreidae at Argos; in the opening scenes of Eumenides it represents the temple of Apollo at Delphi; and in each of the three plays characters are seen to go in and come out. With one doubtful exception, nothing of this sort occurs in The Persians or Seven against Thebes or The Suppliant Maidens. Susa, Thebes, Argos presumably have each a royal palace, but in each play this is assumed to be somewhere at a distance; in each of the three plays there is a holy place within the acting area, but in none of them 17
2 Aeschylus’ Theatre 2.1. The performing space We have basically four sources of information about the physical layout and equipment of the theatre in which Aeschylus’ plays were originally produced. The first, and least reliable, consists of explicit statements by (mostly late) writers about the conditions of theatrical production. The second source is the actual physical remains of the Theatre of Dionysus, under the southern face of the Athenian Acropolis, where the performances took place; unfortunately, owing to subsequent reconstructions, the evidence these provide about the fifth century, especially its first half, is slight and ambiguous. The third source, to which increasing attention has been paid in recent years, is the remains of other early theatres, especially those in other parts of Attica; their layout is often much less obscured by later alterations, but it must not be forgotten that they were designed for much smaller audiences and probably for a more restricted range of types of performance. And the fourth is the evidence of the plays themselves, principally those which survive complete but also, under due caution, those for which we have only indirect information together with fragments of text. Considering first the surviving plays, and leaving aside for the time being the doubtfully authentic Prometheus Bound (on which see §8.3), we find, as Wilamowitz (1886) was the first to see, a clear division between the Oresteia and the rest. In the Oresteia – as in every surviving play of Sophocles, Euripides,1 Aristophanes and Menander – the text, during at least part of the action, makes a clear distinction between an ‘outside’ area, the normal acting space, and an ‘inside’ area – usually but not always a building or buildings – of which the façade and entrance are visible to the audience but the interior normally is not (though interior scenes may be presented in certain circumstances: see below). In Agamemnon and the second half of Choephoroi the ‘inside’ area represents the palace of the Atreidae at Argos; in the opening scenes of Eumenides it represents the temple of Apollo at Delphi; and in each of the three plays characters are seen to go ‘in’ and come ‘out’. With one doubtful exception, nothing of this sort occurs in The Persians or Seven against Thebes or The Suppliant Maidens. Susa, Thebes, Argos presumably have each a royal palace, but in each play this is assumed to be somewhere at a distance; in each of the three plays there is a holy place within the acting area, but in none of them 17
Aeschylean Tragedy is it a built temple; in Supp. where the scene is set on the seashore there is no sign of the cave which in later tragedies and satyr-plays seems an invariable accompaniment to a seashore scene; characters arrive and depart, but their departure is never spoken of as going innor their arrival as' coming out. In short, everything proceeds as though, from the time of the Oresteia onwards, the theatrical environment included a building, with a door or doors, which could be taken, according to the requirements of particular plays, as representing a house, palace, temple, hut, etc, ora cave, or(as for example in Sophocles' Oedipus at Colonus) a wood or grove or thicket; and as though in the three aeschylean plays known to be earlier than the Oresteia this building was not yet in existence The one doubtful exception ' to this generalization occurs in Pers. 140- At the beginning of this play the chorus enter, chanting in"marching anapaests; then they sing eleven lyric stanzas; then, in anapaests once more, they decide, as they put it to 'sit down in this ancient building and deliberate. Is this ancient building a part of the theatrical environment identical with the building we find in the Oresteia and later? Various considerations make this unlikely. The later scene-building is almost always associated with the individual characters and not with the chorus The chorus here could not go into an actual building and sit down, because to go into a building would be to leave the acting area, so we would have to assume that they were about to enter the building but are prevented by the appearance of the queen(seen approaching at 150); yet by that point the subject for deliberation has already been propounded in some detail (144-9), as if the councillors were already seated and ready to begin their business. Moreover, the building is never mentioned again throughout the play. Its treatment is in no way parallel to that of the scene- building in later drama, and it is most unlikely to be the same entity. We know that at the beginning of Phrynichus play on the same theme a eunuch had beer preparing chairs for the councillors to sit on(Hypothesis I to Persians), and it is reasonable to suppose that aeschylus gave his councillors chairs as well: a greek dramatist would hardly allow distinguished Persians(pre- sented in this play as a people given to luxurious living) to sit on the ground if it could be avoided (unless they were in mourning-and the play has not reached that stage yet). Either then there was some purely conventional symbolization of a building(such as a screen placed behind the chairs, and removed with them when they were no longer needed), or else the building was left entirely to the spectators'imagination. At any rate the passage cannot safely be used as evidence for the existence of a scene-building in 473/2 What can we say about the theatrical environment for these earlier Aeschylean plays? There must, in the first place have been an area for the evolutions of the chorus to use the word that later became regular, an orkhestra or dance-floor. The shape of the early orkhestra is disputed. In later theatres, such as the famous one at epidaurus, the orkhestra tends
