The Dramaturgy of Senecan Tragedy

by Thomas; Kohn

  5. Stage direction in the modern sense, as illustrated above by the opening of Death of a Salesman, do not appear in written play scripts until the medieval period, when playwrights began to compose scripts intended to be produced by someone else. See McJannet (1999) 9–10. On the theory behind explicit stage directions in drama, see Chancellor (1979), Issacharoff (1988), and Suchy (1991).

  6. Goffman (1986) 144–45, writing in the twentieth century, was more accustomed to stage dramas in which embedded directions were not only unnecessary, but also out of fashion. On the other hand, such explicit directions were integral to the type of radio plays that were common in Goffman's time, and today can be found in Public Radio's Prairie Home Companion.

  7. Taplin (1977) 28. See also Mastronarde (1979) 2.

  8. Revermann (2006) 50. He goes on (53–54) to discuss “big troublemakers—passages in Greek drama which refer to vital stage action, but not in the way required by the significant action hypothesis.”

  9. Goffman (1986) 143.

  10. Revermann (2006) 63–64.

  11. A. Conan Doyle, The Sign of the Four, ch. 6.

  12. To give just one of many, many instances, consider Oedipus 202–5, where the Chorus announces the entrance of Creon. Contrast that with the uncertainty of when exactly during act 1 Jocasta both enters and exits. Hamilton (1978) 63–73 offers a statistical analysis of announced versus unannounced entrances in Attic tragedy. See also Frost (1988) 5–17 on entrances and exits in Greek New Comedy.

  13. Davis (1993) 9.

  14. Sutton (1986) 29.

  15. Sutton (1986) 32. See also Marshall (1994) for a discussion of how role assignments may be determined for Greek tragedy.

  16. And even those directions do not have to be followed by subsequent directors. Indeed, I would argue that a good script, be it ancient or modern, allows for multiple readings and considerable artistic freedom. Cf. the view of twentieth-century playwright Sam Shepard, as quoted by Schechner (1988) 76, who both understands that different productions of his plays might be “far from what I had in mind,” but also expresses hope that someday a director will successfully achieve his original vision.

  17. Sutton (1986) 29–31 also assumes that the ancient theater had specialist “character actors,” and so in his analyses tries to give the bit parts to the tritagonist.

  18. The following terms and definitions are from the discussion of Cohen and Harrop (1984) 25–29. Seneca himself seems to have put some thought into the division of his plays into acts; see further in chapter 1.

  19. We shall see that often a pause occurs between action units.

  20. The task of dating is made a little easier, though not much, if we assume the playwright is Lucius Annaeus Seneca minor. In that case, we can narrow things down to between his birth in 4 BCE or 1 CE and his death in 65 CE. It is disheartening, however, that even with all that we know about the man's life we cannot place the composition of the tragedies within it. Kohn (2003) argues that the attribution of the plays to Seneca philosophus is by no means secure.

  21. For example, the accounts of the tragic story of Actaeon at Oedipus 751–63 and Metamorphoses 3.138–252 share common vocabulary and syntax. See Canter (1925) 40–55 for a fuller list. See also Schiesaro (1992) 56–63 and Hälikkä (1997) 58–62.

  22. Fitch (1987b) 50–53.

  23. A recent study by Joachim Dingel (2009), Die Relative Datierung der Tragödien Senecas (Berlin), which I have not had the opportunity to see, promises to provide a new order, based on an internal analysis of ideas and themes in the individual plays.

  24. On the manuscript tradition, see Tarrant (1976) 23–96. This discussion is repeated in Reynolds (1983) 378–81. See also Philp (1968) 150–79 and the introduction to Zwierlein (1986) v–xi.

  25. Tarrant (1976) 58.

  26. http://www.apgrd.ox.ac.uk. This website (abbreviated to APGRD) is an invaluable compilation sponsored by the Faculty of Classics at the University of Oxford. Other productions are mentioned, here and there, by various modern scholars. For example, Davis (1993) 6 mentions performances in Rome and Wittenberg. Both Beare (1964) 236 and Bieber (1961) 255 report that the plays were staged in English schools in the 1560s. And Cruciani (1983) 219–27 discusses productions of the Hippolytus in Rome in 1486. Other examples of “modern” productions of Seneca in Europe can be found in Smith (1988).

  27. See Boyle (1997) 141–207 and Eliot (1934) 76–97. But cf. Goldberg (2000), who argues that while Seneca contributed language to English tragedy, Ovid may have had more influence over action.

