MODULE Q8D505

APPROACHES TO ANCIENT
DRAMA

MODULE BOOKLET 2005-2006

IMPORTANT NOTES

1. Please note that the information contained in this booklet is provisional. In

particular, the dates and times of classes may need to be changed as a result of
unforeseen circumstances. It is your responsibility to make sure that you are aware of
such changes by consulting the Postgraduate noticeboard in the Student Seminar Room
(B7) regularly.

2. This booklet does not repeat information that has been given in the Department of
Classics Postgraduate Handbook (available online at
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/classics/postgraduate/handbooks/pgthbk05.pdf).
Everything in the Handbook, so far as it is relevant to this module, should be deemed to
form part of this booklet, unless explicitly superseded below.
CONTENTS

I. Module Aims, Content and Role, 1

II. Objectives, 1
III. Teaching and Study Methods, 2
IV. Timetable, 2
V. Assessment, 3
VI. Bibliography, 4
 Q8D505 APPROACHES TO ANCIENT DRAMA

I. MODULE AIMS, CONTENT AND ROLE

Q8D111 is a one- semester 30- credit module which examines a series of key topics in the
study of ancient Greek drama, including among others: the structural analysis of drama in
its various genres; relationships between drama and myth, ritual, society, politics and
religion; the study of performance; the reconstruction of lost or fragmentary plays; the
transmission and criticism of dramatic texts; critical approaches in recent scholarship. Its
aim is to develop a critical understanding of major aspects of current Greek drama
studies, including areas of academic controversy. The module forms one- quarter of the
taught component of the MA course in Ancient Drama and its Reception. It is an
obligatory “key” module for students taking this course, but may also be taken by
students on other MA courses.

II. OBJECTIVES
On successful completion of this module you should have developed knowledge and skills
in the following ways:

Knowledge and Understanding:

Knowledge and understanding of selected topics and issues in ancient drama
Knowledge and understanding of a range of methodologies and theoretical approaches
which can be deployed in relation to ancient drama in its historical context
An enhanced degree of expertise in dealing with the range of ancient dramatic texts and
responses to those texts
A broad awareness of how the academic discipline of Classics has evolved in recent
centuries

Intellectual Skills:
Ability to identify and evaluate key problems in the study and use of ancient drama within
an intellectual framework informed by current scholarship and to engage with
theoretical approaches
Ability to locate, select and evaluate critically at an advanced level a variety of ancient
texts and modern literature relevant to specific issues and problems
Ability to show initiative in approach to topics, with evidence of advanced critical and
original thinking
Ability to devise a research topic and select appropriate methodologies
Ability to reflect critically upon the discipline and develop an awareness of it as an
evolving entity

Professional Practical Skills:

Ability to articulate knowledge and critical awareness of chosen topics in ancient drama,
both orally and in written format
Ability to plan, research and write up a coherent piece of extended work Ability to present
written work to a high standard
Ability to make effective use of a range of bibliographic resources, both printed and
electronic

Transferable (key) skills:

Enhanced ability to communicate effectively in writing
Enhanced ability to communicate effectively orally, especially in formal presentations
Enhanced ability to work productively with others
 2

III. TEACHING AND STUDY METHODS

Teaching for the module will comprise 10 two- hour seminars, making a total of 20 contact
hours. Student presentations or reports will be a major feature of the teaching in this
module, and you will be expected to read around the topics in considerable depth in
advance of the seminars, whether you are making a presentation yourself or not. In
general, each topic will be dealt with in the second half of one class (to prepare and
orient students for independent reading) and in the first half of the next (when, normally,
a report or reports on a previously specified topic will be presented and discussed).
Details of presentation/report responsibilities will be settled and circulated as soon
as possible after the commencement of the semester. The first actual presentations will
be no earlier than the third week of teaching (October 20). Reports will not be directly
assessed.
You will also increase the benefit you get from this module by regularly attending
research workshops and similar events in the Department and elsewhere, especially those
with a bearing on Greek drama. These events will be publicized in the Department, and
the module convener will draw your attention to those which he considers particularly
relevant.
If you are experiencing any difficulties in this module – or if you want more
information or guidance about any matter connected with it – you should consult the
module convener as soon as possible, either at the end of a class or during his regular
consultation hours (which are posted on the door of his office – C3 on the top floor of the
Archaeology & Classics Building).

IV. TIMETABLE

All classes will take place from 14.00 to 16.00 on Thursdays in room C11, Archaeology &
Classics Building, except that the class scheduled for Thursday 13 October (when the
convener will be unavailable) will be rearranged for a different day and time (to be
decided, in the light of students’other commitments, at the class on 6 October).

Date First half (normally Second half (normally

retrospective) prospective)
October 6 (Introduction to the module) Structural patterns in tragedy

[October 13] Structural patterns in comedy Satyr- drama

October 20 The transmission and criticism of Drama and myth

dramatic texts

October 27 Drama and myth The reconstruction of lost or

fragmentary plays

November 3 The reconstruction of lost or Drama as a visual art

fragmentary plays
November 10 No class – Classics Department Reading Week

November 17 Drama as a visual art Drama and gender

November 24 Drama and gender Drama and politics

December 1 Drama and politics Drama and religion

December 8 Drama and religion Critical methodologies

December 15 Critical methodologies (Review)

V. ASSESSMENT
 3

Assessment will be by one essay of between 5000 and 6000 words.

The essay subject will be chosen by each student in consultation with the convener, not
later than 3 November (no essay topic of your own choice will be valid for
assessment purposes without the convener's prior approval). It must relate to one
of the eleven unbracketed topics listed in the Teaching Schedule, and must make detailed
use of the evidence of one or more specific plays. Examples (they are only examples!) of
possible topics would be:

Problems in the reconstruction of Euripides' Telephus

Does Euripides' Alcestis have satyric features?
Is an understanding of fifth- century Dionysiac mystery- cults necessary to a
satisfactory understanding of Euripides’Bacchae?

