The Dramaturgy of Senecan Tragedy

by Thomas; Kohn

  Pliny writes about the recitatio, when writers would recite, or have recited, their new works to a small group of friends, in order to get feedback before formal publication (ep. 1.13).41 This apparently was a not uncommon occurrence, and various different genres were presented in such a setting. Elsewhere, Pliny says that speeches, history, tragedy, and lyric poetry all made appearances at the recitatio; but he expresses disapproval, saying, as an example, that tragedy desires not an auditorium, but a stage and actors (tragoediam, quae non auditorium, sed scaenam et actores [poscit], ep. 7.17.3). This indicates that, although tragedy might have been delivered at a recitatio, this was not the ideal or ultimately intended form of performance; indeed, it implies that stage productions were happening, perhaps after an initial recitation, with the recitatio being the Roman version of trying a show out in Peoria. An example of this can be found in Tacitus’ Dialogus de Oratoribus, set circa 75 CE The playwright Curiatius Maternus is said to have recently recited (recitaverat) his play Cato, which was poorly received by its listeners (Dial. 2). Another character, Julius Secundus, asks Maternus whether, as a result of the audience reaction, he is revising the play. Maternus confirms this, and says he is hurrying to get the tragedy ready for production, using the word editionem, which can mean the manuscript of a book, but can also refer to the presentation of a play.42 If Maternus, in fact, intended to release his tragedy as a book and not have it performed first, this is the only definite example of such a thing occurring in antiquity. But regardless, the recitatio is here portrayed as only a first reading, and not the ultimate production mode for tragedy. Likewise, other tragedies, even if eventually written down and so disseminated for storage, must have received at least a trial public reading; and they probably received more than that.

  Zwierlein (1966) is the most prominent proponent of the idea that the plays were intended for performance, but not in a full-scale theatrical manner; instead, they are a sort of Lese- or Rezitationsdrama, meant for some kind of recitation. He argues that various elements of the plays are unperformable and differ too greatly from the models of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides. Walker and others disagree, saying that one cannot judge Seneca's tragedies by standards set over 500 years previously.43 All conventions, including theatrical ones, change over time. Since the plays of Seneca are the only complete extant tragedies from first century Rome,44 it is likely that they do, in fact, adhere to contemporaneous practices, whatever these might have been. And even if the plays were intended solely for the type of recitatio as described by Tacitus and Pliny, of what exactly did this reading consist? Did the author do the reading, or someone else, or were several readers involved? Was the whole work presented, or just selected scenes? Was staging and movement involved? And how did he eventually intend to make his work public?45 But regardless of exactly how it would have worked, the brief mentions by Pliny and Tacitus do give some credence to Zwierlein's idea of Rezitationsdramen.46

  Some scholars have attempted to find middle ground between recitation and full performance of Senecan tragedy. Fitch has suggested that certain scenes, such as the banquet in the Thyestes, are highly dramatic, and definitely meant for staging.47 He also mentions the scene in the Medea where the title heroine kills her children as one of several that would not make sense to an audience unless it were possible to see the action occurring. Fitch maintains, however, that there are other scenes, for example, the sacrifice of a cow and bull and the subsequent examination of their entrails in the Oedipus, that are unstageable. Therefore, says Fitch, Seneca only meant for certain scenes to be performed, either as interludes in the theater or as after-dinner entertainment. Fitch's judgments of which scenes are not performable, however, are quite subjective, as others have shown how this particular scene could have been staged to great dramatic effect.48 Further, the practice of performing individual scenes from tragedy in Rome, while well accepted among modern scholars, has little ancient evidence to support it.49 Nor is there evidence that new scenes were written for such a purpose. Finally, it is puzzling why Seneca would have bothered to have composed complete plays, if only sections from them would be performed. The Phoenissae, an unfinished play that does survive as portions of individual scenes without connecting choral passages, does not aid the argument. Even if this one work were designed to be performed in scenes,50 it does not explain the other complete plays.

  Another option has been to suggest private performance of the plays. Fantham argues for a private concert reading,51 while Marshall envisions a more theatrical staging in a household setting.52 But there is little evidence for such practices, aside from the presence of wall paintings of theatrical scenes in private houses.53 Varner makes connections between theatrical illustrations found in private dwellings and performances of plays there.54 The argument goes that these painted scenes may have served as backdrops for actual performances. But this conclusion does not necessarily follow, nor is there evidence to support such private performances. In fact, Sutton argues persuasively that, even “if Seneca's tragedies were not actually written for performance, the pretense that they were is maintained with remarkable industry and fidelity.”55 That is, the plays show a scrupulous devotion to fitting onto a full-scale stage, not an undoubtedly smaller, private venue.56

  Admittedly, there may be some hints that wealthy individuals could have kept private performers in their homes. Petronius has Trimalchio own a troupe of acrobats; and the fictional host comments that he once had bought a company of comic actors, although he would not allow them actually to perform Greek comedies, preferring instead Atellan farces (Sat. 53). Pliny writes of an elderly woman, recently deceased, who had owned a troupe of pantomime artists, which she used to wile away her leisure time; he notes, however, that she never made her husband watch them, either in the theater or at home (ep. 7.24.4), implying that they performed in both places, and thus provided both public and private entertainment. Aside from Petronius, whose description is too comic and exaggerated to be considered accurate, no one says precisely what these private performers did. There are no accounts of tragic actors performing either scenes or whole plays in the home of their patron, nor of new tragedies being written for such settings.

