Greek Tragedy in Theory and Praxis

Greek Tragedy in Theory and Praxis Aristotle's Theory of Tragedy in the Perspective of Aristophanes' Theatre Practice Nurit Yaari (Department of Theatre Studies, Tel Aviv University) 1. Introduction Greek tragedy was fashioned and instated in Athens a single act when Pisistratus, the Athenian tyrant, invited the poet-actor Thespis, to perform for the Athenians in the Dionysia festival of 534 B.C.1 This political act integrated tragedy irreversibly into the religious/social/cultural context of the Athenian Polis. The origin of tragedy as well as the mode of its initial representation are obscure to us, and we cannot know for certain the changes that took place during the first generations of its poets, between Thespis and Aeschylus2. Nevertheless, the information that we do have of its first performances helps us define the essential characteristics of the primary form of Greek tragic performance: a plot played out through dialogue between the actors and a chorus, performed in a defined place, in front of a live audience on a special occasion - the Dionysia festival3. It is clear that from its first civic production, tragedy has been associated with its "performance", and the location of that performance - a theatre. It is Aristotle's removal of tragedy from this context for the purposes of his discussion, in the Poetics, that poses the problem area of this article. Theatre by its very nature, comes to fruition through three stages: the drafting of the plot (the text), the rehearsal process, and the enactment in front of an audience within the framework of a particular event. Each of these stages incorporates unique components, yet all three function towards one goal: the theatrical event, the total performance in front of an audience. This is the raison d'être for which they work simultaneously. Two irrefutable/irreversible conditions are needed for a theatrical event to take place: the first is the special combination of play, rehearsal and performance4. The 1 For a collection of the important passages of evidence in regard to Thespis Cf. A. W. Pickard-Cambridge, Dithyramb, Tragedy and Comedy, 2nd ed., London: Oxford University Press, 1962, pp. 6 9 89. 2 Walter Burkcrt, in his important article on the ritual origins of Greek tragedy, summarizes the complexity of the question: "We may collect exact information or formulate precise hypotheses as to the external organization of the Dionysia in the Polis Athens in the sixth century B.C.: temple and theatre, chorus of citizens and choregos, poietes, didaskalos, upokrites, masks and actors' dress, musical instruments, figures of dancing, musical and literary techniques in the tradition of choral lyric and the iambos. But whoever tries to grasp the unique kairos in the history of the human mind which brought forth tragedy, to understand the intellectual, psychological, and social motives involved, enters a field of basic ambiguity." "Greek Tragedy and Sacrificial Ritual", GRBS 3 (1966), p. 87. 3 Cf. A. E. Haigh, The Attic Theatre, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1898, pp. 15-21; A.W. PickardCambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens, 2Bded., London: Oxford University Press, 1968, pp. 57-101; M. Bieber, The History of Greek and Roman Theatre, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961, pp. 53-54. 4 "Playhouse, script, actors, mise en scene, audience are an inseparable part of the theatre event." J. L. Styan, Drama, Stage and Audience, London: Cambridge University Press, 1975, p. 224. Brought to you by | provisional account Unauthenticated Download Date | 9/18/15 4:48 AM 8 Nurit Yaari second is the encounter between this performance and its live audience: an audience which comes to the theatre to decode a sets of signs, symbols and messages, to participate in a dialogue with the playwright, and to respond5. This dialogue is the supreme objective of the theatre. Without these two conditions, performance and audience, "theatre", for all practical purposes, does not exist. Aristotle discusses the essential complexity of tragedy as performance in several places in theyutsronlihfedcaTPFDA Poetics. First he defines the six parts of tragedy: "Every Tragedy, therefore, must have six parts, which parts determine its quality - namely, Plot, Character, Diction, Thought, Spectacle, Song." (1450 a 7-10) 6 Having enumerated the means of imitation as two, the manner/mode of imitation as one, and the objects of imitation as three (1450a 10-12), he sums it up again: "These elements have been employed, we may say, by the poets to a man; in fact, every play contains spectacular elements, as well as character, plot, diction, song, and thought." (1450 a 12-15) We read the same thing once more when he defines the differences between Epos and Tragedy aiming to uncover the more sublime genre of the two: And superior it [tragedy] is, because it has all the epic elements - it may even use the epic metre with the music and spectacular effects as important accessories; and these produce the most vivid of pleasures. Further, it has vividness of impression in reading as well as in representation. (1462 a 14-18) Coming upon these numerous repetitions of the link between tragedy and its performance elements, it is surprising that Aristotle so clearly deviates from this course of analysis, ignores the means and manner/mode of imitation in his analysis of tragedy, and moves to concentrate solely on three objects of imitation: plot, character and thought. The main aspect of the tragedy, he states, is the structure of events, "the plot, then, is the first principle, as it were, the soul of tragedy". (1450 a 37) Consistent with this line of thought, Aristotle goes on to elaborate further on the plot: its components, its structure, the importance of its unity, its categories, its endings (the entanglement and resolution), its language and final effect - the katharsis. Left behind is tragedy as performance. Aristotle analyzes only one aspect of theatrical work - the drama, the playwrighting - and leaves out altogether a discussion of the performance of the theatrical event. It is this critical deviation from his first course of analysis that interests me in this article. Not only do I believe that Aristotle wrongs tragedy when he uproots it from its natural place in the theatrical event - the performance, but I maintain that as a result of this uprooting the only recourse left him is the analysis of tragedy as literature and not as the total theatrical composite which it is - a unique performance piece with multifarious levels and functions. To treat tragedy the way Aristotle does is in contradiction with tragedy's place in the theatrical reality of ancient Greece. 