The Attic theatre : $b a description of the stage and theatre of the Athenians, and of the dramatic performances at AthensHaigh, A. E. (Arthur Elam)
History
The Attic theatre : $b a description of the stage and theatre of the Athenians, and of the dramatic performances at Athens
Haigh, A. E. (Arthur Elam)
Athens (Greece) -- Intellectual life; Greek drama -- History and criticism; Theater -- Greece -- Athens -- History -- To 500
None of the public monuments, of which fragments have been recovered,
appear to have been erected before the third century, or, at the
earliest, the latter part of the fourth century B.C. But there can
be no doubt that similar monuments existed at a much earlier period.
These earlier records, together with the choregic inscriptions and the
documents in the public archives, must have been the source from which
Aristotle derived the information contained in his two books about
the contests at the Dionysia. Of these two books the first was called
‘Dionysiac Victories’, and though it is never quoted by ancient writers,
it probably contained the same sort of information as the first and third
classes of public monuments. The other book was called the ‘Didascaliae’,
and is very frequently referred to and quoted from.[187] It contained
lists of the poets who competed at each festival, together with the names
of the plays they produced. It was therefore similar to the second class
of monuments. ‘Didascalia,’ in its dramatic sense, meant originally the
teaching and training of a chorus. It then came to denote the play or
group of plays produced by a poet at a single festival.[188] Lastly, it
was used to denote a record concerning the production of a play or group
of plays. It is in this sense that Aristotle used it as the title of his
book. The work would not be a mere compilation from existing records and
monuments. It must have required some care and research. For instance,
when a poet had his plays brought out vicariously, we cannot doubt that
the name of the nominal author was entered in the public records, and
not that of the real poet. Aristophanes usually brought out his plays in
this manner. Then again a poet’s plays were sometimes brought out after
his death in the name of his son. In these and similar cases it would
be the duty of the compiler of a work like Aristotle’s to correct the
mistakes of the public records, and to substitute where necessary the
name of the real author of the play. Corrections of this kind were no
doubt made by Aristotle and his successors. The Didascaliae of Aristotle
is the ultimate source of our information as to the production and the
success of the plays of the great Athenian dramatists. Callimachus,
the grammarian of Alexandria, wrote a book of a similar kind, based
upon Aristotle’s work.[189] It was from Callimachus that Aristophanes,
the grammarian, derived the information which he incorporated in his
Arguments to the Greek plays.[190] The existing Arguments are mainly
fragments of the work of Aristophanes.[191] Thus the process of
derivation from Aristotle can be traced step by step. The list of victors
at the City Dionysia for the year 458, which was dug up at Athens a few
years ago, tallies in every particular with the facts recorded in the
Argument to the Agamemnon of Aeschylus.[192]
CHAPTER II
THE PREPARATION FOR THE CONTESTS
§ 1. _The Poets._
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account