  The evidence suggests, however, that tragedy continued to be written as well as presented. Horace, while providing strict rules for the composition of tragedy in the Ars Poetica, may imply a popular interest in composing tragic dramas, as well as suggesting that a number of people were actually writing them, albeit badly. Quintilian praises the dramas of Varius and Ovid, and says that Pomponius Secundus is the best tragedian of those he had seen (eorum quos viderim longe princeps Pomponius Secundus, Inst. 10.1.98), implying that Pomponius was not the sole practitioner of tragic composition, and that the plays were presented somewhere with a visual component. Seneca philosophus writes not infrequently of having attended tragedies in a theater (e.g., de Ira 2.2.3, and de Clementia 1.26.2), and in at least one passage compares human beings with tragic actors on the stage (ep. 80.7–8). Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio all write of composers of new tragedies who attracted the emperor's attention after their plays were performed in the theater.57 Sometimes a playwright was exiled or executed for a line that could be construed as directed toward the emperor, and sometimes an alleged slight was ignored. But the anecdotes confirm that new tragedies were being written and performed in front of a large and diverse audience.58

  There is also some evidence that the Roman theater was experimenting with the stagings of other forms of literature. Tacitus, [Suetonius], and Servius speak of the performance of Vergil's Eclogues onstage.59 Kohn argues that these testimonia show that Vergil was in fact writing for the theater, and discusses what such a performance would entail;60 but regardless of the poet's intentions, these sources demonstrate that Vergil's verses were received frequently with great acclaim by a mass audience in a theater. Further, Horace's protestations that he never wrote for the stage (Satire 1.10.37–39, and ep. 1.19.41–42) may imply that his poetry was
delivered in such a venue, possibly over the poet's objections. Finally, Ovid states that his works were danced in the theater (Tristia 2.519–20, 5.7.25–28),61 leading some scholars to the conclusion that he wrote with that mode of delivery in mind.62 The Roman theater, then, in the early days of the empire, may have been drawing on nondramatic genres for material, instead of relying solely on more traditional forms.

  It is certain that new theater buildings were being erected and older buildings were being renovated all over the Roman world.63 Vitruvius goes into great detail about, among other things, where to place a theater, what its dimensions should be, and how to get the most out of its acoustics (de Arch. 5.3.1–9.1). He states that the site for the theater should be chosen as soon as the forum has been built, showing the importance of such a structure to a city (de Arch. 5.3.1). Common interest in theatrical productions becomes apparent from the presence of the previously discussed wall paintings of scenes from both tragedies and comedies found in private homes.64 And if the Romans explored this interest through the visual arts, why would they not also pursue it in the theater itself, since they had venues in which to perform?

  The Romans also had the opportunity to perform plays, namely during festivals. Vitruvius says that games are to be presented in the theater on festival days, with men, women, and children all present in the audience (per ludos enim cum coniugibus et liberis persedentes delectationibus detinentur, de Arch. 5.3.1). He does not specifically mention what was performed at these games, but he later says that there are three kinds of scaenae: the tragic, the comic, and the satyric (de Arch. 5.6.9), implying that tragedies, comedies, and satyr plays were presented. The fasti from the time of Augustus lists six annual festivals during which ludi scaenici were presented: the Ludi Megalenses (April 4–10), the Ludi Cereales (April 12–19), the Ludi Florales (April 28–May 3), the Ludi Apollinares (July 6–13), the Ludi Romani (September 4–19), and the Ludi Plebii (November 4–17).65 In addition, plays could be performed for special occasions, such as funerals.66

  And the Romans seem to have had performers. Garton believes that, although few names remain, a large number of actors were in Rome during the Augustan period; he bases this belief on the boom of theater construction, as well as on the interest in drama demonstrated by wall paintings and literature.67 The historians report occasions when all the actors are banished from Rome by Augustus’ successors,68 implying that there continued to be a significant quantity of actors. There would be no need to banish them en masse, if there were only a small handful of them. Further, the Stoic martyr Thrasea Paetus was said by Tacitus (Ann. 16.21) to have been an amateur actor, and he can hardly have been the only one. We can see, then, that the necessary resources for dramatic performance—a place to perform, people interested in viewing a performance, opportunity to perform, and someone to perform—were in place.69

