Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:27:58.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Great Dionysia and civic ideology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2013

Simon Goldhill
Simon Goldhill
Affiliation:
King's College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There have been numerous attempts to understand the role and importance of the Great Dionysia in Athens, and it is a festival that has been made crucial to varied and important characterizations of Greek culture as well as the history of drama or literature. Recent scholarship, however, has greatly extended our understanding of the formation of fifth-century Athenian ideology—in the sense of the structure of attitudes and norms of behaviour—and this developing interest in what might be called a ‘civic discourse’ requires a reconsideration of the Great Dionysia as a city festival. For while there have been several fascinating readings of particular plays with regard to the polis and its ideology, there is still a considerable need to place the festival itself in terms of the ideology of the polis. Indeed, recent critics in a justifiable reaction away from writers such as Gilbert Murray have tended rather to emphasize on the one hand that the festival is a place of entertainment rather than religious ritual, and on the other hand that the plays should be approached primarily as dramatic performances.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 107 , November 1987 , pp. 58 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Particularly since Nietzsche's The birth of tragedy (on which see Silk, M. S. and Stern, J. P., Nietzsche on tragedy [Cambridge 1981]CrossRefGoogle Scholar especially 90–131). Many histories of Greek culture, or elements in Greek culture, have extended discussions of tragedy, e.g. Dodds, E. R., The Greeks and the irrational (Berkeley 1951)Google Scholar or Snell, B., The discovery of the mind trans. Rosenmeyer, T. (Oxford 1953)Google Scholar. I have found especially interesting Vernant, J.-P. and Vidal-Naquct, P., Myth and tragedy in ancient Greece trans. Lloyd, J. (Brighton 1981)Google Scholar especially chapters 1–3.

2 I am thinking especially of the studies of Vernant, Vidal-Naquct, Detienne, Loraux and their followers. See e.g. Vernant, J.-P., Myth and society in ancient Greece trans. Lloyd, J. (Brighton 1980)Google Scholar, Myth and thought among the Greeks (London 1983)Google Scholar; Vidal-Naquet, P., Le chasseur noir: formes de pensée et formes de societé dans le monde grec (Paris 1981)Google Scholar; Detienne, M., Les maîtres de verité dans la grèce archaique (Paris 1967)Google Scholar; Detienne, M. and Vernant, J.-P., Cunning intelligence in Greek culture and society trans. Lloyd, J. (Brighton 1978)Google Scholar; Loraux, N., L'invention d'Athènes (Paris 1981)Google Scholar (hereafter L'invention); Les enfants d'Athéna (Paris 1981)Google Scholar (hereafter Les enfants). for the extensive influence of Vernant in particular, see Arethusa xvi 1 & 2 (1983)Google Scholar.

3 See for example N. Loraux, Les enfants, particularly 157–253. Zeitlin, F., Under the sign of the shield: semiotics and Aeschylus' Seven against Thebes (Rome 1981)Google Scholar particularly 15–51. Foley, H., Ritual irony: poetry and sacrifice in Euripides (Ithaca 1985)Google Scholar. See also Goldhill, S., Reading Greek tragedy (Cambridge 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially ch. 3.

4 Taplin, O., Greek tragedy in action (London 1978) 162CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Pickard-Cambridge, A.The dramatic festivals of Athens 2 (Oxford 1968) 58Google Scholar ff.

6 See Pickard-Cambridge (n. 5) 59–61, with bibliography (especially 61 n. 1).

7 IG ii2 1028, IG ii2 1008. The earliest reference to this is 127–6 bc (SEG xv 104).

8 See Pickard-Cambridge (n. 5) 61–3. A second-century inscription (IG ii2 1006) separates the εἰσαγωγή and the πομπή.

9 Seaford, R., CQ xxxi (1981) 252–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 As Thomson, G.Aeschylus and Athens 2 (London 1946) 165–74Google Scholar assumes in his description of the festival.

11 It is suggested plausibly (Pickard-Cambridge [n. 5] 74–9) that the Dithyrambic competition took place in the two days before the dramas.