5 Patrice Pavis, Dictionaire du Théâtre, Paris: Editions Sociales, 1980, pp. 161-162. "Evénement: la représentation théâtrale, considérée non dans son aspect fictionnel, mais dans sa réalité de phénomène social engagent un échange entre acteur et spectateur." 6 S. H. Butcher, Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Art, 4 th ed., New York: Dover Publication, 1951. Brought to you by | provisional account Unauthenticated Download Date | 9/18/15 4:48 AM 9 Greek Tragedy in Theory and Praxis 2. The "Poetics " and the theatrical event Tragedy in the Poetics, is neither analysed in the process of its performance nor in relation to its audience. Aristotle explicitly delimits the area of his research to the exclusion of treating tragedy in relation to an audience: "Whether tragedy has yet perfected its proper types or not; and whether it is to be judged it itself, or in relation to the audience, - this raises another question." (1449 a 7 - 9 ) The presence of spectators in the performance of tragedy, their taste and preferences, are mentioned only in passing remarks7 and do not create a consistent and detailed attitude towards the audience. It seems as if Aristotle is not really interested in the audience because he does not see the importance of its participation and its contribution to the theatrical event. A possible reason for this neglect is given in 1462 a 11, where Aristotle states "Besides, tragedy, just like epic, achieves its aim even without enactment [emphasis mine]: for its qualities become apparent through a reading."8 Even though this statement appears only in the last chapter of the Poetics, the attitude it expresses lies at the root of Aristotle's conception of tragedy: the performance, the theatrical event as a whole is brushed aside; it did not constitute for Aristotle a part of his theory of tragedy. It is true that Aristotle repeatedly stresses the power of the spectator in the theatre, a power resulting from the framework of the event - the competition. Accordingly he advises the poet to become his own spectator while writing his tragedy: A poet ought to imagine his material to the fullest possible extent while composing his plot-structures and elaborating them in language. By seeing them as vividly as possible in this way - as if present at the very occurrence of the events - he is likely to discover what is appropriate, and least likely to miss contradictions. (1455 a 23-25) He even mentions plays that are condemned by the spectators for mistakes in the scenic arrangement as was the case of Karkinus's play (1455a 22-29). But when he treats the dynamics between audience and playwright or between stage and audience he usually addresses himself to the a-logical, a-intellectual influence of the spectacle and spectacular effects on the audience. He judges the spectacle as "tempting the soul" (psychagogikon) and defines it as the "less artistic component" (1450b 18). He condemns all playwrights who write according to the audience's taste and fornisti their tragedies with endings that are not suitable to the spirit of sublime tragedy (1453 a 34); and he refuses to trust the audience's ability to concentrate (1415 a 6). This repudiation of the audience is also evident in Aristotle's discussion of katharsis as the final end of tragedy9. Since he claims that katharsis can arise even from a mere reading of the tragedy (1462a 15-18), the existence of an audience in the theatrical event is once again posited as a negligible factor. No trace can be found in the Poetics of a live and responding audience who comes to the theatre sharing a social context with the playwright and thus maintains a 7 Aristotle,Poetics 1451a6; 1453 a34; 1455 a 22-29. 8 S. Halliwell, The Poetics ofAristotle, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1987. I prefer to use here Halliwell's translation because I find "enactment" a more appropriate translation of κινήσεως than Butcher's "action". 9 The "katharsis", one of the most difficult terms in the Poetics, brought forth many explanations. For an account of the historic discussion of the katharsis see Butcher, op. cit., pp. 242­273. Brought to you by | provisional account Unauthenticated Download Date | 9/18/15 4:48 AM 10 Nurit Yaari dialogue with the work and with itself, and who, at the end, leaves the theatre with some "message", a lesson to be learned10. We can summarize these examples by saying that theywtsrponmljihgfedcaTPOMIHA Poetics does not delve into the subject of the audience as addressee. There is no profound analysis of the audience, its composition, its reactions, or of the process of reception during the theatrical event. The complexity of tragedy, its value and its effect, is examined in the Poetics almost without the spectator". The removal of tragedy from the theatrical event, its examination outside its natural realm of performance, springs from an internal contradiction in the Poetics concerning the essence and value of the spectacle in the theatrical praxis. This contradiction stems from Aristotle's ambiguous treatment of the δψις ­ opsis ­ the spectacle. On the one hand, Aristotle uses the term opsis to define the general theatrical praxis (e.g. 1449 b 31­33; 1450a 7­15) ­ the special manner/mode of imitation which differentiates Drama from Epic poetry as introduced in 1448a 19­23. On the other hand, Aristotle uses the same term to define the technical, visual sides of the perfor­ mance: decor, costumes, masks, accessories, sound and visual effects etc. (e.g. 1450b 16­20; 1453b 1 ­ 3 ; 1456a 2t2; 1459b 10; 1462a 16). Defining the modes/manners of imitation in 1448a 19­24, Aristotle clearly dif­ ferentiates between telling/narrating the plot and doing/performing the plot by means of active characters. Although we can agree with Hutton that in this paragraph Aristotle is still treating the dramatic action alone13, further on, when Aristotle enumerates the six components of tragedy (in 1450 a 7­15) and uses opsis to define the mode/manner of imitation of tragedy, there can be no doubt that Aristotle ties together "πράττοντας και ένεργοϋντας " "characters as living and moving before use" with the opsis: the dramatic characters with the playing actors. Thus Aristotle clearly defines the realm of drama as theatre. It is with this idea in mind that he starts the paragraph on the components of tragedy with "πρώτον μ έν έξ ανάγκης ""Λ necessarily follows, in the first place, that spectacular equipment will be part of tragedy" (1449 b 32­33) 14 . 