  Nevertheless, some scholars have attempted to disregard altogether the problem of how the Senecan plays might have been staged, since the lack of definite evidence concerning their performance makes the question ultimately unsolvable. Why not just read the plays as literature, ignoring an issue that, barring the discovery of didaskalia from the first century, cannot be determined? In fact, Motto and Clark claim to take this approach.70 Having stated their intention to avoid the performance controversy, however, they refer throughout their book to such theatrical elements as the audience and onstage action; and this affects their interpretation of the plays. Styan observes that the process of communicating a play involves many components, and therefore advocates the analysis of dramatic literature with a kind of performance criticism in which the complex interrelationships between a large number of elements, including but not limited to playwright, producer, script, actor, and audience, are considered.71 More simply, Schechner defines theater as “the interplay among space, time, performers, action, and audience.”72 In the present discussion of Senecan tragedy, it is not necessary to consider so many variables, mainly because such factors as who the producer might have been, or at what occasion the play was performed, cannot be determined. But any interpretation that envisions the presentation of plays, regardless of the setting, must be different from one that simply considers them as words on a page. Indeed, Schechner maintains that theater is a performance genre, not literature, and so requires different analytical tools than a novel or work of philosophy. And Goffman would argue that the reader of Seneca's plays would recognize them as belonging to the “theatrical frame,” because the text uses the out-of-frame directional cues belonging to the theater;73 that is, they are presented on the page in the form of a drama. If it is accepted that Senecan tragedy was composed for some sort of public, oral presentation, the setting for that presentation must be taken into account. As Moore states, “At the core of any theatrical performance lies the relationship between its two essential components, performer and audience.”74 And that relationship would differ if the performance occurred in an auditorium or a dining room, in front of a mass audience or an intimate group of friends, with one actor or several, with or without masks or costumes, and so forth.

  Latin literature was composed in order to be delivered, not read silently. The testimonia that new tragedies were recited elsewhere than the stage, either partially or completely, lead away from the idea that the author meant this as the ultimate and desired mode of delivery; these readings appear instead to be trial runs, undressed rehearsals, as it were. In antiquity, one did not seriously write something in the form of a tragedy unless one intended it to be performed as a tragedy, that is, in a theater, with multiple actors, a chorus, costumes, masks, and in front of a mass audience. Granted, some noblemen, such as C. Julius Caesar, who was said to have composed an Oedipus in his youth,75 and Augustus Caesar, who spoke depreciatingly about his Ajax,76 did write tragedies as a sort of literary exercise, not intending them to be staged; but such dilettantes would compose only one play before moving on to more serious pursuits.77 This is different from Seneca tragicus, who wrote seven and a half plays, and evidently did not hinder their preservation.78 In Seneca's complete tragedies are found choruses, dialogue, characterization, implicit stage directions—all of the traditional formal requirements for tragedy. The Senecan dramas also contain the six parts that Aristotle says are necessary for a tragedy: plot, characters, diction, reasoning, spectacle, and song.79 And although Horace does not provide a checklist for tragedy, Seneca usually follows his advice in, among other things, adhering to a five-act structure, limiting himself, mostly, to three actors, and including the chorus as an integral part of the play.80

  In addition, a line from Seneca's Agamemnon has been found as a line of graffito in Pompeii.81 In the line in question (Idaea cerno nemora, “I see the groves of Ida,” 730), Cassandra is speaking as she prepares to enter the palace of Agamemnon. She means that, just as Mt. Ida, where Paris made his fatal judgment between the goddesses, brought disaster for her, so does the house of her captor. This seems to be an obscure line, not one that sounds pithy and proverbial and would have circulated by word of mouth, not, that is, the “To be or not to be” or the “O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I” of the Agamemnon. It could only have been written by someone who had heard the complete play. Further, the line is terribly misspelled: idai cernu nemura. About half of the vowels are wrong, again implying that they were written by someone who heard them, not someone who read them. Finally, it is hard to believe that a member of the imperial court, if the play had received some kind of private performance there, would have been involved in defacing the walls of Pompeii.82

  All appearances to the contrary, it is not the intention of this study to enter into the performance question, but merely to summarize the debate and to present the evidence here. At the very least, Seneca shows a consistency in his dealings with issues of staging that clearly presume the use of a theater of the type described by Vitruvius, fictively, if not actually. Sutton argues that Seneca's plays were written for actual performance. If he is right, then the traged
ies are of course susceptible to performance criticism of the type developed by Taplin.83 But even if Sutton is wrong, he manages to show that Seneca was scrupulous in assembling his plays as if he were writing for a stage. Even if the playwright's use of the human and physical resources of his contemporary stage, the strong element of opsis implied by his texts, and his observance of the artificial conventions of contemporary Roman drama are entirely fictive, they would still benefit from performance criticism. In the final analysis, whether Seneca's plays belong to the “theater of the stage” or to the “theater of the mind” is an irrelevant question. The tragedies demonstrate a consistency, a technique or art of theater. It is quite reasonable, permissible, and indeed profitable to engage in a study of Senecan dramaturgy.