12 See Pickard-Cambridge (n. 5) 71–3, 101–4.

13 See (contra Müller) Pickard-Cambridge (n. 5) 68.

14 Pélékedis, C., Histoire de l'éphébie attique (Paris 1962)Google Scholar, especially appendix 3, 301–6.

15 Allen, J. T., On the program of the City Dionysia during the Peloponensian War, U. Cal. Publ. in Class. Phil. xii 3 (1938) 35–42Google Scholar.

16 There is no mention of these ceremonies in Taplin (n. 4), Vernant and Vidal-Naquet (n. 1), nor, for example, in Arnott, P.An Introduction to the Greek theatre (London 1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Lesky, A., Greek Tragedy trans. Frankfort, H. A., (London 1965)Google Scholar, and, most recently, Walton, M. J., The Greek sense of theatre (London 1984)Google Scholar. They are mentioned briefly without any analysis by Baldry, H. L., The Greek tragic theatre (London 1981) 27,Google Scholar and Loraux, L'invention 26–31 discusses the orphans briefly in terms of the ephebeia but not in terms of the theatre. Cartledge, P., in Greek religion and society ed. Easterling, P. E. and Muir, J. V. (Cambridge 1985)Google Scholar, briefly mentions the possible political significance of three of the ceremonials, but does not consider the plays, or the overall effects of the festival.

17 Pickard-Cambridge (n. 5) 95–6.

18 The fragmentary state of the inscription makes certainty here finally impossible. There is for example a surprising reference in one year (333 BC) to a sacrifice by the generals at the temple of Ammon. It is not known when or why Ammon became part of state religion in Athens, but Foucart, noting this inscription and the name Ammonias given to a sacred galley as mentioned in Aristotle Ath. Pol. 61, suggests that 333 was the year of the inauguration of the temple of Ammon in Athens, and hence the sacrifice by the generals: Foucart, P., REG vi (1893) 6–7,Google Scholar and see SIG1 580.

19 Raubitschek, A., TAPA lxxii (1941) 356–62Google Scholar.

20 Raubitschek (n. 19) 358–9 (referring to Merritt, B. D., Documents on Athenian tribute [Cambridge 1937] 50,Google Scholar n. 3) goes so far as to suggest that each talent was carried in a terracotta vessel of the sort known to have been used to store and transport money, or perhaps in leather bags, similar to those seen in an extant fragment of a relief that surmounted a decree concerning the collection of Athenian tribute.

21 Pearson, L., CP xxxvi (1941) 228Google Scholar.

22 Rogers, B. B., The Archarnians of Aristophanes (London 1910) 76Google Scholar.

23 On the date of the ἐπιτάφοι λὸγοι and public grave stelai, see Clairmont, C. W., Pathos nomos: public burial in Athens during the fifth and fourth centuries BC (London 1983) 16–45;Google Scholar Loraux, L'invention 28 ff. Jacoby, F., JHS lxiv (1944) 37–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar has been tellingly questioned by Bradeen, D. W., CQ xix (1969) 145–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In general, see also Stupperich, R., Staatsbegräbnis und Privatesgrabmal im klassischen Athen (Diss. Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität zu Münster 1977)Google Scholar.

24 See for discussion and bibliography, e.g. Harding, P.CSCA vi (1973) 137–49Google Scholar. Isocrates' treatment of the ceremonial is particularly important in emphasizing that while one may talk of the expected norms of an ideology, (even in the complex, developing world of the fifth-century polis), the construction of the meaning of the ceremonials depends also on the viewer. The relations of individuals in and to an ideology cannot be considered as necessarily determined or univocal.

24b On ἄνδρες ἀγαθοιὶ γενόμενοι, see Loraux L'invention s.v. ‘agathoi’, especially 99–101.

25 Vernant, J.-P.Myth and society in ancient Greece (Brighton 1980) 23,Google Scholar quoted by Lloyd-Jones, H., JHS ciii (1983) 99Google Scholar.

26 See Vernant (n. 25) 19–70. See also e.g. F. Zeitlin, Arethusaxv (1982) 129–57. For interesting collections of essays on this and related topics, see Foley, H., (ed) Reflections of women in antiquity (London, Paris, New York 1982)Google Scholar; Arethusa vi (1973)Google Scholar and xi (1978); Cameron, A. and Kuhrt, A. (edd) Images of women in antiquity (London and Melbourne 1983)Google Scholar. A good general introduction is Gould, J. P., JHS c (1980) 38–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I have discussed this material with regard to tragedy in Goldhill (n. 3) ch. 5.