10 For the Greek poet the "message", the lesson is very important. In many tragedies the lesson is summarised by the chorus at the conclusive part of the tragedy. Cf. Soph. OT1524 ff.;Ant. 1348 ff.; Aj. 1418 ff. Euripides uses this construction in order to strengthen the tragic effect through the irony of his "fixed" refrains. Cf. Ale. 1159ff.; Med. 1415ff.;Am/r. 1284 ff.; Hel. 1688 f.; Be. 1388 ff.; as well as Ph. 1764 ff.; Or. 1691 ff.; and IT 1497 ff. 11 For the importance of the Fifth Century socio­political context to the understanding of tragedy see ambiguïté dans la tragédie grecque", in Jean-Pierre Vernant et Pierre J. P. Vernant "Tensions etyxwvutsrqponmlihgfedcbaXVTSPNMLKJIHGFEB Vidal-Naquet,yutsrponmlihgfedcaTSPMLGEA Mythe et Tragédie en Grèce ancienne, Paris: Maspero, Vol. I. 1977, pp. 21-22; B. Konx "Sophocles and the Polis", in Sophocle, Genève: Fondation Hardt, Entretiens XXIX, 1983, pp. 1 - 6 ; N. Loraux Les Enfants d'Athéna, Paris: Maspero, 1981, pp. 197-253. 12 The text is comipt in this place. I use Baywater's reading of the sentence, which includes "opsis". Baywater translates: "The fourth constituent is that of spectacle exemplified in The Phorcides, in Prometheus and in all plays with the scene laid in the nether world." He explains that his correction:"'το δέ τέταρτον όψις 'is closer to the MS. reading than Schrader's 'τό δέ τέταρτον τερατώδες ', which has been so generally approved by recent editors." Baywater, op. cit., p. 250. 13 I agree with James Hutton, Aristotle's Poetics, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1982, Ch. 3 n. 1., who claims that by "enactment" in 1448a 19­24 Aristotle means only the dramatic side of tragedy, the "characters in action" and not the actors playing the character. 14 It is very important to understand the exact meaning of "ό της δψεως κόσμ ος " in 1449b 33. If we accept Baywater's translation: " the spectacle (or stage appcarance of the actors)" Baywater, Brought to you by | provisional account Unauthenticated Download Date | 9/18/15 4:48 AM 11 Greek Tragedy in Theory and Praxis At this point in theyxutsrqponmljihgfedcaTQPOECA Poetics one could assume that Aristotle sees in the opsis one of the essential components of tragedy. But Aristotle's treatment of the opsis is not consistent15: If in the last two passages we had been led to believe that there is a connection between the drama and theatrical praxis, when he finally places the opsis in the hands of the technician, the man who creates the masks and the accessories (1450 b 20), Aristotle proves that he sees opsis in a narrow way - the visual side of decor and costumes only. The conception of opsis as something external, artificial and superfluous to tragedy, is stressed again and again in the Poetics: e.g. when Aristotle explains in 1453b 1 - 8 that it is advisable to create the katharsis from the "intrinsic structure of events" rather than from the opsis because spectacle is less artistic as well as very expensive. We can see how Aristotle uses spectacle in the sense of "horror show", "horror visions" which create fear and not as an essential part of the special manner in which the drama functions - the manner of imitation, the staging of characters in action. Furthermore, his decision to see it as a foreign component is revealed when he states that tragedy can exist and can function without competition and without actors (1450b 19): that is, he again shows his bias for viewing tragedy as literature. If we were to accept Aristotle's view that the force of the tragedy exists even without competition, e.g. without audience and without actors, we might also say, mutatis mutandis, that the poetic description of a painting is tantamount to the painting itself. But a description of a painting without the painting is not a painting, and a tragedy without the dramatic exhibition and without the encounter with the audience is not theatre. It is important to note that to each of the two meanings of opsis Aristotle reacts in a different way: Opsis as the manner of imitation is for him an essential component of tragedy, while opsis as the spectacle, decor and technical effects - is superfluous and unnecessary16. In view of the extant tragedies this definition of opsis is very surprising. Scenes like the massacre in Ajax17, the red carpet and the exposure of the corpses in Agamemnonle, the Erinys' appearance in Eumenides19, Oedipus's exit after tearing out his eyes in 15 16 17 18 19 op. cit.; "spectacular equipment" as suggested by Butcher, op. cit. or "adornment of visual spectacle" as suggested by Halliwell, op. cit., it is as if Aristotle meant at this point to talk only about the external, technical elements of decor, costumes and masks; but I prefer at this point the suggestion of Hutton, op. cit. "the arrangement of spectacle", and J. Hardy "L'ordonnance du spectacle" (in Aristotle Poétique Paris: "Les Belles Lettres" 1965) which guards the primary meaning of "kosmos" as the order, form (LSJ "kosmos" 1) of the spectacle and therefore incorporâtes the visual aspect of the performance: decor and actors, technical devices and mise en scène, costumes as well as visual images. "Aristotle is, it seems, equivocating between the two senses of the word (yxwutsrponmlkihgfedcbaWVTSO βψις ), and is exploiting the superficial sense in order to disparage the fuller sense" O. Taplin,yutsrponmlihgfedcaVTSEA The Stagecraft of Aeschylus, Oxford 1977. Append. F. p. 478. Cf. also J. Hutton, op. cit., p. 90 and S. Halliwell, op. cit., pp. 97­98. E.g. 1459b 16­20; 1453b 1­3. Soph.