January Conference 1999
THEATRE
: ANCIENT & MODERN
Return
to contents
Initial
Entrances in Three Sophoclean Tragedies
David
Fitzpatrick, University of Nottingham, U.K.
The entrance of a
character in a Greek tragedy is often announced by another character
who is already present in the acting area. However, this arrangement
was not possible for the characters who entered at the beginning
of a play. In such instances the audience had to wait for essential
details, such as characters' names and dramatic situation, to
emerge from the words of the characters themselves. This paper
considers the initial entrances that marked the beginning of three
Sophoclean tragedies. It attempts to envisage how such entrances
were arranged in the original production and the implications
for the development of a particular tragedy's themes and characters.
1. Does the Nurse
enter with Deianeira in Trachiniae?
The action begins
with an entrance from the skene while the spoken part of
the prologue begins with a speech by Deianeira (1-48). A staging
problem with the initial entrance is whether or not Deianeira
is attended by the Nurse. The confusion over the precise arrangement
comes from the fact that in her forty-eight line opening speech
Deianeira makes no reference to the presence of the Nurse.[1]
The first textual indication that the Nurse is present is her
own eleven-line contribution immediately after Deianeira's speech
(49-60). There are of course two possibilities; either the Nurse
enters with Deianeira or Deianeira enters alone. Taking the latter
arrangement there are two further possibilities. Either the Nurse
enters at the end of Deianeira's speech or she enters at some
point during the speech. The second can be discounted for dramatic
reasons. An entrance during the monologue would be a distraction
and there is little that the actor playing the Nurse could have
done by way of gestures or movements to make the entrance appropriate
in a manner that would not distract from the ongoing speech of
Deianeira.[2] Furthermore, it would
be highly unusual in a Greek tragedy to have a secondary figure,
such as the Nurse here, to enter during a speech by a main character.
The other arrangement is more plausible and in fact there is something
superficially attractive about the argument for it. If the Nurse
were to enter at the end of Deianeira's speech, then her solitary
presence on stage would reflect the general tone and content of
the monologue/soliloquy that builds up a picture of Deianeira's
emotional state. In her speech Deianeira clearly conveys an impression
of her loneliness and helplessness in the absence of her husband
Herakles. Therefore, the dramatic arrangement of an unattended
Deianeira during the monologue would emphasise her predicament.[3]
This seems a persuasive argument. However, it will be shown here
that the dramatic arrangement of Deianeira attended by the Nurse
is not only correct but also one that conveys something about
the character of Deianeira in this play.
The form of the prologue
in Trachiniae is unique among the extant Sophoclean tragedies
because it begins with a set speech rather than dialogue.[4]
Although it appears to be similar to the usual Euripidean manner
of beginning a tragedy,[5] it is
generally accepted that its ultimate function is entirely different
to the summarising speeches by characters in Euripidean prologues.[6]
It is further agreed that the speech gives a good impression of
the personality of Deianeira in the play by introducing the audience
to a character that is weak, timid and fearful. Recently Jennifer
March has argued that this characterisation is a significant contrast
to the Deianeira of earlier mythology.[7]
There is evidence for a woman who is not the meek, passive character
of the prologue, but an Amazon like figure. In fact, the etymology
of her name, meaning man or husband killer, is an indication of
this other established personality in myth - a Deianeira who deliberately
murdered her husband for his frequent infidelities. The evidence
for this other Deianeira falls into two categories: references
before the Sophoclean tragedy and later ones. Although the bulk
of the explicit material falls into the latter category, nevertheless
the general picture strongly suggests that there was an established
tradition associated with the etymology of the name.[8]
The post-Sophoclean evidence includes the following from Apollodorus
1.8.1 when describing the genealogy of the house of Oineus, he
says:
This [Deianeira]
drove a chariot and practised the art of war, and Herakles
wrestled for her hand with Acheloos.
References to Herakles'
battle with the Dryopes by the Scholia on Apollonius' Argonautica
1.1212 and by Nonnus in his Dionysiaca 35.89-91 also exhibit
this martial Deianeira. The Dryopes attacked Herakles for stealing
a ploughing-ox. In the ensuing battle he was placed in such difficulties
that he armed Deianeira who was wounded in the breast as a result
of the fighting.[9] There are two
pieces of pre-Sophoclean evidence. One is a vase dated to c. 680
BC where Deianeira is depicted as holding the reins on a chariot
awaiting Herakles, who is about to finish off killing the centaur
Nessus. This could be an allusion to the chariot-driving Deianeira
of Apollodorus. The other is Bacchylides Ode 5, which is
dated to c. 476 BC,[10] where Herakles
meets Meleager in the underworld and is so moved by his fate the
he wants to marry a sister who has a similar nature. March argues
that the language of the ode associated with Meleager suggests
that Deianeira is meant to be equated with her brother's warlike
qualities.[11] She also adds that,
as the ode ends on the note of this marriage, it hints at the
death of Herakles at the hands of a woman like Meleager. Thus
the ode suggests a martial Deianeira who killed her husband with
premeditation.[12]
It is possible to
find other evidence of the passive Deianeira in the prologue that
contrasts with earlier mythology. For example, the Sophoclean
Deianeira claims that she was so frightened that she had been
unable to watch Herakles and Acheloos fighting for her hand in
marriage (9-24). However, an examination of the iconographical
evidence presented in LIMC for this contest reveals several
vases, predating the Sophoclean tragedy, in which Deianeira is
depicted watching this combat.[13]
This suggests that there was an established alternative version
and that Sophocles is deliberately emphasising his version in
the prologue. The overall effect of Deianeira's speech is clear.