  28. Davis (2003) 27–36.

  29. Boyle (2008) xl, note 67.

  30. Boyle (1994) 38.

  31. Harrison (2000) vii. See also the contributions of Ahl and Raby in Harrison (2000). The former (151–72) discusses his concerns as a Senecan translator; the latter (173–96) explicates her process as a director.

  32. Tarrant (1976) 87–94 has a useful discussion of editions of Seneca.

  33. Not much is definitely known about theatrical practices during the first century. The best, as well as most recent, discussion of the Roman theater is Boyle (2006). But see also Beacham (1991), Beare (1964), and Duckworth (1952).

  34. In addition to the previously mentioned sources, Wrigley (2005) includes many productions and/or adaptations of Seneca's Agamemnon in her extensive list of performances of the myth.

  35. Harrison (2000) vii notes that the whole question of performance of Senecan tragedy seems a curiously German and Anglophone concern. Colleagues in other countries appear to take it as an article of faith that the plays are capable of being produced and were performed during the course of the first century CE.

  36. This view pervades the very influential edition of Leo (1878), and also is prominent in Eliot's (1934) essay, “Seneca in Elizabethan Translation,” 66–76, which maintains that the tragedies neither belong on the Greek stage, nor were they meant to be read silently; instead, Eliot advocated for recitation. Cf. Davis (1993) 9, who places himself solidly in the properformance camp.

  37. Schlegel (1815) 287–90. See also Sutton (1986) 1 and Seidensticker and Armstrong (1985) 920–21 on the consequences of Schlegel's pronouncement.

  38. Marti (1945) advocates silent reading at 219–20, and later (221) refers to “Stoic readers.”

  39. As well as oral, gestural, kinesic, histrionic, corporeal, and mimetic. For just one example of the type of aural detail that must be considered, see Guggenheimer's (1972) work on rhyme in Latin poetry. Allen (1978) vii maintains that Latin literature had an oral component that must be studied to achieve full appreciation. Aldrete (1999) provides testimony for the gestural component, specifically of oratory; and Sonkowsky (1959) 273 suggests that writers of all kinds of Latin literature, not only orators, took aspects of delivery into consideration while composing; see also Norden (1958) 6 and Nachträge 1–2.

  40. See Knox (1968) 421–35, Winsbury (2009) 95–110 and 129–34, and the various essays in Johnson and Parker (2009).

  41. See also Cicero, Att. 16.2.5, and Off. 1.147. For a detailed, scholarly discussion of the recitatio, see Funaioli (1920) cols. 435–46. On the recitatio and how it relates to Vergil's Eclogues, see Kohn (2000).

  42. As at CIL 2.6278.18, 8.11345, 9.1156. See TLL V.2, s.v. editio C: de munerum praestatione, and editor 3: muneris exhibitor; see also OLD, s.v. editio, 5, and edo (2), 12.

  43. Walker (1969) 183–87. Kragelund (1999) makes the same point. See also Marshall (2000) 27, who observes that some of the performance problems Zwierlein and others have noted are not necessarily solved by advocating recitation. See also Tarrant (1978) 213–63, who shows that Senecan tragedy is influenced at least as much by later theatrical conventions as it was by Attic tragedy.

  44. There are, however, a number of fragments of tragedies by other authors, and some elements of dramaturgy can be teased out; see the discussions of Boyle (2006) and Erasmo (2004).

  45. For more on these questions, see Kohn (2000) 267–74.

  46. Cf. Ho
llingsworth (2001) 135–44, who argues that Seneca's tragedies do not match with the testimonia about recitationes. See also Sutton (1986) 5, who notes that it is difficult to identify characters nonverbally in recitation.

  47. Fitch (2000) 1–12. His efforts in this matter have received praise from Fantham (2000) 13, among others.

  48. For example, Sutton (1986) 22–23, Rosenmeyer (1993) 236ff., and Hollingsworth (2001) 142–43. See also the discussion below, in the chapter on the Oedipus. The lines in question are Oed. 299–389. And consider that not only were the “unstageable” scenes imitated by Renaissance playwrights (see Eliot [1934] 76–84), but they were in fact performed (see Cruciani [1983]).