Λ/ 346­595. Aesch.i4£. 855 ­958; 1372ff. Aesch. Eu. 63 ff. VitaAeschyli 9: "Some say that at the performance of the Eumenides, by bringing on the chorus one by one, as he did, he terrified the audience so that children swooned and fetuses were aborted." For an interesting recent remark on this passage see William M. Calder ΠΙ, "Vita Aeschyli 9: Miscanïges in the theatre of Dionysos", The Classical Quarterly XXXVIII, 2. 1988, pp, 554-555. Brought to you by | provisional account Unauthenticated Download Date | 9/18/15 4:48 AM 12 Nurit Yaari Oedipus Rex10, Medea's escape in the winged chariot21, and many others, cannot be considered as pertaining only to the technician's work of building masks and props (although without his work they could not have been achieved). There is no question but that the dramatic complexity and artistic arrangement of the decor, mask and visual effects of the spectacle were conceived by Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides as an integral part of their poetic-dramatic theatre creation22. It is obvious that Aristotle's point of view would not have been accepted by Thespis and Pisistratus in the sixth century B. C , when tragedy became an integral part of the city-state Dionysia festivals, and would certainly have been rejected by each of the dramatists of the fifth century. In the age of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides, staging a play was certainly not considered the undertaking of the craftsman who made masks and props, since the poet was a director as well as a musician and actor, and took part in defining the scenic components and actions which were no less important than the choral songs or the complicated plots. If Aristotle is right and the drama, as written by the playwright, is distinct from the visual arrangement of the technician, we are faced with some puzzling questions: Why, for example, did Sophocles invent the scenery unless he considered it complementary to his tragedy? Why did Aeschylus double the number of actors from one to two, and why did Sophocles introduce the third actor? If the impact of the tragedy is achieved without competition and without actors, what is the importance of Aeschylus's diminishing the role of the choral songs in relation to the dialogue, thus giving the dialogues top priority? (1449 a 15-19) It is clear that Aristotle, in the Poetics, analyzes only one aspect of theatrical work playwrighting - whereas the discussion of the performance and the event is left out altogether. By divorcing tragic drama from these two essential components of theatrical art, Aristotle leaves us with a theory which catalogues plots, structures and patterns but does not fully reflect the spirit of the tragedy, of its modes of action and functions. Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and Aristophanes knew very well that the impact of tragedy is in the theatre, in a comprehensive harmonic combination of all its components of plot, representation and audience. 3. Fifth-century theatre praxis: The performance of Tragedy in the mirror ofAristophanic Comedy In order to examine the extent to which Aristotle dissociates tragedy from its essential elements, I chose a fifth-century B. C. playwright, Aristophanes, through whose plays the "real" properties of tragedy are reflected in the distorted yet reality-exposing mirror of Ancient Comedy23. Paradoxically, through the description and parody of tragedy in 20 Soph. OT1297 ff. 21 Eu .Med. 1316 ff. 22 O. Taplin in his research on the theatrical aspects of tragedy shows clearly that the arrangement of entances and exits, the visual images, tableaux and gestures were, considered a part of the virtuosity of the Greek playwright. Cf. The Stagecraft of Aeschylus, Oxford, 1977; Greek Tragedy in Action, Oxford, 1978, and "Sophocles in his Theatre", in Sophocle, op. cit., pp. 155-174. 23 On Aristophanes mirroring the historical background of Athens see: V. Ehrenberg, The People of Aristophanes, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1951; M. Croiset, Aristophanes and the Political Parties at Brought to you by | provisional account Unauthenticated Download Date | 9/18/15 4:48 AM 13 Greek Tragedy in Theory and Praxis Aristophanic comedy, contemporary theatre praxis is best revealed. Aristophanes reflects tragedy-in-performance slighting none of its components: tragic subjects, themes, dialogues and verses, the performance, the actors, the stage, the special effects, and above all partners to the performance - the audience24. Seventy-five years prior to the composition of theyutsrqponmlihgfedcaTPMFCA Poetics, Aristophanes wrote a play which addressed the two subjects that Aristotle neglects: the audience's importance as a partner to the performance, and the performance itself - the visual dimension of tragedy. In the Frogs Aristophanes has Dionysus, who had, within a period of two years, "lost" both Euripides and Sophocles, descend to the underworld to bring back his favourite poet Euripides, because he finds contemporary theatre (of 405 B. C.) without him a deadly bore. At the end of the play it is Aeschylus whom Dionysus chooses to revive, not the poet he had originally intended. Aeschylus is chosen because it turns out that he is the playwright who can best educate the audience morally and best counsel Athens politically. These virtues - the education and counselling of the Athenian audience - were already felt as greatly lacking in 405 B. C. and Aristophanes, through his play, is of course attempting to do exactly that. Throughout the Frogs the influence of the playwright on his audience is deemed of utmost importance. From the beginning of the competition, the struggle between Aeschylus and Euripides is to win over the audience - a struggle for its preferences on political as well as on theatrical issues. The contest will determine the best dramatist, and the