There must have been great surprise in the Theatre of Dionysus
as the audience wondered how on earth this woman would be the
person who is ultimately responsible for the death of Herakles.
As Deianeira's speech is an important indication of how Sophocles
is deliberately altering the myth, there is no need to emphasise
her loneliness by bringing her on unattended. Furthermore this
would actually break the usual dramatic convention, as will be
discussed below.
But what is the function
of the Nurse in the prologue?[14]
Basically she makes a practical suggestion to Deianeira that Hyllus
should be sent to discover any information about Herakles (54-57).
However, before Deianeira has an opportunity to respond to this
advice, the Nurse announces the appearance and entry of Hyllus
along an eisodos (58-60). The remainder of the prologue
is acted out between Hyllus and Deianeira and the Nurse passes
once again into the background. In fact, as Hyllus arrives with
this information anyhow, the Nurse's advice is very much redundant.
Other than the practical advice and the announcement of Hyllus'
entrance, the Nurse has no real function in the prologue. It seems
strange that Sophocles chose to include the figure of the Nurse
at all and to organise the prologue in the way he did; after all,
the convenient entrance of Hyllus could have been mentioned by
Deianeira herself or she might have sent the Nurse to fetch him.
In fact, there are other possible arrangements and all suggest
that the entire scene could have been organised with the exclusion
of the Nurse. It needs to be explained why Sophocles included
the Nurse. The contribution of the Nurse is important for one
important reason: her advice further highlights this new Deianeira.
The mere fact that a lowly servant, something that is stressed
by Deianeira (61-2), is able to offer sound practical advice illustrates
precisely how passive and inert the Deianeira of Sophocles' play
really is. This complements the new characterisation of Deianeira
that is conveyed by her opening speech.[15]
In this explanation lies the solution to the problem about the
dramatic arrangement of the initial entrance.
There are many instances
in Greek tragedy where a remark by a principal character draws
attention to the presence of one or more other characters on stage
about whom there would have been no way of knowing their presence
without this specific indication in the text.[16]
Often the figures thus addressed have no speaking role and are
naturally called 'mutes'. The most obvious example of such mutes,
and most important for the present problem, are the attendants
to royal figures. In instances where attention is drawn to a mute,
a royal figure will issue an instruction and this mute will depart
to fulfil the order. The corollary of this is the following; royal
figures in Greek tragedy were normally accompanied by attendants.[17]
Sometimes these attendants were called upon to do something, and
other times they were simply ignored. In the prologue of Trachiniae,
Sophocles manipulated this convention for a specific reason. The
initial arrival on stage from the skene, which marked the
beginning of the play, consisted of the entry of Deianeira and
the Nurse. Thereafter, Deianeira made her speech in the presence
of the Nurse, who had taken up a position in the background.[18]
The audience would have assumed that the Nurse would not have
a role unless Deianeira addresses her. However, instead of having
Deianeira issue the orders, it is the Nurse who spoke to offer
her advice and tell her mistress what should be done. This arrangement
would have been the source of some surprise while fully complementing
the speech of Deianeira. The audience has been introduced to a
Deianeira who is a considerable contrast to the figure of earlier
myth. Instead of the woman who killed her husband with premeditation
because of his infidelities, there is a woman who loves her husband
and misses him terribly, a woman of great passivity who cannot
do anything by herself.[19] The
intervention of the Nurse with practical advice emphasises this
new Deianeira. What may at first appear as an almost superfluous
contribution complements the characterisation of Deianeira in
the play. Sophocles manipulated dramatic conventions to further
highlight his innovative characterisation of Deianeira.
2. The Entrance
and Position of Athena in Ajax
The spoken part of
the prologue begins with a speech by Athena but it becomes apparent
from her words that the play actually began with the entrance
of Odysseus.[20] Her words allow
a reconstruction of Odysseus' movements after his entrance. Obviously
the actor playing Odysseus entered along an eisodos and
then walked around in the orchestra examining the ground
as if looking for the footprints of Ajax: this is the implication
of Athena's description of Odysseus as a Laconian or Spartan hound
(7-8). Odysseus himself says in reply to the goddess that he has
indeed been 'circling around on the trail' of Ajax (19). Odysseus'
final position before Athena's speech is clearly indicated by
the goddess when she says that he is standing beside the door
of the skene (11) which represents, at this point, the
entrance to the tent of Ajax.[21]
Although there is
a clear indication about the position of Odysseus, it is impossible
to determine from the text at what point in the theatre Athena
enters and from where she actually addresses Odysseus. These problems
arise from Odysseus' initial words in reply to the goddess (14-17):
Voice of Athena,
dearest of gods to me, how easily do I
hear your words and grasp them with my mind, even if I
cannot see you, as though a Tyrrhenian trumpet spoke
with brazen mouth.