In the preparation of your essay you are encouraged to incorporate relevant material from
your seminar reports and (with due acknowledgement) from the presentations, or
contributions to discussion, of other students. It is quite acceptable to choose for your
essay subject a topic on which you reported in a seminar, or one growing out of it,
provided that it meets the requirements stated above.

Your essay must be submitted by 12 noon on Monday 9 January.

You must provide a word-count for your essay, on the Departmental Cover Sheet. Your
word processor will have a tool for providing a word- count. The word- count should
include footnotes/endnotes, but exclude the title and bibliography.

Your essay should not be less than 5000 or more than 6000 words long. If shorter than
this, it is unlikely to cover the question adequately. If longer than 6000 words, however
good it is, it will have five marks deducted as a penalty for excessive length. If there
is no word- count on your cover- sheet, the marker will estimate the word- count of your
essay, and will penalise the essay if it appears to be overlength.

Guidance on the preparation of coursework will be found in sections 7.1 to 7.3 of the
Postgraduate Handbook and also in section 9.7 (on bibliographies, notes and referencing).
The criteria used for the marking of coursework are stated in section 8.1 of the
Handbook. If you have fulfilled the module objectives set out in section II above, you will
have written an essay or essays showing, at the least, most of the qualities described in
the Handbook as typical of an essay "near the middle of the MA pass range".

You will get feedback on your written coursework through a Coursework Report Form,
which will be placed in your pigeon- hole in the Student Seminar Room (B7). You should
take careful note of these comments, which are designed principally to help you to
improve further your writing, argumentative and presentational skills. Feedback will be
sent to you by Monday 23 January.

WARNING
Coursework must be wholly your own work. You must not quote or paraphrase the
words of published authors without acknowledgement. Failure to acknowledge
your sources may lead to your being suspected of plagiarism, that is, the
academic offence of seeking an unfair advantage by using other people's work as
though it were your own. Your coursework coversheet will include a declaration,
which you must sign, stating that the work is your own and that you have
acknowledged all material taken from other sources.
 4

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

This reading list is extremely selective, and you should aim to expand it as your reading
itself leads you, via references, to fresh material. In general, books rather than articles
are listed; and there is no listing of editions or translations of, or commentaries on,
individual plays or collected works (except fragments).

1(a). General
In many respects the best place to start is still P.E. Easterling and B.M.W. Knox ed. The
Cambridge History of Classical Literature vol. 1 (1985), which has sections on the origins
of tragedy, on tragedy in performance, on the major and minor tragic dramatists, on
satyr- play, and on comedy, with bibliographies on each genre and each author (up to
about 1982). These sections have also been published as a separate paperback entitled
Greek Drama (1989).

A wide range of translated ancient texts bearing on all aspects of drama is collected by
E.G. Csapo and W.J. Slater in The Context of Ancient Drama (1994).

The standard bibliographical guides to publications on the ancient world have traditionally
been the annual L'Année Philologique (APh) and the quarterly "Bibliographische Beilage"
appended to certain issues of the periodical Gnomon. In recent years, the print version
of APh has been getting increasingly slow in appearing, and for material since 1959 it is
generally best to consult the online version (which, as of September 2005, was complete
to the end of 2003). From the University's eLibrary Gateway, click on the “Find
Database” tab (if not already foregrounded), choose Classics from the Arts & Humanities
menu, and when the Classics page comes up, choose "Annee Philologique" from the
alphabetical list of resources. A special username and password are required; you will find
them by clicking the "i" button to the left of the resource name. Once in APh you can
search under a wide range of criteria, the most important being "Modern author", "Ancient
author", "Subjects and Disciplines" (choose Literature/Genres/Drama), and (from the
"Other criteria" menu) "Word(s) in the title". Listings of books are accompanied by
references to published reviews of the book; listings of journal articles (and of chapters in
multi- author volumes) include brief abstracts of the article (in English, French, German,
Spanish or Italian according to the country in which the journal or volume was published).

For very recent material the best source is Gnomon, which however gives only author,
title and publication details, not abstracts or reviews1. It is most efficiently searched
online; use the link on the "Quick Links" menu on the Department's home page, then click
on "English Version".

On Euripides, special mention should be made of the excellent bibliographies found in each
volume of the Aris & Phillips series of editions; with each new volume the bibliography is
updated, and the latest will be found in W. Allan's edition of The Children of Heracles
(2001). I have tried to supply an introductory bibliography for Aristophanes in my Aris &
Phillips editions, most recently in Wealth (2001).

Almost all general works in the field of Greek drama deal with tragedy or comedy
separately; two which cover both, at an introductory level, is A.H. Sommerstein, Greek
Drama and Dramatists (2002), and (with a rather fuller treatment) I.C. Storey and A.
Allan, A Guide to Ancient Greek Drama (2004).

1
Most significant books in the Classics field are reviewed (sometimes more than once!), soon
after they appear, in the electronic publication Bryn Mawr Classical Review (BMCR), which also
has a Quick Link from the Department's home page; to find a review (if there is one), click
"Archives" on the BMCR home page, then "Index by Author of Work", then look for the author
and title.
 5

On tragedy the most comprehensive book by a single author is A. Lesky, Greek Tragic
Poetry (Eng.tr. 1983); the smaller introductory text by B. Zimmermann, Greek Tragedy
(Eng. tr. 1991), has useful bibliographies (though even in the English edition they lean
heavily towards works in German). P.E. Easterling ed. The Cambridge Companion to
Greek Tragedy (1997) is now probably the best introduction to serious study of the
subject; it is particularly valuable on tragedy's connections with society, myth and
religion, and on the "reception" of Greek tragedy in later antiquity and in the modern
world. Two valuable collective volumes published more recently are R. Bushnell ed. A
Companion to Tragedy and J. Gregory ed. A Companion to Greek Tragedy (both 2005);
the latter is particularly rich and comprehensive. M.S. Silk ed. Tragedy and the Tragic
(1996) offers a wide variety of approaches to the problem of defining the concept of the
tragic, and in the process sheds light on many aspects of the genre.