is it a built temple; in Supp., where the scene is set on the seashore, there is no sign of the cave which in later tragedies and satyr-plays2 seems an invariable accompaniment to a seashore scene; characters arrive and depart, but their departure is never spoken of as ‘going in’ nor their arrival as ‘coming out’. In short, everything proceeds as though, from the time of the Oresteia onwards, the theatrical environment included a building, with a door or doors, which could be taken, according to the requirements of particular plays, as representing a house, palace, temple, hut, etc., or a cave, or (as for example in Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus) a wood or grove or thicket; and as though in the three Aeschylean plays known to be earlier than the Oresteia this building was not yet in existence. The ‘one doubtful exception’ to this generalization occurs in Pers. 140-1. At the beginning of this play the chorus enter, chanting in ‘marching anapaests’; then they sing eleven lyric stanzas; then, in anapaests once more, they decide, as they put it, to ‘sit down in this ancient building’ and deliberate. Is this ‘ancient building’ a part of the theatrical environment, identical with the building we find in the Oresteia and later? Various considerations make this unlikely. The later scene-building is almost always associated with the individual characters and not with the chorus. The chorus here could not go into an actual building and sit down, because to go into a building would be to leave the acting area, so we would have to assume that they were about to enter the building but are prevented by the appearance of the Queen (seen approaching at 150); yet by that point the subject for deliberation has already been propounded in some detail (144-9), as if the councillors were already seated and ready to begin their business. Moreover, the building is never mentioned again throughout the play. Its treatment is in no way parallel to that of the scene-building in later drama, and it is most unlikely to be the same entity. We know that at the beginning of Phrynichus’ play on the same theme a eunuch had been preparing chairs for the councillors to sit on (Hypothesis I to Persians), and it is reasonable to suppose that Aeschylus gave his councillors chairs as well: a Greek dramatist would hardly allow distinguished Persians (presented in this play as a people given to luxurious living) to sit on the ground if it could be avoided (unless they were in mourning – and the play has not reached that stage yet). Either then there was some purely conventional symbolization of a building (such as a screen placed behind the chairs, and removed with them when they were no longer needed), or else the building was left entirely to the spectators’ imagination.3 At any rate the passage cannot safely be used as evidence for the existence of a scene-building in 473/2. What can we say about the theatrical environment for these earlier Aeschylean plays? There must, in the first place, have been an area for the evolutions of the chorus – to use the word that later became regular, an orkhêstra or dance-floor. The shape of the early orkhêstra is disputed. In later theatres, such as the famous one at Epidaurus, the orkhêstra tends Aeschylean Tragedy 18
2. Aeschylus'Theatre to be circular, and until recently it was nearly always assumed that this was also true of the fifth-century Athenian theatre. Since 1974, however, attention has been drawn to the tendency of other known fifth-century theatres such as that at Thoricus in south-east Attica, to have an ork hestra of roughly rectangular or trapezoidal form, wider than it was deep and it has been argued that the physical evidence from the Theatre of Dionysus points the same way. Such an orkhestra would have to be able to accommodate the choruses of dithyramb, consisting of fifty performers and dancing in circular formation; for a long time scholars favouring the quadrilateral orkhestra ignored this constraint, but goette 2007 posits an orkhestra of about 24x 19 metres, which would satisfy the requirement Such a shape for the orkhestra would also be consistent with the evidence of Aristophanes, Frogs 441, which seems to speak of it as 'the sacred circle of the goddess'(441): in such a context kyklos circle' will not have been used with geometrical precision, and Goette's rectangular orkhestra would e at least as circle-like as the agora of most greek cities and considerably so than that of Athens. On present evidence I cautiously favour an orkhestra of approximately this shape for the fifth-century Athenian theatre The orkhestra will have been approached by side passages from east and west(referred to as eisodoi in fifth-century comedy) for the entrance and exit of actors and chorus. Later writers tell us that the two passages