Obviously a great
deal turns on the interpretation of the latter part of line 15
and in particular the word ¥poptoj. Although it can mean 'invisible',
the semantic range also includes 'conspicuous at a distance'.[22]
The ambiguity is problematical but the generally accepted position
is that Athena is not visible to Odysseus at the start. Naturally,
this has lead to debate over the precise arrangement of the opening
scene. The proposal that Athena is visible neither to Odysseus
nor the audience because she speaks from off stage has not received
much support. The arguments in favour of this position are that
the comparison of Athena's voice to a trumpet (17) indicates the
increased volume necessary for this arrangement[23]
and that Sophocles is separating the divine and mortal spheres.[24]
It would be unique in tragedy to have a character deliver such
a lengthy contribution as Athena's from off stage and it would
probably have been impossible to effect without some acoustic
problems. The second argument does not make sense in the context
of the entire prologue. Athena is inextricably linked with the
action in the human sphere. This is seen when Ajax enters and
is still under the spell of madness she put on him (91 ff.).[25]
The accepted position
is that Athena is present in the acting area, and so visible to
the audience, but somehow invisible to Odysseus. However, it is
also agreed that Athena is visible to Odysseus after a while.
This movement from invisibility to visibility is not charted in
the text. There are two different opinions about how this was
arranged. The first proposes that Athena enter by appearing on
the theologeion.[26] The
second proposes that Athena enter along the eisodos used
by Odysseus.[27] The strength of
the theologeion position is that Odysseus' proximity to
the skene explains his inability to see the goddess. He
is pressed against the skene while Athena is several feet
above him. In contrast, proponents of the eisodos entrance
have sometimes resorted to artificial means, such as the use of
props,[28] to explain why Odysseus
is unable to see Athena. Nevertheless, it will be argued here
that an entrance along the eisodos is the correct arrangement
for the entry of the goddess.
Although there are
several other tragedies in which a deity appears in the prologue,
none are comparable to the situation at the beginning of the Ajax.
Other than Aeschylus' Eumenides, the gods do not address
the mortals and in some instances take great care to avoid contact
with the human characters.[29]
So, these tragedies are not much help in reaching a solution about
the dramatic arrangement of the beginning of the Ajax.
In fact, an examination of these prologues show conflicting possibilities
because the gods may have appeared on the theologeion in
some tragedies and at ground level in others. So it is not safe
to infer a convention about the location of deities in prologues
from existing plays.[30] There
is no solid evidence for one and it is more likely that the dramatist
would have created an opening that is dramatically appropriate
for the particular play. The problem remains about what the appropriate
arrangement is for the beginning of the Ajax and it must
be solved by the text of the play itself.[31]
An entrance along
the eisodos appears to be the logical understanding of
Athena's claim to have been following and guiding Odysseus (36-37).
The repeated use of p£lai (a long while) at 5, 20 and 36
(by Athena twice and Odysseus once) supports this view over an
appearance on the theologeion. In fact, Athena's claim
to have set out "on the road" (37) reinforces this terrestrial
position.[32] Admittedly this does
not answer the problem about why Odysseus says he is unable to
see Athena when he first speaks to her. There are two answers
to this. Firstly, there appears to have been a convention that
mortals can recognise deities by non-visual means when no explicit
declaration of identity has been made by the god.[33]
Secondly, a dramatist will allow his characters to see what he
wants them to see, or not see as it is in this situation.[34]
In fact, Odysseus' inability to see Athena at the beginning is
analogous to the situation just over ninety lines later when Ajax
enters. As the hero is still under the madness thrust upon him
by Athena, he is unable to see Odysseus although both men are
standing together at ground level. This contrast between divine
and mortal power is an important aspect of the prologue. Although
it is presented in terms of sight and knowledge,[35]
its ultimate significance pertains to divine power over mortals.
For example, Athena invites Odysseus to tell her of his objective
even though she knows it already (12-13). She has full sight and
knowledge, while human sight is limited. Then Odysseus is allowed
to view the situation from a divine standpoint when Ajax is brought
out and Athena' power is manifest. This conflict develops because
of the interaction between gods and mortals and it is enhanced
if all three actors are on the same level.[36]
Furthermore, the exchanges between the three characters on stage
are quite intimate. After the initial formalities between Athena
and Odysseus, their exchanges become more intimate and this is
conveyed by the use of stichomythia (36 ff.). Ajax's greeting
on entrance implies an intimacy with the goddess from the start.
More importantly, Ajax's use of par…sthmi at 92 and at 117
suggests a very close physical proximity between him and the goddess.
Ajax sees Athena at his side inspiring him in his revenge.[37]
He is right but not in the way he thinks. In fact the depiction
of the human characters and the goddess on ground level complements
the reasonably independent attitudes that both mortals display
towards Athena.[38] For example,
Odysseus refuses to laugh at the misfortune of his enemy despite
the encouragement of Athena (79). Similarly Ajax refuses to spare
Odysseus from the humiliation of whipping him before killing him,
despite the appeal of Athena (111). However, the difference between
Odysseus and Ajax is that the former respects and acknowledges
the power of the goddess. Later it is brought out that Athena
is punishing Ajax because he has not always shown the proper respect
to her (cf. 754-77). Ultimately Odysseus' experience of divine
intervention in the prologue leads him to a sympathetic response
to his enemy which enables him to get a reluctant Agamemnon to
permit the burial of Ajax (1332 ff.).