criteria are his theatrical capability and his political messages: Dionysus: Pluto: Dionysus: You know, it was for a poet I came. With what motive? So the city saved may keep its choral festivals. Whichever is likely to advise the city well, him I intend to take back. (1417-1421)25 Both dramaturges use their influence on the audience as an important factor in their favour. Euripides claims that the audience learned from him not only the art of eloquence, but also how to think, understand, love, outwit, suspect, inquire into everything and perceive things clearly (954-963). Accordingly, Euripides sees as the vocation of every playwright: the revelation of truth and the exposure of everyday reality in everyday language (1053-1058). Aeschylus in his turn disagrees. He thinks a playwright has more elevated tasks: to inspire the Athenians with combative spirit, to teach them to aspire incessantly to triumphs, to aim at benefitting mankind, and to impart wisdom to people (1021; 1027; 1031; 1039). As for the mode of expression the language should, according to Aeschylus, be as exalted as the characters and the actions (1058). The struggle between Aeschylus and Euripides is primarily political, and concerns the question of who, at that historical moment, can benefit the Athenians. Regardless of Athens, New York: Arno Press, 1973,2nd ed.; E. David, "Aristophanes and the Athenian Society of the early Fourth Century B.C.", Mnemosyne, Supp. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1984; M. Dillon, Topicality in Aristophanes' Ploutos", Classical Antiquity Vol. 6 No. 2,1987. 24 On Aristophanes mirroring the praxis of tragedy see: K.J. Dover, Aristophanic Comedy, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1972, pp. 183-189; K. McLeish, The Theatre of Aristophanes, New York: Taplingcr Publishing Company, 1980, pp. 38-50. 25 Aristophanes, Frogs, translated by R. H. Webb, in The Complete Plays ofAristophanes, ed. Moses Hadas, New York: Bantam Books, 1962. Brought to you by | provisional account Unauthenticated Download Date | 9/18/15 4:48 AM 14 Nurit Yaari whether or not we agree with Aristophanes's choice, it certainly reflects his political views, the public's esteem and the general consensus. One of the tasks of the tragedian was, after all, to educate his audience and to elaborate a vision of man's place in his society and in his world. Aristophanes clearly accepts this view of tragedy when he has Euripides say, in answer to Aeschylus's question as to what qualities are praiseworthy in a poet: Aeschylus: What gifts do you hold that a poet should have, to be worthy of men's admiration? Euripides: Superlative artistry, craftsmanship, and the skill of a talented teacher. To make men better by counsel sage. (1008-1010) Aeschylus will finally win the contest because of the social vision he expresses in answer to Dionysus's question (1463-1465)26. The choral congratulations sung to the winner underscores the wise poet's social and political contribution (1482-1490). This entire debate is of course a parody. Aristophanes rejoices at the opportunity to punch at Euripides, mock the pompous style of Aeschylus, and ridicule the "self importance" of tragedy. But there can be no doubt that this mockery reflects Aristophanes' certainty in the influence of the playwrights on their audience, and his faith in the power of tragedy27. Thus Aristophanes places the interaction between poet and audience at the center of his view of tragedy. Tragic drama is shown to be an arena for shaping and influencing an audience, and functions through a dialogue between stage and spectator28. When we move to performance - to the staging of tragedy and its position in the theatrical event - it is again Aristophanic comedy that provides us our most valuable information. In thezyutsrponmlihgfedcaTQPFCA Frogs, the struggle between Aeschylus and Euripides is conducted in a manner which obviously reflects/imitates the dramatic competition at the Dionysia Festival: Dionysus is the referee and the two playwrights are rival-competitors. Actually there are three playwrights present, as in every festival. Sophocles is there too, although he does not claim the honour of being the best. The comic competition, like the event it parodies, takes the form of a contest in front of a live audience, also the natural setting for the theatrical event. Furthermore, within the competition, a powerful visual image is used to concretize the dramatic match in a theatrical way: Dionysus weighs the meter of the poetry of both playwrights on real scales, of the type suitable for the selling of cheese (1368-1410). This image is used in order to actualize the puissance of the poetic style of Aeschylus' verses (1210-1250) as opposed to those of Euripides' (1285-1298). The visual dimension of tragedy can be clearly seen in the realization of the characters. Aristophanes depicts them in all their complexity: the dramatic fictional character, and his visual portrayal by the actor. Furthermore, by using dramatic devices 26 I do not intend to enter the question as to whether Aeschylus's advice was considered anachronistic, as suggested by M. Heath Political Comedy in Aristophanes, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprccht, 1987, p. 20, or actually important, as suggested by Somnierstein "Aristophanes Frogs 1463-5", CQ 24 (1974), pp. 24-27. The important factor for me is the fact that Aristophanes puts in Aeschylus's mouth advice which echoes a famous speech of Pericles (Th. 1.140-144). 27 K.J. Dover, Aristophanic Comedy, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California PTess, 1972, pp. 185-189. 