On comedy, except for E.W. Handley in The Cambridge History of Classical Literature
(see above) and the relatively elementary book by F.H. Sandbach, The Comic Theatre of
Greece and Rome (1977), few writers have even tried to bridge the gap that yawns in our
surviving material between the "old" comedy of ca.486- 385 BC and the "new" comedy of
ca.325 onwards; the useful introduction by B. Zimmermann, Die griechische Komödie
(1998), has not yet been translated. The best general book in English1 on old comedy is
probably still K.J. Dover, Aristophanic Comedy (1972), though M.S. Silk, Aristophanes and
the Definition of Comedy (2000) is more sophisticated; F.D. Harvey and J. Wilkins ed. The
Rivals of Aristophanes (2000), despite its title, deals extensively with all of old comedy,
Aristophanes not excepted. On new comedy, see notably R.L. Hunter, The New Comedy
of Greece and Rome (1985). On the intervening period we now have, at a rather more
advanced level, H.G. Nesselrath, Die attische Mittlere Komödie (1990), and
(concentrating on the early fourth century) G.W. Dobrov ed. Beyond Aristophanes:
Transition and Diversity in Greek Comedy (1995); also worth consulting is E.G. Csapo,
“From Aristophanes to Menander? Genre transformation in Greek comedy”, in M. Depew
and D. Obbink ed. Matrices of Genre (2000).

1(b). Individual dramatists

There are chapters on Aeschylus (S. Saïd), Sophocles (R.S. Scodel) and Euripides (J.
Gregory) in Gregory ed. A Companion to Greek Tragedy.

There has been no good comprehensive book on Aeschylus; A.H. Sommerstein,

Aeschylean Tragedy (1996) was designed to fill this gap, but I express no view on
whether it has succeeded. R.P. Winnington- Ingram, Studies in Aeschylus (1983) is a
collection of extremely sensitive separate essays. T.G. Rosenmeyer, The Art of Aeschylus
(1982) is uninspired; M. Gagarin, Aeschylean Drama (1976) covers only some aspects of
Aeschylus' art; C.J. Herington, Aeschylus (1986) is highly personal (and designed for the
general reader). Probably more will be learned from Taplin, The Stagecraft of Aeschylus
(see 3) than from almost any of these.

On Sophocles, in contrast, there is a very wide selection, among which may be noted R.P.
Winnington- Ingram, Sophocles: An Interpretation (1980); C.P. Segal, Tragedy and
Civilization: An Interpretation of Sophocles (1981) and Sophocles' Tragic World (1995);
and the difficult but rewarding work of K. Reinhardt, Sophocles (Eng.tr. 1979).

Euripides is less well supplied, perhaps because he has so many more plays extant. D.J.
Conacher, Euripidean Drama (1967), is good to begin with; more recent criticism is
represented by e.g. P. Burian ed. Directions in Euripidean Criticism (1985), A.N. Michelini,
Euripides and the Tragic Tradition (1987), and especially M.J. Cropp et al. ed. Euripides
and Tragic Drama in the Late Fifth Century (= Illinois Classical Studies 24/25 [1999-
2000]).

1
Now there is one in German of about equal quality: P. von Möllendorff, Aristophanes (2002).
 6

For Aristophanes, Dover's Aristophanic Comedy (see above) remains a classic, but D.M.
MacDowell, Aristophanes and Athens (1995) is more comprehensive even if also more
pedestrian. Five other books deserving special notice are K.J. Reckford, Aristophanes'
Old-and-New Comedy I (1987), which concentrates on elements of fantasy; A.M. Bowie,
Aristophanes: Myth, Ritual and Comedy (1993) which concentrates on elements related
to myth and religion; M.S. Silk, Aristophanes and the Definition of Comedy (see above);
N.W. Slater, Spectator Politics: Metatheater and Performance in Aristophanes (2002);
and the conference volume edited by P. Thiercy and M. Menu, Aristophane: la langue, la
scène, la cité (1997). A short treatment of remarkable breadth and judgement is N.J.
Lowe, "Greek stagecraft and Aristophanes", in J. Redmond ed. Themes in Drama 10:
Farce (1988) 33- 52.

On Menander see N. Zagagi, The Comedy of Menander (1995); S.M. Goldberg, The Making
of Menander's Comedy (1980); and D. Wiles, The Masks of Menander (1991) which
concentrates on masking and its implications for performance and characterization.

The series of Entretiens sur l'antiquité classique published by the Fondation Hardt bring
together, in each volume, contributions on a topic from seven or eight leading specialists.
There have been volumes on Ménandre (vol. 16 [1970]), Sophocle (vol. 29 [1983]) and
Aristophane (vol. 38 [1993]).