Even if the eisodos
entrance is accepted, there is still a problem with the precise
arrangement of the entrance of Athena. It is unnecessary have
the goddess following right behind Odysseus. At any rate, this
still leaves undetermined the precise location from which Athena
addresses Odysseus.[39] Perhaps
Athena addressed Odysseus from a spot along the eisodos
itself. Then as Odysseus spoke the goddess moved towards him.[40]
This arrangement retains the impression that Athena has been guiding
Odysseus to the tent of Ajax by following behind him at ground
level. It also explains why Odysseus cannot see the goddess without
resorting to artificial means such as concealment behind a prop.
Although the issue of characters entering along an eisodos
establishing contact with those already in the acting area is
a difficult one, it does not rule out the possibility that Athena
remained on the eisodos during the speech. The appearance
of the goddess would have provided a moment of surprise. The audience's
attention would have been on the actor moving towards the skene
and finally at the skene door. Suddenly the appearance
and speech of Athena halts the progress of the action. The movement
in the field of vision from the skene to the eisodos
enhances the effect. Athena's subsequent approach into the acting
area shows that she is in control of the situation. Her departure
at the end of the prologue by the other eisodos illustrates
her withdrawal and shows that the situation must resolve itself
on the mortal plane alone.
3. Is the Entrance
of the Suppliants in Oedipus Tyrannus a Cancelled Entry?
The spoken part of
the prologue begins when Oedipus has entered from the skene
to address the group of suppliants which has gathered at an altar
in front of the palace. This arrangement poses a problem about
when the play really begins. Is it with the entrance of the group
of suppliants or is it with the entrance of Oedipus himself? The
central aspect of this problem develops from the mechanics of
staging a play in the Theatre of Dionysus, which can best be illustrated
by a contrast to beginnings of plays in modern theatres. In general,
modern audiences are aware of the imminent beginning of the play
in a mechanical way, the curtain is withdrawn or the theatre lighting,
with the darkening of the auditorium and lighting up of the stage
area, is altered to announce the beginning. However, these conventions
were not available in the Theatre of Dionysus. There is general
ignorance about the convention that marked the beginning of a
Greek tragedy.[41] This lack of
knowledge is significant because there are several tragedies in
which a character or group of characters are supposed to have
been in a particular position for some time. The physical reality
of the Theatre of Dionysus must have meant that the audience saw
the actors enter and take their positions. Often the stage directions
in translations display a tendency to assume that the people almost
miraculously appeared in their tableau positions, something that
betrays their concentration on the spoken part of the play.
Oliver Taplin is responsible
for the introduction of a concept called the 'cancelled entry'
which deals with this type of problem. He believes that there
was a convention by which the audience would erase the initial
entry when such information arises in the prologue that indicates
that the first arrival on stage did not take place.[42]
Taplin's concept introduces as many problems as it solves because
any complications about the beginning are not resolved until a
point later in the prologue - in fact, the concept is a more text
based solution than a performance one. Nevertheless, Taplin's
concept has found general acceptance and he classifies the arrival
of the suppliants at the beginning of Oedipus Tyrannus
as a cancelled entry.[43] However,
it will be argued here that the entrance of the suppliants is
a real entry and one that marks the beginning of the play.[44]
The entrance and movement
along an eisodos is obvious whether it is to be cancelled
or not. Information about their movements and actions after the
entry and before they create the tableau that confronts Oedipus
when he enters from the skene are outlined in other parts
of the prologue itself. The prologue clearly suggests that they
entered carrying suppliants' branches (3, 143), approached the
altar(s),[45] laid their branches
on the altar and, finally, took up seated positions (2, 15, 32).
Although the text suggests that they sat on steps (142), it may
have been the steps around the thymele or even simply the
ground in the orchestra.[46]
There is good reason to suppose that these movements were incorporated
into the action and actually seen by the audience. A cancelled
entry, although not undermining the fact of supplication, would
remove any significance for these actions. A basic point of Taplin's
concept is to explain situations in which a character states that
they have been in position for a period of time. The cancelled
entry assuages the concerns of those who are worried about the
realism in dramatic production created by such situations. However
this issue simply does not arise in the prologue of Oedipus
Tyrannus. At no point in the prologue is the duration or length
of time of the suppliant tableau mentioned either by the Priest
of Zeus or Oedipus. In fact, Oedipus' words at 6 ff. suggest that
he has arrived in quick response to the entry of the suppliants.[47]
So there is a basic technical problem with the application of
the cancelled entry concept in this instance.
There are several
advantages in making the arrival of the suppliants and their subsequent
actions a part of the dramatic action. Besides dispensing with
the need for this mental adjustment to establish a cancelled entry,
the benefits lie in the dramatic spectacle. For example, it seems
likely that the thought occupying the minds of the Athenians during
the entry of the suppliants would have been as follows: who are
these suppliants? Who or what is threatening them that they seek
protection at a god's altar? Will their supplication be successful?