were associated by convention with particular points of origin or destination (the market-place, the harbour, the countryside, etc. ) This convention in its developed form may well be of Hellenistic date but in at least some Aeschylean plays it is not difficult to associate the two eisodoi with contrasting directions of approach: in Pers. the direction of the palace (east? )and the direction whence the Messenger and Xerxes return from the war(west, cf 232]); in Supp the city and the harbour In all the three early plays there is evidence for the existence, some where in the acting area, of an elevated place, usually spoken of as a rock (pagos)or a mound(okhthos). In Pers. this okhthos(660) represents the burial-mound of Darius. In Seven it is calledthis acropolis(240); on it are statues of the city's gods, and to it the chorus flock to beseech their aid until Eteocles orders them to 'get away from the statues(265) In Supp Danaus advises his daughters to sit at 'this pagos which belongs to the ssembled gods'(189)and where stand their images and a common altar for them all(222). They stay there until the argive king persuades them to move to 'this level meadow(508), which must be the orkhestra; later owever we find that Danaus is again on the rock, this lookout post that welcomes suppliants'(713), from which he sees the egyptian ships ap- proaching, and when eventually the Egyptians arrive the girls flee to protection(831), evidently to the sanctuary afforded by the images and altars. Where might this elevation have been? An attractive theory advanced in 1972 by n.g. L. hammond was based 19
to be circular, and until recently it was nearly always assumed that this was also true of the fifth-century Athenian theatre. Since 1974, however, attention has been drawn to the tendency of other known fifth-century theatres, such as that at Thoricus in south-east Attica, to have an orkhêstra of roughly rectangular or trapezoidal form, wider than it was deep, and it has been argued that the physical evidence from the Theatre of Dionysus points the same way. Such an orkhêstra would have to be able to accommodate the choruses of dithyramb, consisting of fifty performers and dancing in circular formation; for a long time scholars favouring the quadrilateral orkhêstra ignored this constraint, but Goette 2007 posits an orkhêstra of about 24x19 metres,4 which would satisfy the requirement. Such a shape for the orkhêstra would also be consistent with the evidence of Aristophanes, Frogs 441, which seems to speak of it as ‘the sacred circle of the goddess’ (441): in such a context kyklos ‘circle’ will not have been used with geometrical precision, and Goette’s rectangular orkhêstra would be at least as circle-like as the agora of most Greek cities5 and considerably more so than that of Athens. On present evidence, I cautiously favour an orkhêstra of approximately this shape for the fifth-century Athenian theatre. The orkhêstra will have been approached by side passages from east and west (referred to as eisodoi in fifth-century comedy) for the entrance and exit of actors and chorus. Later writers tell us that the two passages were associated by convention with particular points of origin or destination (the market-place, the harbour, the countryside, etc.). This convention in its developed form may well be of Hellenistic date, but in at least some Aeschylean plays it is not difficult to associate the two eisodoi with contrasting directions of approach: in Pers. the direction of the palace (east?) and the direction whence the Messenger and Xerxes return from the war (west, cf. 232?); in Supp. the city and the harbour. In all the three early plays there is evidence for the existence, somewhere in the acting area, of an elevated place, usually spoken of as a rock (pagos) or a mound (okhthos). In Pers. this okhthos (660) represents the burial-mound of Darius. In Seven it is called ‘this acropolis’ (240); on it are statues of the city’s gods, and to it the chorus flock to beseech their aid until Eteocles orders them to ‘get away from the statues’ (265). In Supp. Danaus advises his daughters to sit at ‘this pagos which belongs to the assembled gods’ (189) and where stand their images and a common altar for them all (222). They stay there until the Argive king persuades them to move to ‘this level meadow’ (508), which must be the orkhêstra; later however we find that Danaus is again on the rock, ‘this lookout post that welcomes suppliants’ (713), from which he sees the Egyptian ships approaching, and when eventually the Egyptians arrive the girls ‘flee to protection’ (831), evidently to the sanctuary afforded by the images and altars. Where might this elevation have been? An attractive theory advanced in 1972 by N.G.L. Hammond was based 2. Aeschylus’ Theatre 19