2. Structural patterns in tragedy and comedy

On structural features of tragedy, the most comprehensive treatment is W. Jens ed. Die
Bauformen der griechischen Tragödie (1971); there is a very enlightening sketch by P.E.
Easterling in Easterling ed. The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy ch.7. There are
a number of recent studies of particular structural elements, e.g., on choral songs, H.
Parry, Lyric Poems of Greek Tragedy (1978) and W.C. Scott, Musical Design in
Aeschylean Theater (1984) and Musical Design in Sophoclean Theater (1996); on formal
debates, M. Lloyd, The Agon in Euripides (1992); on messenger- speeches, I.J.F. de Jong,
Narrative in Drama (1991) and J. Barrett, Staged Narrative: Poetics and the Messenger in
Greek Tragedy (2002); on prologues, D.G. Fitzpatrick, Opening Strategies in Sophoclean
Tragedy (Nottingham PhD thesis, 2001). Gregory ed. A Companion to Greek Tragedy
(2005) has chapters on tragic beginnings and endings (D.H. Roberts), on lyric (L.
Battezzato), on episodes (M.R. Halleran), and on music (P.J. Wilson).

Three key elements in the structure of old comedy are discussed by T. Gelzer, Der
epirrhematische Agon bei Aristophanes (1960), by G.M. Sifakis, Parabasis and Animal
Choruses (1971) (see also T.K. Hubbard, The Mask of Comedy: Aristophanes and the
Intertextual Parabasis (1991)), and by B. Zimmermann, "The parodoi of the Aristophanic
comedies", most easily found in E. Segal ed. Oxford Readings in Aristophanes (1996) 182-
193; see now also, on all of these, A.F.H. Bierl, Der Chor in der Alten Komödie (2000).
The formal structure of Greek new comedy, as revealed by papyrus discoveries, proved to
be so simple that it has attracted little recent scholarly attention.
 7

3. Satyr-drama
The only modern book in English on the subject is D.F. Sutton, The Greek Satyr Play
(1980); but in many ways the most valuable treatment is the introduction to R. Seaford's
edition of Euripides' Cyclops (1984). See also P.E. Easterling in Easterling ed. The
Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy 37- 44; M. Griffith, "Slaves of Dionysos: satyrs,
audience, and the ends of the Oresteia", Classical Antiquity 21 (2002) 195- 258 (with very
rich bibliography); B. Seidensticker, “The chorus of Greek satyrplay”, in E.G. Csapo and
M.C. Miller ed. Poetry, Theory, Praxis (2003) 100- 121; and B. Seidensticker, “Dithyramb,
comedy, and satyr- play”, in Gregory ed. A Companion to Greek Tragedy. Those who can
read German should consult what is now the standard work on the subject, R. Krumeich et
al. Das griechische Satyrspiel (1999). A valuable article, particularly for its final sections
on the nature and function(s) of satyr- drama, is M. Kaimio et al., "Metatheatricality in
the Greek satyr- play", Arctos 35 (2001) 35- 78 (copy available from me).

4. Drama and myth

The fullest account of the myths known to the fifth- century dramatists and their
audiences, and the one that most stresses their unceasing changeability, is T.R. Gantz,
Early Greek Myths (1993). The development of particular myths before and during this
period is regularly explored in the introductions to editions of tragedies based on those
myths; see also A.J.N.W. Prag, The Oresteia: Iconographic and Narrative Traditions
(1985) and J.R. March, The Creative Poets (1987). I discuss and exemplify tragedy's
treatment of myth in "Tragedy and myth", in R. Bushnell ed. A Companion to Tragedy
163- 180; see also P. Burian, "Myth into muthos", in Easterling ed. Cambridge Companion
to Greek Tragedy (1997), and M.J. Anderson, “Myth”, in Gregory ed. A Companion to
Greek Tragedy (2005). Recently there has been considerable interest in the study of
allusions, especially in comedy, to myths that the text does not explicitly mention or
mentions only in passing; see A.M. Bowie, Aristophanes: Myth, Ritual and Comedy (1993)
and I. Lada- Richards, Initiating Dionysus (1999); there has been less discussion of the
limits within which this interpretative technique is legitimate.

5. The reconstruction of lost or fragmentary plays

Until recently there were few accessible discussions of the methodology of this
enterprise, but this has been in great measure remedied by the appearance of F. McHardy
et al., Lost Dramas of Classical Athens (2005), particularly the contributions by Rudolf
Kassel and David Harvey on the history of fragment study and by Christopher Collard on
“the nature of sources [for Euripides’ fragmentary plays] and their effect on
reconstruction”; see also M.J. Cropp, “Lost tragedies: a survey”, in Gregory ed. A
Companion to Greek Tragedy (2005). A cautionary lesson for those (like the convener of
this module) who are optimistic about the prospects of reconstructing, at least in part,
the plots of fragmentary Old Comedies is given in the three masterly pages of Kenneth
Dover’ s foreword (“Frogments”) to D. Harvey and J. Wilkins ed. The Rivals of Aristophanes
(2000). But not everyone has been discouraged, as witness I.C. Storey, Eupolis, Poet of
Old Comedy (2003), on a dramatist whose work is known only from quotations and a few
papyri. A remarkable demonstration (though not in a dramatic text) of what can and
cannot be done with a very scanty set of papyrus fragments and a few external
testimonia is given in Christopher Carey’s paper “Antiphon’ s daughter” in D.L. Cairns and
R.A. Knox ed. Law, Rhetoric and Comedy in Classical Athens (2004) 123- 150.

The standard editions of the dramatic fragments are Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta,
now complete (Aeschylus ed. S.L. Radt, 1985; Sophocles ed. S.L. Radt, 1977; Euripides
ed. R. Kannicht, 2004; Minor Tragedians ed. B. Snell, 1971; Adespota ed. R. Kannicht & B.
Snell, 1981) and Poetae Comici Graeci ed. R. Kassel and C. Austin (1983- ), now
complete1 (Epicharmus and other Doric comedy and mime in vol. 1; Attic dramatists, in

1
The original plan of the series included a critical text of the eleven extant comedies of
Aristophanes; it is not clear whether this is still envisaged.
 8

alphabetical order, in vols. 2- 7; anonymous fragments in vol. 8) except for the nineteen
plays of Menander included in W.G. Arnott’ s Loeb edition (1979- 2000)1. Both editions are
valuably annotated, but neither has, or professes to have, discursive introductions or
commentaries. For these one must turn to the excellent Budé edition of the Euripidean
fragments by F. Jouan and H. van Looy (1998- 2003) and to the many editions of
individual fragmentary plays, or groups of plays, by Sophocles, Euripides and Menander,
notably C. Collard et al., Euripides: Selected Fragmentary Plays i (1995) and ii (2004).