28 Aristophanes, Thesmophoriazousae, trans, by Β. B. Rogers, in The Complete Plays of Aristophanes, ed. M. Hadas, New York: Bentam Books, 1962. Brought to you by | provisional account Unauthenticated Download Date | 9/18/15 4:48 AM 15 Greek Tragedy in Theory and Praxis as well as visual ones, he also scrutinizes the various means used by the dramatist to achieve maximal effect on the audience. In theyutsrponmlihgfecaTSFEDA Frogs it is done through dialogue: Aeschylus depicts his characters and Euripides his, as a part of their struggle for grandeur: describing the costumes, props, physical properties of the characters alongside, and with the same vigour, as their thoughts and actions. As the competition accelerates, each playwright adds further particulars about his characters' appearence: articles of clothing, weapons, etc. As for the effect of the characters' appearance on the audience: Aeschylus criticizes Euripides for the bad effect his characters have on the audience who imitate Euripides' kings, wear tatters themselves, and then claim poverty in order to shirk responsibility (1011-1098). We also have the visual portrayal of character on stage: e.g. in the opening scene of the Frogs Dionysus, clothed in Heracles's costume (lion skin, club and baskins), first confronts the true Heracles in a distorted "mirror game" (37-164), then in front of Pluton's house suffers the consequences of his masquarade (460-674). These scenes show us Aristophanes's attitude to the appearance of the character: a combination of dramatic force and visual effect. In addition to these excerpts from the the Frogs, Aristophanes' plays abound with scenes whose purpose is to reveal and satirize the theatrical techniques of tragic performance and its effect on the audience. In the Acharnions Dikaiopolis, the poor peasant, comes to seek Euripides' help. The subject of costumes and props is raised when Dikaiopolis asks Euripides for some rags so that he may feign poverty and arouse the pity of the chorus who is chasing him (415-418). This request is followed by a lengthy discussion concerning which garment is the most suitable for this purpose. Various garments and costumes are mentioned and considered in terms of the impression they would make on characters and spectators (423-425). Eventually, they agree on Telephos, and Euripides's servant brings the shabby clothes which are stored among other tatters in Euripides' home. Dikaiopolis examines and describes them on stage, even embellishing the costume with props which might add to the desired impression: a cane, a basket, a cracked glass, a small bowl and finally some dried radish leaves (452-469). At the end of the scene Euripides complains that all his plays disappear together with his costumes (470 Aristophanes also provides us with references to the particulars of the performance, especially through the repeated use of the technical devices of tragedy: the eccyclema and the mechané (the flying machine). By using and parodying these devices in his plays Aristophanes indicates that the audience is familiar with them, and it is this familiarity which enables him to refer to them in a completely comical way. Thus comedy exposes the ropes of tragedy, affords a peek into theatrical production and by documenting it, creates new frames of reference. The main function of the eccyclema was to display silent scenes of death after acts of murder, slaughter or suicide30. In the final scene of Agamemnon, for instance, Gytemnestra appears standing over the bodies 29 It is interesting to note that according to the development of this scene, the theatrical costumes are considered to be stored in the house of the poet as are the characters he brings forth from his head. We are in a comedy, of course, and Aristophanes is exaggerating, but this exaggeration tells us about the connection between costume and mask, the character's appearance and the effect on the spectator. 30 On the Eccyclema and its possible form and function in the Greek Theatre of the Fifth Century B.C., Cf. Haigh, op. cit., pp. 228-236; M. Bieber, op. cit., p. 76 fig. 280a-b; A Picard-Cambridge, The Theatre of Dionysus in Athens, London: Oxford University Press, 1946, pp. 100-122; O. Taplin, The Stagecraft ofAeschylus, Oxford University Press, 1977, p. 442. Brought to you by | provisional account Unauthenticated Download Date | 9/18/15 4:48 AM 16 Nurit Yaari of Agamemnon and Cassandra (1372 ff.); Ajax in Sophocles' play is removed from the tent amidst the animals he slaughtered in his frenzy (344-393), and Phaedra's body is removed from the palace inyxvutsrponmlihgedcaWTPMHFCA Hippolytus (806 ff.). Mirroring the use of this device in tragedy, comedy uses it to reveal inside scenes. Thus in the Acharnions Euripides, who claims to be too busy to come out by himself, is wheeled out seated on a platform while writing a play (407-497); in the Women in the Thesmophoria Festival, the poet Agathon is wheeled out (96 ff.), dressed in woman's clothes, while writing a feminine role for a play on which he is working. The flying machine - the mechané - was a device which served both to lift gods or characters to their place in the theologeion and for special exits from stage, such as that of Medea (1317-1322)31. The name of this machine was also given to the dramatic effect often used by Euripides to whisk a god or a hero onto the stage in order to intervene in the play and solve an impasse in the plot (later called "deus ex machina "). Aristophanes used the crane in several of his plays. In the Clouds he suspends Socrates in a basket (218), explaining that he has gone up in order to scrutinize the air (225). In Peace Trigeus mounts a dung beetle and asks it to take him to Zeus (76). After all, if the gods can come in riding the machine in tragedy, they can be reached by the same means in comedy (79-82). Trigeus himself is rather scared up there and asks the machine operator to put him down before Zeus' house very carefully (74). His appeal was no doubt greeted with the spectators' laughter not only because of the delicate situation, but also because of the exposure of the machine operator. The audience could both laugh at the parody of the use of the mechané and congratulate itself for recognizing within comedy the special theatrical language of tragedy. The techniques tragedy uses "behind the scenes" to create its illusion are thus punningly exposed in the Aristophanic comedy. Aristophanes's criticism of tragedy in the Frogs, the Acharnians, and the Women in the Thesmophoria Festival is important to us also because it mirrors/reflects the pre-existance/pre-requisition of a theatrical language common to both playwright and audience. This theatrical language - a complex of dramatic and visual components in a unique artistic syntax - was developed through the performance of the tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and their contemporaries during the fifth century B.C. Aristophanes shows us that when this special language is recognized and understood by the spectators it can be used in comedy to evoke fruitful semantic field of reference, a fruitful ground for associations and jests, and thus forms a "double sense" game. From the excerpts of the comedies presented here it is reasonable to claim that Aristophanes exposes the praxis of the Athenian theatre of his age by combining the plot with its theatrical performance in front of a live audience. It is also obvious that this praxis is not reflected in Aristotle's theory and that his Poetics gives us a quite different image of tragedy. 