Clinical Pharmacy Introduction to Clinical Pharmacy, Concept of clinical pptx
French scenes in greek tragedy, by mark damen
1. French Scenes in Greek Tragedy: The Scenic Structure of Classical Drama
Author(s): Mark Damen
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Theatre Journal, Vol. 55, No. 1, Ancient Theatre (Mar., 2003), pp. 113-134
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25069183 .
Accessed: 23/09/2012 12:18
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Theatre Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
2. French Scenes in Greek Tragedy:
The Scenic Structure of Classical Drama
Mark Damen
In 19881 played Dionysus in a production of Euripides' Bacchae. Though I had acted
many times before?even that very role?the director of the play did something that
took me by surprise, not because I lacked prior experience with it but because I had
never thought about it in terms of ancient drama. For practical purposes she broke the
play down into "French scenes," sequentially numbered sections of the script demar
cated by the movement of characters on and off the stage, a system often used today in
facilitating the organization of rehearsals and technical matters. Though well aware of
this practice, it had never occurred tome to think about its application to Greek tragedy.
As a basic tool in preparing a play for performance, this means of analyzing a play's
scenic structure led me to wonder if the classical tragedians had not done something
similar themselves since they surely oversaw the rehearsal process at least to some
extent. Obviously, as playwrights they could construct and organize characters'
entrances and exits, so it seems likely they could also have articulated the same to
themselves and others. That inevitable self-consciousness in the disposition of scenes
in tragedy led me to wonder whether ancient dramatists intentionally manipulated
the frequency with which their characters moved on and off stage and, if so, how and
why. The following article is the result of that inquiry.
I. Introduction: The Question of Scenes
Over the course of the fifth century there is a manifest evolution in Athenian
tragedy toward a style of dramatic action featuring more complex character move
ment imbedded within more intricate plots.1 Even in spite of the paucity of tragedies
Mark Damen is an Associate at Utah State University where he teaches Classics, ancient
Professor
history, theatre and playxvriting.
history He has published articles in Transactions of the American
Philological Association, Phoenix, Antichthon, Classical World ana Theatre Recently
Journal.
his translation Hrotswitha's Dulcitius and Callimachus was in The Journal of The
of published
Mountain Medieval and Renaissance Association, with a in the forthcoming
Rocky reprint
Women Writing in Latin.
An earlier version of this paper was at the American Association. Iwish to
presented Philological
thank those who commented there, Sherry Keller, David Rom?n, Sun Hee Teresa Lee, and the
anonymous reviewers of this article for their help and insight. Their efforts have the piece
improved
immeasurably.
1
scene
Inmodern scholarship, length as measured by entrances and exits has not been addressed as
such, but the disposition of entrances and exits in Greek tragedy, and stagecraft in general, has received
TheatreJournal55 (2003) 113-134 ? 2003 by The JohnsHopkins University Press
3. 114 / Mark Damen
preserved, this trend is evident. So, for instance, when compared to the relatively staid
sequence of exits and entrances called for in Aeschylus' Persians (472 BCE), Euripides'
Bacchae (406 BCE) evidences well the dynamism characteristic of classical tragedy in its
final stages, a quality achieved not only through radical treatment of characters and
the addition of plot elements but also by the disposition of the action into a greater
number of what would be termed today "French scenes."2 Aristotle in The Poetics
seems to have been aware of this: "And further [there was in later classical tragedy] a
plurality of episodes."3
Nor to imagine reasons why fifth-century
is it hard tragedy evolved this way. The
division of tragic plots into a higher number of discrete units in the stage action leaves
behind an impression that the play's action ismoving faster, that more is happening.
This effect is likely to have pleased audiences demanding ever more from theatre in
general and growing better accustomed to following increasingly complicated dra
matic constructs, as surely the celebrants at the City Dionysia had become by the end
of the classical age. And in the same way that late- and post-classical Greek theatre
witnessed advances in stage machinery (e.g. the mechane, the keraunoskopeion, the
bronteion), Sophocles and Euripides exhibit a capacity to utilize more elaborate
character movement in the unfolding of more complex stage action, while at the same
much attention, back at least a century, cf. E. Bodensteiner, "Szenische ?ber den Ort des
going Fragen
Auftretens und von und Chor im griechischen Drama," Jahrb. f?r cl. Phil.,
Abgehens Schauspielern
19 (Leipzig 1893): 637-808. among the works on which this study rests is Oliver
Suppl. Primary Taplin,
The Stagecraft of Aeschylus: The Dramatic Use of Exits and Entrances in Greek Tragedy (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1977). The significance of his book to this investigation is self-evident from
the title,
though Taplin's exploration of "the handling of exits and entrances" (1) and "the relation of text to
action and of action to dramatic meaning" (3) does not coincide with my focus here. Likewise, David
Seale, Vision and Stagecraft in Sophocles (London: Croom Helm, 1982) and Michael R. Halleran, Stagecraft
in Euripides (Totowa: Barnes & Noble, 1985) have informed much of my assessment of stage movement
in Sophocles and Euripides. My central aim, however, is different from Seale's who seeks to explicate
"the intricacy of [Sophocles'] (12), and Halleran's intention of elucidating a "grammar of
stagecraft"
dramatic technique" (1). Joe Park Poe, "The Determination of Episodes in Greek Tragedy," AJP 114
a solid foundation
(1993): 343-96, has provided for assessing stage movement in classical theatre,
as with the others, his work does not bear directly on the central premise of this study. Iwill
though,
to these works name alone. Other works have also contributed to this
henceforth refer by the author's
study, in particular, T. B. L. Webster, Greek Theatre Production (London: Methuen, 1956), Walter Jens,
ed., Die Bauformen der griechischen (Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1971), David Bain, Actors and
Trag?die
Audiences (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), and Arthur Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic
Festivals 2nd ed., ed. John P. Gould and D. M. Lewis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988).