  49. Easterling (in OCD3, s.v. “tragedy, Greek”) says that over time it probably became common to act selected scenes or speeches, highlights from famous plays. Bartsch (1994) 224, note 4, while discussing the performances of Nero, notes that scholars generally agree that these performances consisted of individual scenes rather than whole tragedies; she refers to, among others, Beare (1964) 234, who says these seem to have been cantica depicting certain scenes of tragic character. None of these scholars cite original sources to back up their claims. While evidence of the performance of individual scenes from drama exists from the Hellenistic period (Csapo and Slater [1995] 7–8 list four examples, two from comedy), there is no proof that the Romans did such a thing. There are vague references in the Historia Augusta (Hadrian 26.4) and in Plutarch's Convivial Questions (7.8.711.E) to tragedies being part of dinner entertainment. Which ones, when, how, and by whom they might have been performed, however, is unclear. See Jones (1991) 191–94 for a discussion of these and other entertainments.

  50. See Frank (1995) 39–42 on the scholarly discussion concerning the performance of the Phoenissae.

  51. Fantham (1982) 48ff. and (1996a) 150.

  52. Marshall (1998) 95 and (2000) 32–33.

  53. Such as the examples from the House of Augustus at Rome and various houses at Pompeii pictured in Beacham (1992) 72–80.

  54. Varner (2000) 132.

  55. Sutton (1986) 5.

  56. See also Sutton (1986) 60–62.

  57. All three historians mention the story of Mamercus Aemilius Scaurus who ran afoul of Tiberius. See Tacitus, Ann. 6.29.19–25; Cassius Dio, 58.24.3–4; and Suetonius, Tib. 61.3. See also Bartsch (1994) 86–88.

  58. On the other hand, there is little evidence for either the performance or the composition of comedy in the first century CE. This is not to say that it was not happening; simply that there is little said about it. Quintilian states that comedy is the literary form in which Latin literature is most deficient, and names no comic writers later than Afranius, who flourished ca. 150 BCE (Inst. 10.1.99–100). Further, the only role that Cicero specifically names for Roscius, his favorite actor, was from a revival of a previously successful comedy (QRosc. 7.20—the role is Ballio in Plautus' Pseudolus; see also Garton [1972] 169–88), implying that even by the first century BCE the composition of comedy had ceased, even if its performance had not. But if Vitruvius is correct in naming the comic as one of the types of scaena (De Arch. 5.6.9), then comedies, presumably restagings of older works, were still being performed in the first century.

  59. Tacitus, Dial. 13.2, [Suetonius] Vergil 26, Servius ad Ecl. 6.11.

  60. Kohn (2000) 267–74. See also Sutton (1986) 5 and Funaioli (1920) cols 435–46.

  61. See Wheeler (1988) ad 5.7.25.

  62. See Cunningham (1949) 100–106 and Baca (1969) 1–10.

  63. Sear (2006) provides a comprehensive listing of all the known sites, along with sketches, descriptions, and analyses; see also Bieber (1961) 190–226.

  64. See Varner (2000) 119–36, who argues that the theatricality of fourth-style wall painting reflects a popular interest in the theater. Fourth-style painting reproduced architectural features, often those found in a theater, such as columns and the scaenae frons. In addition, it frequently depicted stories from mythology, often the same ones represented in tragedy.

  65. Bieber (1961) 227.

  66. For example, Terence's Adelphi, performed at the funeral of Aemilius Paullus; see Scullard (1981) 41 and 221.

  67. Garton (1972) 267–83.

  68. See, for example, Suetonius, Tib. 37.2, and Tacitus, Ann. 1.77, on Tiberius' reaction to licentiousness in the theater in 15 CE. Tiberius again exiles the actors in 23 CE. (Tacitus, Ann. 4.14), implying that they either returned in the intervening years, or that a new crop of performers arose.

  69. On the basic theatricality of Rome in the first century, see Boyle (2011) xix–xxv.

  70. Motto and Clark (1988) 2.

  71. The main focus of Styan (1975) is on Shakespearean drama, but he does extend his theories to later plays. The same elements existed for Greek and Roman drama, and so Styan's methods certainly could also be applied to plays before the Elizabethan period. See also the model of Schechner (1988) 64.

  72. Schechner (1988) 61.

  73. Goffman (1986) 210–11.

  74. Moore (1998) 1.

  75. Suetonius, Iulius 56.

  76. Suetonius, Augustus 85: nam tragoediam magno impetu exorsus, non succedenti stilo, abolevit quaerentibusque amicis, quodnam Aiax ageret, respondit Aiacem suum in spongiam incubuisse.

  77. See Beacham (1991) 125–26, Beare (1964) 126–27, and Conte (1994) 108–9.

  78. Cf. Sutton (1986), 59, who comments that it “is universally conceded…that Seneca was a dilettante playwright.”

  79. Aristotle, Poetics 1450a7–10.

  80. Horace, Ars Poetica 189–95.

  81. CIL iv Suppl. 2, 6698.

  82. Boyle (1997) chapter 1, note 23, doubts that much can be proven based on this evidence; still, he finds it “suggestive” and “tempting.”