If the entry of the suppliants is a real entry then their silent
procession is a moment of mystification during which such questions
occupy the spectators' minds.[48]
As many tragedies begin with suppliants, this appears to have
been a particularly favourite way of starting a tragedy. This
sort of process is congenial towards capturing the attention of
the audience and arousing their interest in the dramatic action.
Furthermore, it is significant that, at the end of the prologue,
Sophocles incorporated the exit of the suppliants into the action.
Not only does Oedipus instruct the group to depart (142-43) but
also the Priest re-iterates the instruction (147-48). The removal
of the signs of supplication from the altar reveals the success
of the appeal for help. Thus the opening scene of arrival for
assistance is balanced by their departure in success.
There is another important
function of this entry; but it is best discussed in light of a
brief look at the entrance of Oedipus himself. The suppliants'
entry enhances an element of dramatic surprise in the entrance
of Oedipus.[49] For example, in
many tragedies an actor involved in the initial entry speaks first.
It is possible that the audience expected one of the suppliants
to speak first. In fact, the Priest of Zeus who addresses Oedipus
later in the prologue may well have been prominent among the group
of suppliants. In such a situation, a prayer would have been an
appropriate beginning. At any rate, the audience's attention is
fixed on the group of suppliants when suddenly their attention
is shifted to the skene as the doors open and Oedipus emerges.
This is the potential saviour of the suppliants. As Oedipus entered
from the skene and approached the seated suppliants, there
is a contrast between his royal status and the suppliants' attire.
When he took up the position before addressing them, Oedipus was
looming large over them, as they are all seated.[50]
This specific arrangement
presents another reason why the entrance of the suppliants should
be accepted as a real entry. It creates an important ambiguity
about the figure of Oedipus. The approach to the altar had generated
interest in the audience. In fact, as their entrance is probably
lead by the Priest of Zeus, their arrival would have the appearance
of a religious procession. It seems as if the suppliants have
been approaching a god for assistance but it turns out to be a
mere mortal. This ambiguity is carefully maintained and developed
throughout the prologue.[51] Oedipus
actually asks them why they have come to supplicate him (1-3)
because, although the altar of supplication is divine, it is also
his property. It is carefully and discretely articulated that
Oedipus is indeed the closest being that the Thebans have to a
divinity (31 ff.). He is their only hope and he has shown his
skills before in defeating the Sphinx. Whether or not we are meant
to see an equation between Oedipus and a god is a moot point.[52]
Although the Priest of Zeus claims that the Thebans do not equate
Oedipus with a god, their actions as presented by Sophocles suggest
the opposite. At any rate, the entire dramatic arrangement, the
arrival of the suppliants and entry of Oedipus, establish him
at the height of his powers and good fortune. However, this is
the position from which he is destined to fall. This irony is
nicely maintained by the Priest's appeal to put the city standing
on its feet again (46, 51). As noted earlier, it is significant
that the prologue ends with a textually documented dismissal of
the suppliants. The words of Oedipus to remove the signs of supplication
are an indication that the appeal has been a success. But as the
suppliants departed, the audience is aware that the play will
deal with the fall of Oedipus. The overall power of this opening
arrangement is considerably diluted, if it is supposed to have
begun with a cancelled entry.
Conclusion
The three Sophoclean
beginnings discussed in this paper have shown that initial entrances
often placed the audience in some confusion. They had to wait
for important expository material to emerge from the play itself.
However, it is clear from these plays that Sophocles often turned
this uncertainty to a dramatic advantage. For example, the silent
entries of Odysseus in Ajax and the suppliants in Oedipus
Tyrannus were an important way of capturing the audience's
interest. As they sat in anticipation of speech or dialogue to
explain the dramatic situation, Sophocles chose to play out the
beginning in silence. Although some caution is required when making
generalisations about Sophoclean tragedy based on only seven plays,
one feature does seem to be clear about his way of handling initial
entrances. A Sophoclean tragedy began with an entrance of a character
or characters and without any sense of artifice. This is evident
in the other four extant tragedies and it is possible to find
further evidence in the fragmentary plays. If one compares the
beginnings of the fragmentary Andromeda tragedies of both
Sophocles and Euripides, it is possible to see the Sophoclean
preference for a beginning marked by an entrance once again. The
Euripidean version began with the eponymous heroine already bound
to a post while, in contrast, the Sophoclean play began with a
binding scene analogous to the start of Prometheus Bound.[53]
This shows that Sophocles sought to integrate his beginnings into
the action of the play which often started before the first word
was spoken.
Return
to contents page
Endnotes
[1]
This can, however, be explained by the Nurse's socially subordinate
position. A Euripidean prologue speaker would name all the characters
on stage, although there is admittedly no corresponding situation.
See n. 5 below.
[2]
J. C. Kamerbeek, The Plays of Sophocles: Commentaries, Part 2,
The Trachiniae (E. J. Brill: Leiden, 1959), 39 on 48, who has
the Nurse on from the start, thinks she is 'probably reacting
by gesture to her words'.
[3]
J. C. Hogan, The Plays of Sophocles: A Companion to the University
of Chicago Press Translations (Bristol Classical Press, 1991),
288, says; 'It is not necessary to bring the nurse on with Deianira.
The monologue is not addressed to the nurse, and Deianira's isolation
may be more strongly focused by letting the nurse enter only at
the end of the speech'.