of Athens,
2 in the
The term "French scene" derives from classical French theatre where the ostensible divisions
structure of plays rests on the entrances and exits of speaking characters. In employing the term
"scene" I do not mean to invoke any of the critical terminology discussed or introduced by Poe in "The
Determination," e.g. "unit of action" (349), nor even to tie my argument to his, since his and others'
on issues such as the
investigations of the "formal structure" (348) of classical tragedy have centered
internal structure and organizing principles of scenes in tragedy, aspects of dramatic construction I do
not address in this study; cf. Walther Kranz, Stasimon (Berlin: Weidmann, 1933). In this study, "scene"
or exit of any major or
connotes "a dramatic unit defined by the entrance speaking character
characters."
3 on the same, D. W. Lucas, in Aristotle Poetics
eti de epeisodion plethe (1449a28). Remarking (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1968), 86, notes that "a longer play would use more incidents." There he cites
also the "general sense of augmentation" in plethe. Elsewhere in The Poetics (1459b30), Aristotle
the tragedian's need to avoid monotony in the way can "with countless
recognizes epic readily
episodes."
4. THE SCENIC OF DRAMA
STRUCTURE CLASSICAL / 115
time keeping their plots unified and focused. The heightened dramatic tension that
comes as larger and larger ensembles of characters move across the stage and
cumulative complications are introduced into the plot contributes to a more compel
ling theatre experience for viewers interested in pyrotechnics of that sort.
are not hard to suppose either. Besides
The mechanisms enabling this evolution
audiences who provided the tragedians after Aeschylus with an environment condu
cive to a less static mode of drama, it is clear that later classical playwrights had the
benefit of building on their predecessors' work. So, for instance, with Aeschylus'
Oresteia as guide, Euripides was able to telescope many of the plot elements spread
over an entire trilogy composed fifty years earlier into only one play, Orestes, by
moving the stage action along much more rapidly.4 Surely, however, this capacity for
accelerating the plot was not the product of the poets' genius alone. They would have
needed players who could feasibly enact dramas of such a sort and whose perfor
mances were of interest to audiences. This was, no doubt, the case, at least to judge
from the awarding of prizes to actors at the Dionysia for the first time in the early 440's
and the later domination of theatre in the fourth century by star performers like
Neoptolemos and Polos.5 It seems likely, then, that the theatregoing public by the later
classical period had already begun showing a heightened interest in performance arts
as such, engendering a fertile climate for versatile players capable of carrying out
successfully the rigors entailed in a more action-oriented mode of drama, one highly
demanding of both physical and vocal stamina.
Thus, it is possible to posit within the larger evolution of fifth-century Athenian
tragedy a sophistication on the part of playwright, player, and playgoer
growing
more and more character movement within a drama and result
embracing vigorous
ing in more dynamic stage activity. None of this is in question. The question is how
this evolution took place. Was it, for instance, as we are accustomed to expect, a
gradual sort of development toward increasing complexity, or did it follow a less
direct route? In other words, how much convolution was there to this evolution?
Likewise, do the individual author's works adhere to the same general scheme,
gravitating slowly over the course of their careers toward plays with swifter turnover
of scenes as they learn from practice and observing others' work how tomanage ever
more intricate stage action? If so, when and how did they acquire this skill?
To answer these questions, it is necessary first to find a consistent means by which
tomeasure the degree of character movement in Greek tragedy (i.e. how long "scenes"
are or how quickly they change), for only then can the reasons underlying this be
explored. Thus, it is the purpose of this paper, first, to devise an equitable and
universal method of determining scene length in Greek tragedy; second, to ascertain in
as much detail as the data permit the nature of the evolution of scene structure over
the course of the classical age; third, to examine the possible reasons underlying any
detectible patterns of change; and, finally, to investigate the larger ramifications of the
data collected here in our general appreciation of classical Greek theatre.