4. Tragedy: Theory and Praxis Why then does Aristotle choose to disconnect the drama from its social context and to dissociate it from its spectators and its special framework? 31 On the Mechané and its possible form and function in the Theatre of Fifth Century B. C, Cf. Haigh, op. cit., pp. 236-244; M. Bieber, op. cit., pp. 76-77 figs. 281-282. Brought to you by | provisional account Unauthenticated Download Date | 9/18/15 4:48 AM 17 Greek Tragedy in Theory and Praxis The reason is two-fold. Aristotle comes to tragedy as a theoretician; Aristophanes as a man of the theatre. Aristotle is an examiner and organiser of ideas, and his "ideé-fix" of the sublimity and eternal aspect of tragedy estranges him from its sensual-physical aspects. Aristophanes, as well as the other fifth century B. C. poet/playwrights, relates to both tragedy and comedy as living organisms, body and soul, ideas and their scenic materializations. For them the theatre is a concrete meeting place of imagination and logical thinking, of illusion and reality, of fictitious characters and living events and people, of actors and spectators and their socio-cultural context. The second difference derives from historical moment (context). Aristophanes lived and wrote in the fifth and early fourth century B.C. when theatrical activity and creativity was at its height. He worked within a specific social and political context, addressing a well-defined audience in order to reflect its image in a specific historical/cultural moment common to him and to the audience. Aristotle, on the other hand, lived, wrote and studied the tragedy from the viewpoint of his own age and reality, at a time when one turned to the glorious past and studied the fifth century masterpieces as models. The social-cultural situation in Athens after the middle of the fourth century was essentially different from that of the fifth. Political awareness and a sense of responsibility were replaced by indifference and obtuseness32. Individualism, utilitarianism and cosmopolitism, ideas that impregnated the Athenian society during the fourth century, had an influence on attitudes towards the state, citizenship, family and private life33. By the second half of the fourth century the Athenians could do little more than long for the glorious past of their ancestors while comparing it with their own mediocre political and cultural situation34. In the theatre this is not an age of creation; fourth century tragedy is a poor copy of Euripides' dramatic techniques and theatrical attractions, and comedy takes its time before transforming into an utterly new genre - that of New Comedy35. Tragedy in its original form no longer satisfied the needs of the fourth century spectator. Its essential aim - to educate the public towards excellence as citizens, or awareness of their responsibilities towards the state - now seemed to be "outdated" ideals. Tragedy turned into a drama of "tragic effect" emphasizing the purgation of fear and pity - no longer a vast battlefield where a life or death struggle is waged on the values of the community and the importance of man36. 32 The number of Athenians who attended Ihc Assembly in the Fourth Century decreased significantly, a payment was fixed for each participant in the Assembly meetings. Aristotle'sywutsrqponmlkihgfed The Constitution of Athens, 41. 3; Cf. also Mögen Hansen, "How many Athenians Attended the Ecclesia?" GRBS17 (1976), pp. 115-134. 33 Cf. J.J. Bury, The History of Greece, New York: Random house, 1913, pp. 560-575; A. Fuks, The Athenian Commonwealth, Jerusalem: Bialik institute, 1957, pp. 223-228; G. Glotz, La Cité Greque, Paris: Albin Michel, 1968, p. 303-359; A.W. Pickard-Cambridgc, Demosthenes and the Last Days of Greek Freedom, 2»1 ed., New York: Amo Press, 1979, pp. 71-109. 34 Isocrates' Orations Aeropagilicus and Panegyricus. 35 Cf. T.ywvutsrponmlkihgedcbaYWURPNLHCB Β. L. Webster,ywutsronmkihfedcaTSRNLGC Studies in Later Greek Comedy, 2nd ed., New York: Barnes and Noble 1970, especially Ch. 3 and 4; R. L. Hunter, The New Comedy of Greece and Rome, Cambridge University Press, 1985. 36 "La tragédie surgit en Grèce à la fin du Vl ime siècle. Avant même que ne se soient écoulés cent ans, la veine tragique déjà tarie et lorsque, au IVime siècle, Aristote entreprend dans la Poétique d'en établir la théorie, il ne comprend plus ce qu'est l'homme tragique, qui lui est devenu pour ainsi dire étranger." J. P. Vernant, Tensions et ambiguïtés dans la tragédie greque", J. P. Vemant et P. Vidal Naquet, op. cit., p. 21. Brought to you by | provisional account Unauthenticated Download Date | 9/18/15 4:48 AM 18 Nurit Yaari The conditions of performance were also far removed from the conditions of the fifth century. At about 324 B. C., Lycurgus completed the process of fashioning all the theatre areas in stone. From that moment on, all plays are performed in an imposing structure and against a uniform background 37 . The impermanence and simplicity of fifth century "poor theatre" are replaced by splendour and ornament. Scenic techniques and visual effects are no longer subservient to the intrinsic need of the plot, but a central factor aimed at the amusement of the spectators. The audience, for its part, no longer looked for existential problems in the action of the play, but for