[4]
The idea that Sophocles usually began his plays with dialogue
underestimates the variety and sophistication of dramatic forms
in the other prologues. For example, Oedipus Tyrannus begins with
three formal addresses before any dialogue, while Electra begins
with two long set speeches followed by minimal dialogue.
[5]
There are some comparisons with the prologue of Euripides' Andromache
but the differences are even greater, cf. A. Martina, 'Il prologo
delle Trachinie', Dioniso 51 (1980[1982]), 49-79, pp. 55-56 and
H. Erbse, Studien zum Prolog der euripideischen Tragödie
(Walter de Gruyter, 1984), 292-93. At any rate the Euripidean
text clearly indicates that the Nurse enters after Andromache's
monologue.
[6]
E.g. Kamerbeek, Trachiniae, 10: 'Deianeira's words give the impression
of coming from her inner nature; they do not strike us in any
way as a programme note which the poet feels his audience require
of him'.
[7]
J. R. March, 'The Creative Poet: Studies on the Treatment of Myths
in Greek Poetry', Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies,
Supplement 49 (Institute of Classical Studies, 1987), 49-77.
[8]
The remarks of T. F. Hoey, 'The Date of Trachiniae', Phoenix 33
(1979), 210-232, p. 219, are worth quoting at length on this point:
'It might be objected that such information is too fragmentary
and too late to support any general statement about her traditional
character. But this is not true. If tradition had represented
her as notably feminine, so that when Sophocles also represented
her that way he was conforming to tradition rather than departing
from it, it is unthinkable that the late mythographers would have
resisted the combined force of Sophocles' play and the tradition
in general'.
[9]
Notably the Nonnus reference is made in the context of fighting
women where a certain Orsiboë who fought with her husband
is specifically compared to Deianeira.
[10]
The ode is dated by its reference to an Olympic victory by Hieron.
See A. P. Burnett, The Art of Bacchylides (Harvard University
Press, 1985), 197 n. 1.
[11]
March, 52. See also Burnett, 143-44.
[12]
March, 51, thinks that the outline of the story in Hesiod fr.
23 MW, ll.14-33, which is similar to the plot of Trachiniae, need
not imply that Deianeira sent the poisoned robe unwittingly. March,
63, also thinks that the allusive treatment of this aspect in
Bacchylides Dithyramb 16 shows that this work is influenced by
Trachiniae.
[13]
H. P. Isler, 'Acheloos' in Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae
Classicae, Vol. 1 (Artemis Verlag, 1981). It is impossible to
establish a precise production date for Trachiniae and anywhere
in the range 457 BC to 430 BC is plausible; cf. P. E. Easterling
(ed.), Sophocles: Trachiniae (Cambridge University Press, 1982),
19-23. However, as many of the relevant vases come from the archaic
period, they are securely placed before Sophocles' writing career.
[14]
M. Davies (ed.), Sophocles: Trachiniae (Clarendon Press, 1991)
68 on 52 thinks that the nàn d' 'suggests the Nurse's presence
during the opening rhesis'. But no certainty about the Nurse's
presence can be taken from her lines. The fact that the Nurse
declares that she has seen Deianeira lamenting Herakles' absence
many times (poll¦, 49) means, if she were not present for
the speech, that she can guess what her mistress has been doing.
Deianeira often leaves the palace to weep and the Nurse has witnessed
these things before. In fact it shows that Deianeira is always
in this emotional state. The fact that the Nurse decides to intervene
now and offer advice is, on one level, simply a way of moving
the dramatic action forward.
[15]
Cf. G. H. Gellie, Sophocles: A Reading (Melbourne University Press,
1972), 55.
[16]
There are similar instances in Sophoclean prologues, e.g. the
man who accompanies Odysseus and Neoptolemus in Philoctetes (cf.
45-6), and the attendant(s) in Oedipus Tyrannus who Oedipus instructs
to summon an assembly of Thebans (cf. 144).
[17]
See the remarks by O. Taplin, The Stagecraft of Aeschylus: The
Dramatic Use of Exits and Entrances in Greek Tragedy (Clarendon
Press, 1977), 79-80. He observes that 'all characters of high
social status were accompanied by appropriate attendants, unless
there is some positive reason why they should not be'. There are
some exceptions where such a character is not attended (e.g. Xerxes
in Persians 909 ff.) but the dramatic situations require this
visual arrangement.
[18]
Thus Kamerbeek, Trachiniae, 9; D. Seale, Vision and Stagecraft
in Sophocles (Croom Helm, 1982), 82; Martina, 54.
[19]
T. B. L. Webster, 'Sophocles' Trachiniae', in C. Bailey et al
(eds), Greek Poetry and Life: Essays Presented to Gilbert Murray
on his Seventieth Birthday (Clarendon Press, 1936), 164-180, saw
a deliberate contrast between this innocent Deianeira, who unwittingly
kills her husband, and the guilty Clytemnestra of Aeschylus' Agamemnon.
There appears to be a specific allusion to Agamemnon 1382 and
1580 when Herakles describes the robe that kills him as 'a casting
net woven by the Furies' (1052) and 'an unspeakable fetter' (1057):
cf. Easterling, 21-22.