27 See Vernant (n. 25) 19–70; see also Vernant, J.-P. (ed.), Problèmes de la guèrre engrece ancienne (Paris 1968)Google Scholar, and the sensible comments of Davies, J. K., Democracy and classical Greece (Hassocks 1978) 31Google Scholar ff.

28 Medea 250–1. See the excellent study of Loraux, N., ‘Le lit, la guerre’, L'homme xxi 1 (1981) 37–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 See e.g. the works cited in n. 25, n. 26, n. 27.

30 A vast bibliography could be given. Van Gennep, A., Les rites de passage (Paris 1908)Google Scholar remains standard. For a standard case study (and further bibliography on cross cultural parallels), see Turner, V. W., The forest of symbols (Ithaca, N.Y. 1967)Google Scholar and The ritual process (Rochester 1969)Google Scholar. For the classical material, see Jeanmaire, H., Couroi et Couretes (Lille 1939)Google Scholar; Brelich, A., Paides e Parthenoi (Rome 1969)Google Scholar; Calame, C., Les choeurs de jeunes files en Grèce archaique (Rome 1977)Google Scholar.

31 Plato Ion 530b9–10. See Detienne (n. 2), and Goldhill (n. 3) especially ch. 6.

32 See the comments of Dover, K., Popular morality in the time of Plato and Aristotle (Oxford 1974) 229–34Google Scholar.

33 Finley, M. I., Politics in the ancient world (Cambridge 1983) 60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 I am aware that in the available space I will not be able to do justice to the subtlety of Loraux's argument or the wealth of her material. Since Loraux, a further long study in English has been published—Clairmont (n. 23)—which sets out the evidence usefully but lacks Loraux's grasp of the issues. For a good correction of Clairmont on Herms, see Osborne, R., PCPS xxxi (1985) 47–73Google Scholar.

35 For descriptions of these stelai, see in particular Bradeen (n. 23); Clairmont (n. 23) 46–59; also Bradeen, D. W., Hesperia xxxiii (1964) 16–62;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Hesperia xxxvi (1967) 321–8;Google Scholar and Hesperia xxxvii (1968) 237–40Google Scholar. Loraux L'invention 31 ffhas an interesting discussion.

36 See Thuc. ii 35. For bibliography on the question, see Clairmont (n. 23) 250 n. 17. For the important role of the Marathon victors and their memorial see Clairmont (n. 23) 10 f, and particularly Loraux L'invention s.v. ‘Marathon’ especially 157–73. For contrasting views on the reference to Marathon in Thuc. ii 35, see Konishi, H., AJPh ci (1980) 35Google Scholar ff, especially n. 19; andxs Ostwald, M., Nomos and the beginnings of Athenian democracy (Oxford 1969) 175Google Scholar.

37 Clairmont (n. 23) 20.

38 See Loraux, N., ‘Mourir devant Troie, tomber pour Athénes: de la gloire du héros à l'idée de la cité’ in La mort, les morts dans les anciennes societés eds. Gnoli, G. and Vernant, J.-P. (Cambridge and Paris 1982) 28Google Scholar.

39 Loraux L'invention 22–3

40 Conveniently listed in Bradeen (n. 23) 147, with references. There are also xenoi mentioned on some lists. For the evidence, see Bradeen (n. 23) 149–51; for discussion see Loraux L'invention 33–5, who concludes (35); ‘pour les astoi comme pour les étrangers les regles d'inscription ont probablement varié au cours de l'histoire athénienne: oscillant entre l'exclusivisme et l'ouverture, entre une conception large et une conception étroite du statut d'Athenien.’

41 Loraux (n. 38) 28.

42 See e.g. Lacey, W. K., The family in classical Greece (London 1968)Google Scholar; Glotz, G., La solidarité de la famille dans le droit criminal en Grèce (Paris 1904)Google Scholar.

43 Humphreys, S., The family, women, and death (London 1983)Google Scholar, especially 1–32; Finley, M. I., Economy and society in ancient Greece (London 1981) 77–94;Google Scholar see also Dover (n. 32) 301–6.