Aeschylean Tragedy on the supposed archaeological datum that there had existed at one time, near the eastern eisodos, a natural outcrop of rock. Its height was un- known, but its base area was put at about 25 square metres. hammond argued that this rock still existed in the Aeschylean theatre, and that it constituted the pagos /okhthos of the earlier plays. This theory made the staging of some passages rather difficult: if the chorus were on the rock then an actor entered via the eastern eisodos, he would either come face to face with them while still in the entrance-passage and out of view of most of the audience, or else would have to approach them from behind, go past them to reach the centre of the orkhestra, and then make a u-turn in order to address them. It was eventually shown by Scullion(1994: 46-7) to be based on a misunderstanding of the archaeological evidence One would on the whole expect that if there were any choice in the matter, the pagos /okhthos would be placed symmetrically with respect to te two eisodoi, ie either in the centre of the orkhestra or else behind it in the area later occupied by the scene- building and its frontage. and some considerations might seem to tell strongly in favour of the former alterna- tive. Firstly, the pagos /okhthos does not seem to have immediately disappeared when the scene- building was added, and other changes per haps made, in Aeschylus'later years: in the Oresteia, produced after that time. the whole of the first half of cho, is centred on the burial-mound of Agamemnon(called an okhthos in line 4) in much the same way as Pers 598-851 is centred on that of darius Secondly, it is likely that throughout the history of the theatre th was a structure of some sort (sometimes called the thymele, a term already found in this connection in one fifth-century text) in the centre of the orkhestra, around which the circular dithyrambic choruses danced; and this could well have served as a focus of action in tragedy as well. It has usually been supposed that the thymele had a ' ritual function as an altar of Dionysus which would make it inappropriate for it to be also employed in a range of fictive dramatic functions as the focus of a sancti ary of another god or gods, let alone as a tomb; however, rehm 1988 has argued very persuasively that this notion of a ritual altaris nothing but a modern dogma without evidential support, and wiles 1997: 70-2, 191 has argued on archaeological and linguistic grounds that the thymele was not an altar at all but merely some kind of physical marker of the centre of the orkhestra, which could however have property objects, including altars, placed on it. Since the pagos /okhthos is consistently spoken of as being elevated we would have to assume that the earth surrounding the thymele was banked up somewhat -not necessarily to a great height, but enough to mark the area out clearly as being above the body of the orkhestra. It would be easy to place near the thymele one or more images of deities in accordance with the requirements of any particular play
on the supposed archaeological datum that there had existed at one time, near the eastern eisodos, a natural outcrop of rock. Its height was unknown, but its base area was put at about 25 square metres. Hammond argued that this rock still existed in the Aeschylean theatre, and that it constituted the pagos/okhthos of the earlier plays. This theory made the staging of some passages rather difficult: if the chorus were on the rock when an actor entered via the eastern eisodos, he would either come face to face with them while still in the entrance-passage and out of view of most of the audience, or else would have to approach them from behind, go past them to reach the centre of the orkhêstra, and then make a U-turn in order to address them. It was eventually shown by Scullion (1994: 46-7) to be based on a misunderstanding of the archaeological evidence. One would on the whole expect that if there were any choice in the matter, the pagos/okhthos would be placed symmetrically with respect to the two eisodoi, i.e. either in the centre of the orkhêstra or else behind it in the area later occupied by the scene-building and its frontage. And some considerations might seem to tell strongly in favour of the former alternative. Firstly, the pagos/okhthos does not seem to have immediately disappeared when the scene-building was added, and other changes perhaps made, in Aeschylus’ later years: in the Oresteia, produced after that time, the whole of the first half of Cho. is centred on the burial-mound of Agamemnon (called an okhthos in line 4) in much the same way as Pers. 598-851 is centred on that of Darius. Secondly, it is likely that throughout the history of the theatre there was a structure of some sort (sometimes called the thymelê, a term already found in this connection in one fifth-century text6 ) in the centre of the orkhêstra, around which the circular dithyrambic choruses danced; and this could well have served as a focus of action in tragedy as well. It has usually been supposed that the thymelê had a ‘real-life’ ritual function as an altar of Dionysus which would make it inappropriate for it to be also employed in a range of fictive dramatic functions as the focus of a sanctuary of another god or gods, let alone as a tomb; however, Rehm 1988 has argued very persuasively that this notion of a ‘ritual altar’ is nothing but a modern dogma without evidential support, and Wiles 1997: 70-2, 191, has argued on archaeological and linguistic grounds that the thymelê was not an altar at all but merely some kind of physical marker of the centre of the orkhêstra, which could however have property objects, including altars, placed on it. Since the pagos/okhthos is consistently spoken of as being elevated, we would have to assume that the earth surrounding the thymelê was banked up somewhat – not necessarily to a great height, but enough to mark the area out clearly as being above the body of the orkhêstra. It would be easy to place near the thymelê one or more images of deities in accordance with the requirements of any particular play. Thirdly, placing the pagos/okhthos in the centre of the orkhêstra seems to fit well with some of the evidence from play-texts. It makes it possible Aeschylean Tragedy 20