See also T.B.L. Webster, The Tragedies of Euripides (1967) and An Introduction to
Menander (1974); the discussions of lost plays in my Aeschylean Tragedy (chapters 5.5,
6.2, 8.4, 9 and 10) and in my article "The prologue of Aeschylus' Palamedes", Rheinisches
Museum 143 (2000) 118- 127; the highly persuasive reconstruction of Sophocles' Tereus
by D.G. Fitzpatrick, CQ 51 (2001) 90- 101; the contributions by Dover, Arnott, Rosen,
Harvey and Storey to F.D. Harvey and J. Wilkins ed. The Rivals of Aristophanes (2000);
and the contributions by Clark, March, Hahnemann, Sommerstein and Rosen (among
others) to A.H. Sommerstein ed. Shards from Kolonos: Studies in Sophoclean Fragments
(2003). I can also make available the introductions, texts with translation, and
commentaries on eight Sophoclean plays in the forthcoming edition of Sophocles: Selected
Fragmentary Plays which I am preparing together with A.C. Clark, D.G. Fitzpatrick and
T.H. Talboy.

6. The transmission and criticism of dramatic texts

The best introductory account of the transmission of Greek (and Latin) texts is L.D.
Reynolds and N.G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars (3rd ed. 1991); of the principles of textual
criticism, M.L. West, Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique (1973); of the transmission
and fortunes of tragic texts in particular, R. Garland, Surviving Greek Tragedy (2002); see
also now D. Kovacs, “Text and transmission”, in Gregory ed. A Companion to Greek
Tragedy (2005). On the textual tradition of individual dramatists, see the introductions to
the Oxford editions of Sophocles (H. Lloyd- Jones and N.G. Wilson) and Euripides (J.
Diggle), the Teubner edition of Aeschylus (M.L. West), and (if it appears in time) the new
Oxford edition of Aristophanes (N.G. Wilson)2; also M.L. West, Studies in Aeschylus
(1990); R.D. Dawe, Studies in the Text of Sophocles (1973- 8); J. Diggle, The Textual
Tradition of Euripides' Orestes (1991) and D.J. Mastronarde and J.M. Bremer, The Textual
Tradition of Euripides' Phoinissai (1982); and the relevant sections of the introductions to
K.J. Dover's editions of Aristophanes' Clouds (1968) and Frogs (1993) as well as his
articles "Ancient interpolation in Aristophanes", Illinois Classical Studies 2 (1977) 136- 162,
and "Explorations in the history of the text of Aristophanes", in Dover, The Greeks and
their Legacy (1989). An exemplary analysis of part of a fairly simple textual tradition is
provided by S.D. Olson, "Studies in the later manuscript tradition of Aristophanes' Peace",
CQ 48 (1998) 62- 74; see also the introductions to his editions of Peace (1998) and
Acharnians (2002).

7. Drama as a visual art

There are useful brief surveys of the performance aspects of Greek tragedy by M.R.
Halleran in Bushnell ed. A Companion to Tragedy (2005) 198- 214 and by J. Davidson in
Gregory ed. A Companion to Greek Tragedy (2005).

1
One play included in Arnott’ s first volume, Epitrepontes, has been augmented since then (and
even since Sandbach’ s revised Oxford text of 1990) by several important new papyri. Arnott
re-edits lines 655-835 to take account of this material in D.L. Cairns and R.A. Knox ed. Law,
Rhetoric and Comedy in Classical Athens (2004) 269-292, at 282-8; on pp.279-281 he gives a
guide to new papyri from other parts of the play (his item (c) is now POxy 4641).
2
The old Oxford edition of Aristophanes, by F.W. Hall and W.M. Geldart, is an excellent example
of what a critical edition of a text should not be like.
 9

On the physical conditions of production see A.W. Pickard- Cambridge, The Theatre of
Dionysus in Athens (1946), a good guide to what was known and conjectured up to that
time; N.G.L. Hammond, "The conditions of dramatic production to the death of Aeschylus",
GRBS 13 (1972) 387- 450; S. Melchinger, Das Theater der Tragödie (1974); E. Simon, The
Ancient Theatre (Eng.tr. 1982); H.J. Newiger, "Drama und Theater", in G.A. Seeck ed. Das
griechische Drama (1979) 434- 503. E. Pöhlmann, "Die Proedrie des Dionysostheaters im
5. Jahrhundert und das Bühnenspiel der Klassik", Museum Helveticum 38 (1981) 129- 146,
formulated the now widely- accepted hypothesis that until the mid fourth century the
orchestra in the Theatre of Dionysos was not circular but rectangular or trapezoidal (see
also now, in English, J.C. Moretti, “The theater of the sanctuary of Dionysus Eleuthereus
in late fifth- century Athens”, in M.J. Cropp et al. ed. Euripides and Tragic Theater [2001]
377- 398); there is strong evidence in favour of this hypothesis, but there is also evidence
telling against it (e.g. no one has explained how circular dithyrambic choruses of 50 could
perform in an area of the postulated shape and dimensions – and they all tend to be coy
about specifying the dimensions), and the jury is still out (see, on the other side, S.
Scullion, Three Studies in Athenian Dramaturgy [1994]). The evidence of the dramatic
texts is put to good use by O.P. Taplin, The Stagecraft of Aeschylus (1977), R. Rehm,
Greek Tragic Theater (1992) and The Play of Space: Spatial Transformation in Greek
Tragedy (2002), and D. Wiles, Tragedy in Athens (1997); C.W. Dearden, The Stage of
Aristophanes (1976) is considerably less reliable, but C.F. Russo, Aristophanes: An Author
for the Stage (3rd ed. 1994) while often wrong- headed is always thoughtful and thought-
provoking. The relationship between words and stage action in tragedy is studied in
almost simultaneous articles by W.J. Slater, "Split- vision: secondary action in Greek
tragedy", GRBS 43 (2002/3) 341- 372, and J.P. Poe, "Word and deed: on 'stage- directions'
in Greek tragedy", Mnemosyne 54 (2003) 420- 448, both of whom, to different degrees,
reject the Taplin dogma that all significant stage action is signalled in the text.