[20]
A possibility that Athena watches Odysseus' movements from the
beginning before she speaks should be discounted. There is a strong
dramatic effect achieved by having Athena enter and halt Odysseus'
progress.
[21]
Some have suggested the door may be slightly ajar, e.g. Seale,
144. It is impossible to be certain but the important thing is
that dramatic attention is focused on the door.
[22]
See W. B. Stanford (ed.), Sophocles: Ajax (Macmillan & Co.
Ltd, 1963), p. 56 on 15.
[23]
Thus H. D. F. Kitto, Greek Tragedy: A Literary Study, 3rd edition,
(Methuen, 1961), 153.
[24]
Gellie, 5.
[25]
Furthermore, earlier versions of the myth gave Athena a substantial
role in securing the defeat of Ajax in favour of Odysseus in the
contest for Achilles' arms, e.g. Little Iliad; for which see M.
Davies, Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1988), 52-52, especially Proclus ll. 3-4 and fr. 2A.
[26]
E.g. W. M. Calder, 'The Entrance of Athena in Ajax', Classical
Philology 60 (1965), 114-16 and 'Once More: The Entrance and Exit
of Athena in Ajax', Classical Folia 28 (1974), 59-61. The latter
is a sarcastic reply to W. J. Ziobra (see n. 27 below). Calder
is followed by D. J. Mastronarde, 'Actors on High: The Skene Roof,
the Crane, and the Gods in Attic Drama', Classical Antiquity 9
(1990), 247-294, p. 278. A possible variation of this arrangement
would have been the use of the mechane. This would assume the
availability of the mechane in what is generally accepted as one
of Sophocles' earliest extant plays. As always, certainty about
the structure of the theatre is impossible. See n. 31 below.
[27]
E.g. W. J. Ziobra, 'The Entrance and Exit of Athena in the Ajax',
Classical Folia 26 (1972), 122-128. Most recently A. F. Garvie
(ed.), Sophocles: Ajax (Aris & Phillips, 1998), 124, appears
to accept Ziobra's arguments for the entrance and exit without
saying so explicitly. A possible variation of this arrangement
could have been the use of a 'concealed' second door at stage
level. Mastronarde, 278 and 283, thinks this the most likely arrangement
at stage level. However, the use of a second door in tragedy is
not generally accepted.
[28]
E.g. A. W. Pickard-Cambridge, The Theatre of Dionysus at Athens
(Clarendon Press, 1946), 48.
[29]
Although M. Heath, The Poetics of Greek Tragedy (Duckworth, 1987),
165, takes this as evidence for their presence at ground level
and therefore places Athena in Ajax there too.
[30]
O. Taplin, Greek Tragedy in Action (Methuen, 1978), 185 n. 12,
believes that there was a convention that gods in prologues appeared
at ground level.
[31]
Taplin, Stagecraft, 440-441, challenges the idea that the theologeion
was even used in the fifth century. This introduces the difficulty
about the archaeological history of Theatre of Dionysus. However,
the existence of the skene building itself, in later Aeschylean
and all of extant Sophoclean tragedy (most importantly the Ajax),
does suggest its availability as a potential acting area. Mastronarde
rightly assumes its use. The absence of a certain production date
for Ajax adds to such problem: see Garvie, 6-8.
[32]
Garvie translates these lines as: 'I knew it Odysseus, and that
is why I came out on the road a while ago, zealous to promote
your hunting expedition'. The use of fÚlax (guard or watcher)
strongly suggests a position on the ground.
[33]
Cf. Heath, 165. The dying Hippolytus is aware of the presence
of Artemis by her fragrance (1391-93). In Rhesus, Odysseus recognises
Athena by her voice (cf. 608-10). To this can be added Philoctetes'
reaction to Herakles at the end of Philoctetes (1445-47). In all
these examples the mortals stress their familiar association with
the deity.
[34]
Thus Taplin, Stagecraft, 116 n. 1.
[35]
See the remarks by R. G. A. Buxton, 'Blindness and Limits: Sophokles
and the Logic of Myth', Journal of Hellenic Studies 100 (1980),
22-37, pp. 22-23.
[36]
Recently N. J. Lowe, in M.S. Silk (ed.), Tragedy and the Tragic:
Greek Theatre and Beyond (Clarendon Press, 1996), 526-28, has
offered an interpretation of this scene which has Athena speaking
from a higher level than the mortal characters. It is based upon
a definition of theatrical space and its meaning that advocates
a distinct separation between the interaction of divine and mortal
worlds in the prologue. The interpretation articulated here stresses
Athena's intimate involvement in the mortal sphere. She prevents
Odysseus from entering the tent of Ajax to show him the truth
about his enemy's humiliation. Similarly, she had prevented Ajax
from killing the Atreidae by making him mad just as he was about
to enter their tent (49 ff.). Athena's exit at the end of the
prologue is the extent of her role in the action. The prologue
has shown her traditional involvement in the downfall of Ajax
(see n. 25 above) and its conclusion hints at her total withdrawal.
This latter point is made evident later in Athena's otherwise
unusual one-day-only anger against the hero (756-57). This may
be in contrast to the Aeschylean version of the story where 'some
female deity' (tij paroàsa da…mwn, fr. 83 Radt), presumably
Athena, had a specific role in assuring Ajax's death.