fun, pleasure and surprise 38 . In Aristotle's age the link between content and form in the theatre, between dramatic writing and performance, between the structure of the theatre and the nature of the audience loosens, until they are totally disconnected. Aristotle'syxvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcaWVTSRPONMLIHFEDCA Poetics is the direct outcome of this disconnection: it reflects the fissure between dramatic writing and the theatre. The separation of tragedy from performance and the theatrical event is not Aristotle's misunderstanding but a tragic phase in the history of tragedy, because since the fifth century B.C. - except for very specific periods - suitable social and artistic conditions for the growth of tragedy ceased to exist. When tragedy is removed from its particular time and place, what is left is the plot, the dramatic writing which is transferred intact from age to age. Aristophanes and Aristotle represent two different views of tragedy. Aristophanes lives the historical moment and creates in it. Aristotle analyses and defines the essence of tragedy after its time, not through historical but through general-universal principles 39 . The first view is that of the theatre-man who documents and criticizes the theatre from within. As such Aristophanes heads a long line of dramatists - such as Shakespeare, Corneille, Molière, Pirandello and others - who will include the meta-theatrical within the theatrical work 40 . The second view is that of the critic who analyses the literary aspect of theatrical drama in aesthetic, philosophical terms. As such, Aristotle initiates an important chapter in western poetics 41 . 37 On tbe final form of the Theatre of Dionysus in Athens during the archonat of Lycurgus, Cf. M. Bieber, op. cit., pp. 67-73 figs. 250,255 - 2 6 0 ; A. Picard Cambridge, The Theatre of Dionysus in Athens, op. cit., pp. 134-174. 38 The change in the distribution of the Theorikon (Theorie funds) can serve as an example of the decline in the "spirit of spectators" in the fourth century. The distribution of funds for the participation of the poor in the Dionysia Festival, introduced, it is said, by Pericles, became in the fourth century a "scandalous abuse. Grants were given not only for the Dionysia but for all the other Athenian Festivals to provide the citizens with banquets and means of enjoyment. The rich began to claim money with quite as much eagerness as the poor. The military revenues were impoverished in order to supply the Theorie Fund, which had now grown to huge proportions." Haigh, op. cit., p. 370. Cf. also J.J. Bury, op. cit., pp. 572-574; A. Fuks, op. cit., p. 228; G. Glotz, op. cit., p. 346; J.J. Buchanan, Theorika, New York: J.J. Augustin 1962, pp. 28-82; A.W. Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968, pp. 266-270. 39 It is known that Aristotle thinks very highly of Oedipus Rex and uses it as the example for a perfect tragedy of a perfect dramatic form. "Problem plays" which dealt with ideological conflicts and contemporary political and social issues, such as Ajax, Philoctetes, Antigone, Trojan Women, are mentioned in the Poetics only in passing or in relation to a particular structural description, but not in terms of the socio-political conflicts and messages with which each tragedy is charged. 40 Cf. e.g. Shakespeare, Midsummer Night's Dream, Hamlet, the prologue of Henry V.; Corneille, L 'Illusion Comique; Molière, La Critique de l'Ecole des Femmes, Improptu a Versailles; Pirandello, Six Characters in Search of an Author. 41 Cf. European Theories of the Drama, ed.wusronlkihebaYPNC Β. Η. Clark, New York: Crown Publishers, 1947; Esthétiques Théâtrale, ed. J. Schrer, M. Borie and M. de Rougemont, Paris: Sedes réunis, 1982. Brought to you by | provisional account Unauthenticated Download Date | 9/18/15 4:48 AM Greek Tragedy in Theory and Praxis 19 Unfortunately, Aristotle's guiding principles became the sole criterion for an understanding of ancient Greek tragedy, as well as providing the "rules" for playwrighting for much of western culture. The fissure stemming from specific conditions in a particular era calcified into inflexible requirements 42 . Whenever playwrights looked upon tragedy from Aristotle's point of view, the balance between performance and the text was irreversibly upset, resulting in the static tragedies of Seneca, Racine or Corneille, plays which are almost impossible to stage. This biased viewpoint explains the severe criticism passed upon dramatists of the Italian Renaissance, Shakespeare and the Spanish playwrights of the 16th and 17th century because they failed to conform to the principles of the theory 43 . Perhaps the time has come to revaluate our analysis of tragedy and to see it not only in its literary structure but also in a historical and performative context. The double view - that of the critic and of the theatre man, that of the theorist and of the man of practice - will enable us to renew our contact with tragedy and to consolidate the theory in the thick of theatrical making 44 . 42 Cf. E. Lodovico Castalvetro,zvutsrqpomligedcaTPEDCA Poetica d'Aristotle vulgarizzata e epostata, 1S70; Pierre Corneille, Trois Discours sur le Poème Dramatique, 1660; Nicolas Boileau-Despreaux,i4rt Poétique, 1674. 43 Boileau explains his demands form the French playwright while judging the Spanish playwrights: Que le Lieu de la scène y soit fixe et marqué. Un Rimeur, sans peril, delà les Pirenées Sur la scène en un jour renferme des années. Là souvent le Heros d'un spectacle grossier, Enfant au premier acte, est barbon au dernier. Mais nous, que la Raison à ses regles engage, Nous voulons qu'avec art l'Action se ménage: Qu'en un Lieu, Qu'en un jour, un seul fait accompli Tienne jusqu'à la fin le Théâtre rempli. Boileau, "L'Art Poétique", Chantm m. in Œuvres Completes, Paris: Gallimard, 1966, p. 170. 44 R. Barthes, "Comment représenter L'Antique", Essais Critiques, Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1964, pp. 71-79. Brought to you by | provisional account Unauthenticated Download Date | 9/18/15 4:48 AM Brought to you by | provisional account Unauthenticated Download Date | 9/18/15 4:48 AM