  83. Taplin (1979) 5 also refers to his pursuits as “dramatic” or “theatrical” criticism. There is, of course, a difference between “performance criticism,” as pursued by such scholars as Taplin (1977), Sutton (1986), Marshall (2006), and Revermann (2006), and “performance theory,” practiced by Turner (1974), Goffman (1986), and Schechner (1988), to name a few. This study is mostly concerned with the former, although the work of the latter can help to illuminate certain elements.

  84. Beacham (1991) 86, Fortey and Glucker (1975) 699–700, and Marshall (2006) xi–xii.

  85. Lewis (1996). The production consisted of Aeschylus' Agamemnon, Sophocles' Elektra, and Euripides' Iphigenia at Aulis.

  Chapter 1

  1. One aspect of Senecan dramaturgy that will become clear through this discussion is his great diversity; on this quality, see also Boyle (1997) 82–84.

  2. The only exception in the corpus is the pseudo-Senecan Octavia. Further, for all of the genuine tragedies aside from the Thyestes, there is at least one extant Greek tragedy. On Seneca's rewriting of previous Greek tragedies, see Boyle (1997), especially chapter 5. See also Tarrant (1978) on post-fifth century BCE Athenian influences on Senecan tragedy.

  3. Vitruvius, deArch. 5.6.8.

  4. ipsae autem scaenae suas habent rationes explicatas ita, uti mediae valvae ornatus habeant aulae regiae, Vitruvius, de Arch. 5.6.8, as opposed to Roman comedy, which usually needs at least two separated doors, each representing the house of a neighbor. Cf. Sutton (1986) 68–70, who argues that the Medea requires a two-door set.

  5. versurae sunt procurrentes, quae efficiunt una a foro, altera a peregre aditus in scaenam, Vitruvius, de Arch. 5.6.8

  6. ita latius factum fuerit pulpitum quam Graecorum, quod omnes artifices in scaena dant operam, Vitruvius, de Arch. 5.6.1.

  7. On the conventions concerning contact between an already onstage character and a character entering through a wing in Attic tragedy, see Mastronarde (1979) 20–26.

  8. For a Greek parallel, consider the Watchman in the prologue to Aeschylus' Agamemnon.

  9. See Sutton (1986) 20.

  10. See Mastronarde (1990) 247–96 for a discussion of the skene roof and the machina in Attic drama in general, and specifically
about the position of gods in both tragedy and comedy.

  11. The term exostra is used by Cicero, de Prov. 14. See Sutton (1986) 18 and Beare (1964) 270.

  12. secundum autem spatia ad ornatus comparata.

  13. genera autem sunt scaenarum tria: unum quod dicitur tragicum, alterum comicum, tertium satyricum.

  14. tragicae deformantur columnis et fastigiis et signis reliquisque regalibus rebus.

  15. Schechner (1988) 9.

  16. Goldhill (2007) 82–94. On props in Greek tragedy, see Dingel (1971) 352–55.

  17. Sutton (1986) 63–67 discusses the copious evidence for the use of pretend blood on the Roman stage.

  18. Also, Creon, when describing the ghost of Laius that Tiresias raises in the necromancy of the Oedipus, says the dead king is covered in blood (624–25). This does not count as a necessary prop, since Laius is only spoken of, and does not physically appear onstage. But it does contribute to the bloodiness of Senecan tragedy.

  19. See below, the discussion of naturalism vs. convention, as well as the analysis of the extispicium in chapter 2.

  20. Cf. Beacham (1991) 172.

  21. Taplin (1977) 276. See also 134–36 on the crowd at the beginning of the Septem Contra Thebas. Contrast this with the modern theater, where it is not uncommon for one or more actors to appear onstage, already in character, in full view as the audience enters and mills around.

  22. In the Oedipus, Phaedra, Hercules Furens, Troades, and Medea respectively. The Phoenissae is too incomplete to know who would be the first to enter.

  23. Boyle (1997) 83–84, points out that “Each Senecan play ends in dialogue uttered by one of the dramatis personae,” while “Attic tragedy ends more frequently than not (it becomes the rule in the received texts of Euripides) with a short ode or lyric utterance from the chorus, as do the non-Senecan plays of the corpus, Hercules Oetaeus and Octavia. No extant Senecan play does this.”