[37]
J. C. Kamerbeek, The Plays of Sophocles: Commentaries, Part 1,
The Ajax (E. J. Brill, 1953), 36 on 92.
[38]
A popular interpretation of the scene is that Athena directs the
actions of the mortals from afar, a case of a play within a play.
In this situation she is put on the roof for this sense of directorial
detachment. However, this seems to have more to do with modern
direction of film making rather than theatre.
[39]
Stanford, 56 on 15, positions Athena 'at the farthest side of
the Orchestra, in the shadow of the Scene-building'.
[40]
Contra Stanford, 56 on 15, who has Odysseus move towards Athena
because 'she would probably preserve an Olympian immobility'.
As Odysseus already occupies a central position in the acting
area, why should he withdraw from it?
[41]
It is possible that a trumpet was sounded to mark the beginning
of a play. Thus Pollux 4.88 who says that the custom was initiated
by the failure of the actor Hermon to appear at the right moment.
This Hermon was a comic actor from the second half of the fifth-century.
See P. Ghiron-Bistagne, Recherches sur les Acteurs dans la Grèce
Antique (Société d'édition, Les Belles Lettres,
1976), 149.
[42]
His discussions of the concept can be found in 'Aeschylean Silences
and Silences in Aeschylus', Harvard Studies in Classical Philology
76 (1972), 58-76, and Stagecraft, 134-36.
[43]
Taplin, Greek, 109-10. I am not rejecting the concept of the cancelled
entry but simply saying that it does not apply in this instance.
Although the evidence is weak, it seems that an aural signal marked
the beginning of a Greek play (see n. 41 above). Many tragedies
required props and they must have been brought on in full view
of the audience before the play began. It is possible that suppliant
tableaux were also in place before the beginning of the play was
signalled. In these situations, such as Oedipus Tyrannus, one
must decide if the tableau was in place before the sound of the
trumpet.
[44]
This is not an original proposition. See P. Burian, 'The Play
before the Prologue: Initial Tableaux on the Greek Stage', in
J. H. D'Arms and J. W. Eadie (eds), Ancient and Modern: Essays
in Honour of Gerald F. Else (University of Michigan Press, 1977),
79-94, p. 83, who is followed by Seale, 215.
[45]
Although the Priest says altars (16), this may be a poetic plural.
There is another important performance issue here about number
and nature of altars in the Theatre of Dionysus. Two studies dealing
with the problem are R. Rehm, 'The Staging of Suppliant Plays',
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 29 (1988), 263-307, and J.
P. Poe, 'The Altar in the Fifth-Century Theater', Classical Antiquity
8 (1989), 116-39. The entire problem needs greater space than
is available here. The basic problem is whether there were one
or two permanent altars in the Theatre of Dionysus. There appears
to be sufficient evidence in the texts themselves to support the
idea of two permanent altars; an orchestra altar, or thymele,
and a stage altar, or Apollo Agyieus altar. There are several
instances in plays where use is made of the two altars. For example,
in Agamemnon Agamemnon address a shrine to the city's gods on
entry (810), while Cassandra addresses an altar specifically dedicated
to Apollo Agyieus when she first speaks (1073 ff.). In Oedipus
Tyrannus, the suppliants arrange themselves around the thymele,
while later Jocasta prays to Apollo by addressing the Apollo Agyieus
altar (919).
[46]
The Greek word here, b£qwn, is ambiguous; steps is simply
one possibility. If it did mean steps this might pose a further
question regarding the layout of the Theatre of Dionysus about
which there can be no certainty; was there a raised platform with
steps leading up to it from the orchestra?
[47]
This is an important aspect in establishing his character. For
example, he has already taken action by sending Creon to Delphi
(69-71) and later when the Chorus suggest sending for Teiresias,
he has already done this too (287-89).
[48]
This sort of process applies to the beginning of Ajax. Until Athena
identifies Odysseus, it may not be obvious to the audience who
they are watching. In fact, the figure moving towards the skene
could be Ajax himself approaching the tent of the Atreidae.
[49]
E.g. Burian, 83.
[50]
Taplin, Greek, 110.
[51]
Cf. B. M. W. Knox, Oedipus at Thebes (Yale University Press, 1957),
159-60.
[52]
Is Oedipus ultimately being punished for impiety? This is the
argument of R. W. Minadeo, 'Plot and Theme in Oedipus the King',
La Parola del Passato: Rivista di Studi Antichi 45 (1990), 241-276.
Minadeo, 243, believes that the prologue presents an Oedipus who
'usurps the place not merely of the divine but of Zeus himself'.
[53]
The Euripidean beginning was parodied by Aristophanes in Thesmophoriazusae
(1065-69 and 1070-1072=frr. 114-15 Nauck). The evidence for the
binding of Andromeda in Sophocles' version comes from vase painting:
see R. Green & E. Handley, Images of the Greek Theatre (British
Museum Press, 1995), 39-40. Perhaps a surviving fragment (fr.
126 Radt) actually comes from the prologue - someone explains
to Perseus, who has just entered, why Andromeda has been bound.
|
Classical Receptions in Drama and Poetry in English