On the festival competitions, see A.W. Pickard- Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of
Athens (3rd ed. 1988, rev. J. Gould and D.M. Lewis) and P.J. Wilson, The Athenian
Institution of the Khoregia (2000). For the evidence of art, see A.D. Trendall and T.B.L.
Webster, Illustrations of Greek Drama (1971); O.P. Taplin, Comic Angels and other
approaches to Greek drama through vase-paintings (1993), and especially J.R. Green and
E.W. Handley, Images of the Greek Theatre (1994); also the catalogues in T.B.L.
Webster, Monuments Illustrating Tragedy and Satyr-Play (2nd ed. 1967); T.B.L. Webster,
Monuments Illustrating Old and Middle Comedy (3rd ed. 1978, rev. J.R. Green); T.B.L.
Webster, Monuments Illustrating New Comedy 3rd ed. 1995, rev. J.R. Green and A.
Seeberg).

There is no good modern study of tragic costuming. For comedy, see L.M. Stone,
Costume in Aristophanic Comedy (1981) and D. Wiles, The Masks of Menander (1991);
the use made by Wiles (and by Webster and many others) of the mask- catalogue
preserved by the lexicographer Pollux is criticized by J.P. Poe, "The supposed conventional
meanings of dramatic masks: a re- examination of Pollux 4.133- 54", Philologus 140 (1996)
306- 328, who argues that Pollux's catalogue is probably not a list of "standard" types but
is based on the actual mask inventory of a specific acting company, and that the primary
function of New Comic masks was not to code for personality traits but, prosaically and
practically, to make sure that every character in a play looked different from every other.

On dramatists' theatrical techniques, see O.P. Taplin, The Stagecraft of Aeschylus (1977)
and Greek Tragedy in Action (1978); D. Seale, Vision and Stagecraft in Sophocles (1982);
N.C. Hourmouziades, Production and Imagination in Euripides (1965); and K. McLeish, The
Theatre of Aristophanes (1980). Of unique value are the new Everyman translations of
Aeschylus (2 vols., 1995- 6) and Sophocles (2 vols., 1999- 2000) by Michael Ewans, which
are accompanied by a detailed study of the staging of the plays, with particular reference
to movements ("blocking"), based on production experience and taking full account of the
findings of more traditional scholarship.
 10

On all matters connected with actors and acting, see now P.E. Easterling and E.M. Hall
ed. Greek and Roman Actors (2002). On acting styles see further J.R. Green, "Comic
cuts: snippets of action on the Greek comic stage", BICS 45 (2001) 37- 64 (exploiting
artistic evidence), who also argues that the four- step stage of early 4th- c. Italian vases
was raised to 6- 8 steps (about 1.6 metres) in or about the 360s – which, Goette has
argued, is the likeliest date for what used to be called the "Lycurgan" reconstruction of
the Athenian theatre. On the ancient image of the actor (which has given us the words
“hypocritical” and “histrionic”), see A. Duncan, Performance and Identity in the Classical
World (forthcoming 2005).

On an important and little- studied aspect of performance, see A.L. Boegehold, When a
Gesture was Expected (1999); his specific suggestions are often implausible, but it is
certainly true, especially in comedy, that a script often becomes much more intelligible
when it is remembered that the characters could speak with their hands as well as their
mouths.

8. Drama and gender

There is now an enormous literature on this subject. Particularly worth attention are N.
Loraux, Tragic Ways of Killing a Woman (1987); C.A. Powell ed. Euripides, Women and
Sexuality (1990); S. des Bouvrie, Women in Greek Tragedy (1991); V. Wohl, Intimate
Commerce : Exchange, Gender, and Subjectivity in Greek Tragedy (1998); L.K. Taaffe,
Aristophanes & Women (1993); V.J. Rosivach, When a Young Man Falls in Love: The
Sexual Exploitation of Women in New Comedy (1998); L. McClure, Spoken like a Woman:
Speech and Gender in Athenian Drama (1999); H.P. Foley, Female Acts in Greek Tragedy
(2001); J.M. Mossman, “Women’ s voices”, in Gregory ed. A Companion to Greek Tragedy
(2005); V. Wohl, “Tragedy and feminism”, and S. Murnaghan, “Women in Greek tragedy”,
in Bushnell ed. A Companion to Tragedy (2005)

9. Drama, society and politics

As on many other matters, Easterling ed. The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy
offers an excellent starting- point; see esp. the contributions by P.A. Cartledge (pp.3- 35)
and S.D. Goldhill (at pp.343- 6), both of whom give plentiful references. Bushnell ed. A
Companion to Tragedy (2005) contains a chapter on “Tragedy and city” by D. Boedeker
and K.A. Raaflaub; see also now P.E. Easterling, “The image of the polis in Greek tragedy”,
in M.H. Hansen ed. The Imaginary Polis (2005).