44 A good example of this shift in vocabulary is to be found in Plato's Crito, especially 50C3 ff.

45 See the remarks of Finley (n. 33) 122 ff, e.g. 125 ‘Not all Athenians held the same views and not all Greeks were Athenians, but the evidence is decisive that nearly all of them would have accepted as premises, one might say as axioms, that the good life was possible only in a polis.’

46 Vidal-Naquet, P., ‘Oedipe entre deux cités’, in Mythe et tragedie deux (Paris 1986)Google Scholar; Zeitlin, F. ‘Thebes: theater of self and society in Athenian drama’ in Euben, J. P. (ed.), Greek tragedy and political theory (Berkeley 1986 102)Google Scholar, who suggests that ‘We look at Thebes as a topos in both senses of the word: as a designated place, a geographical locale, and figuratively, as a recurrent concept or formula, or what we call a “commonplace” … This … can also illuminate the ideological uses of the theater in Athens as it portrays a city on stage which is meant to be dramatically “other” than itself’.

47 See Goldhill, S., Language, sexuality, narrative: the Oresteia (Cambridge 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar ch. 3.

48 Knox, B. M. W., The heroic temper (Berkeley 1964)Google Scholar passim; Winnington-Ingram, R. I., Sophocles: an interpretation (Cambridge 1980) 11CrossRefGoogle Scholar ff, and especially, 304 ff. And on Ajax specifically, see now Easterling, P. E., ‘The tragic Homer’, BICS xxxi (1984) 1–8Google Scholar.

49 A common notion in anthropology developed from van Gennep (n. 30). See e.g. Leach, E. R., ‘On time and false noses’ in Rethinking anthropology (London 1966)Google Scholar.

50 See e.g. Vidal-Naquet (n. 2); Jeanmairc (n. 30); Brelich (n. 30); Calame (n. 30).

51 Winnington-Ingram (n. 48) 307.

52 See Goldhill (n. 3) ch. 6 for discussion and bibliography.

53 I have discussed in particular O.T. and Antigone in such terms in Goldhill (n. 3) chh. 4, 6, 8.

54 The scholia suggest it is only part of the island that is deserted—presumably to reconcile Sophocles' description with Homeric and indeed contemporary Lemnos. Both Aeschylus and Euripides in their plays on Philoctetes seem to have used choruses of Lemnians.

55 For a good critical survey, see Easterling, P. E.ICS iii (1978) 27–39Google Scholar. Since that article, two important studies have appeared, Winnington-Ingram (n. 48) and Segal, C. P., Tragedy and civilization: an interpretation of Sophocles (Cambridge, Mass. 1981)Google Scholar.

56 Emphasized often—e.g. 336 ἀλλ' εὑγενὴς μὲν ὁ κτάυων τε χὠ θανν. See P. W. Rose, HSCP lxxx (1976) 50–105, especially 97 n. 97.

57 On the changing senses of γενναῖος in this play, see Avery, H. C., Hermes xciii (1965) 289Google Scholar.

58 Compare 974 where Odysseus enters to echo Neoptolemos' question τί δρῶμεν, ἄνδρες; with ῷ κάκιστ' ἆνδρῶν, τί δρᾷς;

59 The threat of desertion recalls his father at Troy, as well as, say, Agamemnon's different plight in Aeschylus' Oresteia, where he asks πῶς λιττόναυς γέωμαι/ξυμμαχίας άμαρτών; Ag. 212–3.

60 Winnington-Ingram (n. 48) 298.

61 Each of these positions has been adopted. For a survey see Easterling (n. 55).

62 Winnington-Ingram (n. 48) 301. Gill, C., G&R xxvii (1980) 137–45Google Scholar and Mathiessen, K., Wurz.Jahr. vii (1981) 11–26,Google Scholar both have interesting comments particularly on the sense of reintegration of Philoctetes as hero and man, but both underestimate the problematic nature of Neoptolemos' dilemma for the ending of the play.

63 See Rose (n. 56) passim.

64 Vernant and Vidal-Naquet (n. 1) 185–6. See also Vidal-Naquet (n. 2) 125–207.

65 See Segal (n. 55) 292–361; Winnington-Ingram (n. 48) 301 and BICS xxvi (1979) 10–11;Google Scholar Easterling (n. 55) 36–9; and the highly polemical di Benedetto, V., Belfagor xxxiii (1978) 191–207Google Scholar.