Seven collections of papers exemplifying a number of important trends in current thinking

on this subject are J.J. Winkler and F.I. Zeitlin ed. Nothing to do with Dionysos? (1990);
A.H. Sommerstein et al. ed. Tragedy, Comedy and the Polis (1993); R.S. Scodel ed.
Theater and Society in the Classical World (1993); C.B.R. Pelling ed. Greek Tragedy and
the Historian (1997); G.W. Dobrov ed. The City as Comedy (1997); S.D. Goldhill and R.G.
Osborne ed. Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy (1999); and, with a broader
remit, D. Boedeker and K.A. Raaflaub ed. Democracy, Empire and the Arts in Fifth-
century Athens (1998). The view that Athenian tragedy was essentially and militantly
“democratic” has been most strongly championed by Richard Seaford, especially in
Reciprocity and Ritual (1994); see also his chapter “Tragic tyranny” in K.A. Morgan ed.
Popular Tyranny (2003).

An important paper bucking most of these trends is J. Griffin, "The social function of Attic
tragedy", CQ 48 (1998) 39- 61 (cf. also P.J. Rhodes, "Nothing to do with democracy:
Athenian drama and the polis", JHS 123 [2003] 104- 119; D.M. Carter, “Was Attic tragedy
democratic?”, Polis 21 [2004] 1- 25 [copy available from module convener]; and D.M.
Carter, The Politics of Greek Tragedy [2005]); one of Griffin's main targets, Seaford, has
responded in CQ 50 (2000) 30- 44, and the other, Goldhill, in JHS 120 (2000) 34- 56. A
valuable, balanced contribution to the debate is offered by J. Gregory, "Euripides as social
critic", G&R 49 (2002) 145- 162.
 11

C. Meier, The Political Art of Greek Tragedy (1993), is particularly valuable on Aeschylus,
on whom see also A.J. Podlecki, The Political Background of Aeschylean Tragedy (1967),
C.W. Macleod, "Politics in the Oresteia", JHS 102 (1982) 122- 144, and A.H. Sommerstein,
Aeschylean Tragedy (1996) 288- 295, 392- 421; on Euripides, J. Gregory, Euripides and the
Instruction of the Athenians (1991).

The claim that tragedy was "written by citizens … performed by citizens, and watched
almost exclusively by citizens" (Goldhill in the Cambridge Companion, p.344) is
comprehensively exploded by M. Kaimio, "The citizenship of the theatre- makers in
Athens", Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft 23 (1999) 43- 61 (copy
available from me): by "theatre- makers" she means those responsible for creating
theatrical performances (poets, actors, chorus members, choregoi).

Discussions of the relationship between old comedy and Athenian culture, society and
politics are innumerable. In addition to those offered by various contributors to the
Winkler- Zeitlin and Sommerstein et al. volumes (see above), see M. Heath, "Aristophanes
and the discourse of politics", in Dobrov ed. The City as Comedy, and S. Halliwell, "Comic
satire and freedom of speech in classical Athens", JHS 111 (1991) 48- 70, who both take
the view that comedy neither affected nor was expected to affect the public life of the
state. Against this, A.T. Edwards in the Scodel volume (see above) shows, with the help
of Bakhtin's theory of carnival masquerade, how what was originally a downmarket popular
entertainment may have been hijacked by an élite and used as an anti- democratic
weapon (so too, rather more crudely, D. Rosenbloom, "From ponêros to pharmakos:
theater, social drama, and revolution in Athens, 428- 404 BCE", Classical Antiquity 21
[2002] 283- 346), and J.J. Henderson, "Attic Old Comedy, frank speech, and democracy",
in Boedeker & Raaflaub (above) 255- 273, argues (not necessarily contradicting Edwards!)
that comedy's chosen voice was that of the ordinary man who felt, even in a democracy,
that in practice he was controlled by an élite; see also his chapter “Demos, demagogue,
tyrant in Old Comedy”, in K.A. Morgan ed. Popular Tyranny (2003). A thoughtfully argued
intermediate view will be found in C. Carey, "Comic ridicule and democracy", in R.G.
Osborne and S. Hornblower ed. Ritual, Finance, Politics (Oxford, 1994).

A.H. Sommerstein, "How to avoid being a komodoumenos", CQ 46 (1996) 327- 356,

examines whether comedy was politically biased in its choice of satirical targets; in
“Nephelokokkygia and Gynaikopolis: Aristophanes’dream cities” (in M.H. Hansen ed. The
Imaginary Polis [2005] 73- 99) he explores the nature and values of Old Comedy’ s ideal
state, and in “An alternative democracy and an alternative to democracy in Aristophanic
comedy” (in U. Bultrighini ed. Democrazia e antidemocrazia nel mondo greco
[forthcoming; copy available from me]) he argues – as had Geoffrey de Ste. Croix (The
Origins of the Peloponnesian War [1972] 355- 376) and Paul Cartledge (Aristophanes and
his Theatre of the Absurd [1990]) – that Aristophanes’plays betray him as a committed
(though not avowed) anti- democrat and pro- Spartan.
There has been less on new comedy, whose social connections are more ethically than
politically oriented; but see W.G. Arnott, "Moral values in Menander", Philologus 125
(1981) 215- 227; P.G.McC. Brown, "Love and marriage in Greek new comedy", CQ 43
(1993) 189- 205; and S. Lape, Reproducing Athens: Menander’s Comedy, Democratic
Culture, and the Hellenistic City (2004). Both periods (and Molière too) are examined from
a Marxist (or at least marxisant) standpoint in D. Konstan, Greek Comedy and Ideology
(1995).

On the presentation of non- Greeks in drama, especially tragedy, see E.M. Hall, Inventing
the Barbarian (1989), and P.A. Cartledge, The Greeks: A Portrait of Self and Others
(1993).

An important institution linking theatre, society and (sometimes) politics is discussed

comprehensively in P.J. Wilson, The Athenian Institution of the Khoregia (2000).
 12

On the problems and principles of using drama (and other literary texts) as sources of
evidence about contemporary society, see C.B.R. Pelling, Literary Texts and the Greek
Historian (2000).

9. Drama and religion

There are now several good introductions to ancient Greek religion – which is perhaps the
most difficult of all aspects of the ancient Greek world for the modern mind to understand.
Among those that can be recommended are W. Burkert, Greek Religion (1985); J.N.
Bremmer, Greek Religion (1994); L.B. Zaidman and P.S. Pantel, Religion in the Ancient
Greek City (1992); R. Garland, Relgion and the Greeks (1994); S.R.L. Price, Religions of
the Ancient Greeks (2000); J.D. Mikalson, Ancient Greek Religion (2004); and Robert
Parker's chapter on Greek religion in J. Boardman et al. ed. The Oxford History of the
Classical World (1986). There have till very recently been few general studies of the role
of gods and (at least as important) of ritual acts in dramas; but see now C. Sourvinou-
Inwood, Tragedy and Athenian Religion [2003] (and her contributions to Bushnell ed. A
Companion to Tragedy and to Gregory ed. A Companion to Greek Tragedy); E. Stehle,
“Choral prayer in Greek tragedy: euphemia or aischrologia?”, in P.A. Murray and P.J. Wilson
ed. Music and the Muses [2004] 121- 155); and D.J. Mastronarde, “The gods”, in Gregory
ed. A Companion to Greek Tragedy (2005).

It was an old complaint (older than Aeschylus!) that tragedy had "nothing to do with
Dionysus", at whose festivals it was performed; recent scholarship has been much
concerned with proving, or trying to prove, that this complaint was misguided. See for
example the chapters by Winkler and Goldhill in Winkler & Zeitlin ed. Nothing to do with
Dionysos? (1990), and by Cartledge and Easterling in Easterling ed. The Cambridge
Companion to Greek Tragedy (1997); also, on drama and the Dionysiac, T.H. Carpenter
and C.A. Faraone ed. Masks of Dionysus (1993), especially the contributions by Seaford
and Zeitlin, A.F.H. Bierl, Dionysos und die griechische Tragödie (1991), and I. Lada-
Richards, Initiating Dionysus (1999); and on a wide variety of aspects of the relationship
between tragedy, ritual and society, R. Seaford, Reciprocity and Ritual (1994) – though
this is a highly controversial work. Seaford debates with Rainer Friedrich in M.S. Silk ed.
Tragedy and "The Tragic" (1996) 257- 294, and is one of the contributors to Bushnell ed.
A Companion to Tragedy (2005). The whole trend of the last generation's scholarship in
this area is vigorously opposed by S. Scullion in "'Nothing to do with Dionysus': tragedy
misconceived as ritual", CQ 52 (2002) 102- 137; see also his chapter in Gregory ed. A
Companion to Greek Tragedy.
 13

10. Critical methodologies

The modern (and postmodern) critical theories and techniques that have been applied to
Greek tragedy (and, to a lesser extent, comedy) may be grouped into two categories:

(1) The application to Greek drama of the findings of, and of methods, theories and
ideologies developed in, disciplines not primarily concerned with the study of literary
texts, such as anthropology (e.g. structuralism), sociology (e.g. Marxism, feminism) and
psychology (e.g. psychoanalysis). Apart from the feminist approaches (for which see §8
above), the works in this area most likely to appeal to the uncommitted are those inspired
by Lévi- Straussian structuralism; outstanding examples are J.P. Vernant & P. Vidal-
Naquet, Myth and Tragedy in Ancient Greece (Eng. tr. 1990) and C.P. Segal, Tragedy and
Civilization (1981), Interpreting Greek Tragedy (1986) and Sophocles’ Tragic World
(1995). This approach, indeed, has been so influential that it has now, as Goldhill writes
(Cambridge Companion 343), “been very widely absorbed into the mainstream of criticism,
often without acknowledgement as such”.

(2) The application to Greek drama of explicitly formulated theories of literary criticism.
The approach that has attracted most attention in this regard is that associated with
the names of Roland Barthes and Jacques Derrida, characterized by a focus on the text
rather than the author and on the problematization of language and communication; the
most notable articulator of this approach in English has been Simon Goldhill, especially in
The Oresteia: language, sexuality, narrative (1984) and the somewhat more accessible
Reading Greek Tragedy (1986) and The Poet’s Voice (1991) – the latter also has an
interesting discussion of Aristophanes. Since drama is itself (among other things) a form
of linguistic communication, considerable attention has come to be paid to the
presentation of drama (or of drama- like activities) within drama (often called
“metatheatre”); this is a leading concern, for example, of Mark Ringer’ s Electra and the
Empty Urn (1998), of Niall Slater’ s Aristophanic study Spectator Politics (2002), and of
much recent discussion of the most metatheatrical of all surviving ancient dramas,
Aristophanes’Thesmophoriazusae. Here too there has been a tendency to absorb once-
controversial approaches “into the mainstream” while smoothing away some of their most
controversial features (such as a tendency, in some hands, virtually to elide from critical
consideration the designing mind of the author and the historical context of a work).

General surveys of recent critical approaches to Greek drama have tended to concentrate
on (1) rather than (2); this applies even to the best of them, that by Goldhill in Easterling
ed. The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy (1997) 324- 347, and also to the
chapters on critical approaches in Bushnell ed. A Companion to Tragedy (2005), which
cover psychoanalysis (J.R. Lupton), Marxist and post- Marxist materialism (H. Grady), and
feminism (V. Wohl), but do not treat any literary- critical theory as a separate object of
discussion.