66 οὐδὲ λείψω τὸν παραστάτην ὄπου ἁν στοχήσω. On the date of the ephebeia and the ephebic oath, see below 74–75.

67 A vast bibliography could be given; see e.g. on Septem, Zeitlin (n. 3); on Antigone, see Segal (n. 55) 152–206; Rosivach, V., ICS iv (1979) 16–36;Google ScholarHogan, J., Arethusa v (1972) 93–100;Google Scholar on the Oedipus Tyrannus, see Segal (n. 55) 207–48.

68 A vast bibliography could be given. In general, see Vernant and Vidal-Naquet (n. 1) chapters 1–3; on Aeschylus, see Goldhill (n. 47); Zeitlin (n. 3); on Sophocles, see Segal (n. 55) 52–9, and his index under ‘Language’; on Euripides, see on e.g. Hippolytus for discussion and bibliography Goldhill (n. 3) ch. 5.

69 ‘Tragic moment’ is Vernant's phrase; see Vernant and Vidal-Naquet (n. 1) chh. 1–3.

70 Vidal-Naquet (n. 2) passim; Zeitlin, F., Arethusa xi (1978) 149–84;Google ScholarSegal, C., Dionysiac poetics and Euripides' Bacchae (Princeton 1982) 158–214Google Scholar. See also Goldhill (n. 47) 193–5.

71 See Siewart, P., JHS lxxxxvii (1977) 102–11;CrossRefGoogle ScholarMcCulloch, H. Y. and Cameron, H. D., ICS v (1980) 1–14Google Scholar.

72 See Reinmuth, O., The Ephebic inscriptions of the fourth century BC (Leiden 1971);Google Scholar Pélékedis (n. 14), especially 7–17.

73 Mathieu, G., ‘Remarques sur l'éphébie attique’ in Mélanges Desrousseux (Paris 1937) 311–18Google Scholar. Mathieu had been anticipated by Bryant, A. A., HSCP xviii (1907) 87Google Scholar and n. 4. It is important that this ceremonial constitutes for the orphans the conclusion of ephebic status, as they now take their place in the hoplite rank. Their assumption of full armour, therefore, is a significant gesture in marking this conclusion, since the ephebe is conceived of as lightly armed specifically in contrast with the panoply of the hoplite. In the theatre, they appear as ἄνδρες πολῖται for the first time (in full armour).

74 Mathieu (n. 73) 313. Wilamowitz, who admittedly did not have the inscriptional evidence now available, is nonetheless importantly mistaken particularly when he argues that the ephebeia could not be a fifth-century phenomenon because of its ‘anti-democratic’ nature (Aristoteles und Athen i [Berlin 1893] 191, 193–4)Google Scholar. Wilamowitz is criticized by Pélékedis (n. 14) 8–14.

75 Reinmuth, O., The foreigners in the Athenian Ephebeia (Nebraska 1929) 6Google Scholar.

76 For an attempt to show how closely linked tragedy and ephebes may be, see now Winkler, J. J., ‘The ephebes' song: tragôida and polis’, Representations xi (1985) 26–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77 For an interesting survey and bibliography, see Henrichs, A., HSCP lxxxviii (1984) 205–40Google Scholar.

78 Henrichs (n. 77). See also J. N. Bremmer, ZPElv (1984) 267–86; Henrichs, A., HSCP lxxxii (1978) 14–65;Google Scholar and most recently Daraki, M., Dionysos (Paris 1985)Google Scholar.

79 Daraki (n. 78) 28; 232.

80 Segal (n. 70) 234.

81 Segal (n. 70) 266.

82 A draft of this paper was first written for a seminar at Corpus Christi College, Oxford. Thanks are due for the invitation, and to all who offered generous and helpful comments, especially E. Bowie, A. Bowie, C. Sourvinou-Inwood, and O. Taplin. Thanks, too, to J. Henderson and R. Osborne with whom I discussed and improved this paper, to Mrs P. E. Easterling, and to the editor and readers of JHS for comments.