4
Euripides' Orestes includes several plot elements reminiscent of Aeschylus' trilogy: horn. Agamemnon,
a from The Libation-Bearers, Electra's lamentation, Orestes'
lyrical Trojan (Cassandra/Phrygian);
murderous assault on an older female relative effected with assistance; from Eumenides,
Pylades'
Orestes' vision of Clytemnestra's Furies, his last-second rescue and his trial.
by Apollo
5
Pickard-Cambridge, Dramatic Festivals, 72,126.
5. 116 / Mark Damen
II. A Methodology for Assessing Average Scene Length in Greek Tragedy
from the outset to establish some method
It is essential of analyzing the evidence
quantitatively and uniformly across the corpus of ancient Greek tragedy. This can
happen only by establishing firm criteria that can be applied to all the tragedians'
works and used to measure the speed at which the stage action of any such drama
moves. Therefore, if we construe a "scene" in the simplest possible terms as the
interval between the entrance and the exit of any speaking character (including
choruses), it is possible to determine the number of scenes in a play by enumerating
the entrances and exits which distinguish them, thus creating in modern terms a
succession of "French scenes."6 From that may be calculated a scene
play's average
length ifwe divide the number of lines in the play by the number of scenes.7 This clear
cut, albeit arbitrary, determiner makes the collecting and processing of data relatively
easy to execute and will produce a rough indication of the frequency at which the
scenes of a play turned over in the ancient Greek theatre.
What difficulties may arise in the course of assessing the average scene length of
specific plays can be surmounted when strict rules are applied.8 So, for instance, if a
character enters unannounced, itmay not be immediately evident at what line number
to assign the entrance, thus when the scene begins.9 It is necessary, then, to devise
methods for measuring scene length uniformly; they are as follows:10
6 a vital role in all classical an essential
Because choruses play tragedies, their movements constitute
component of this study; see Appendix 1 at the end of the article.
7 a random
While admittedly and often variable criterion, the conventional disposition of tragedies
over other means
into "lines" brings with it several important advantages possible of calculating the
a or the meters used in classical drama are far
"length" of play (e.g., counting words syllables). Though
from equal in syllable their variety across and within Greek level their
length, tragedies helps
tetrameter were more
differences. Also, the longer meters like trochaic likely to have been spoken
quickly, whereas the shorter ones such as choral lyrics were sung, thus extenuating the words in actual
All in all, poetic "meter" is inmany ways a "measurement" of sorts, and as such
performance. just that,
constitutes some indication of the passage of time on stage. So, if not a perfect criterion, it looks to be
the best indicator at hand, certainly adequate enough for giving a general impression of a play's run
a succession of scenes on the ancient
time and how long it took to perform stage.
8
To succeed, this study must build primarily from an equitable measurement of average scene
as attested for particular This requires that strict and clear rules govern the collection
length tragedies.
of the necessary information in order to ensure a balanced assessment of all plays under consideration.
In that case, matters the changes effected in a drama by the entrance or exit of a character or
involving
a new on (see M. Pfister,
what entails "configuration" stage The Theory and Analysis of Drama
can follow
[Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988], 171-76 and 291-94) only after the orderly
of data. Even if that means what are and complex "scenes" such as The
gathering equating clearly long
Libation-Bearers 22-585 with much less weighty dramatic passages such as Trachinian Women 813-21,
the rules must be to achieve credible results. Moreover, tend to have a
applied uniformly plays
of shorter and scenes, thus out the statistics, as The Libation-Bearers
complement longer balancing
demonstrates well; it has the single longest scene in Aeschylus?indeed in all of Greek it
tragedy?but
is also his drama in terms of scene change. As for those dramas that have no such
fastest-moving
such as the static Prometheus or the that is the very information we seek.
balance, briskly paced Rhesus,
9
For the most part, slight variations in line assignments do not affect the calculation of the average
scene a Entrances in Greek HSCP 82 (1978):
length in play. Richard Hamilton, "Announced Tragedy,"
63-82 and Joe Park Poe, "Entrance-Announcements and Entrance-Speeches in Greek Tragedy," HSCP
94 (1992): 121-56, review the nature of announced entrances. It is, however, unannounced movement
that poses, in general, more problems for this study.
10 scenes character movement and the
A fuller discussion of the enumeration of specific through
used in the article for measuring scene is contained in Appendix 2 at the end of
methodologies length
the article.
6. THE SCENICSTRUCTURE CLASSICAL
OF DRAMA / 117
1. All announced and unannounced movements that are necessitated by the
plot, are to be counted, and if it matters in the enumeration of scenes,
characters are assumed to enter at or about the time they first speak or are
announced, addressed, or said to be on
stage.
2. Simultaneous movements of characters on or off count as one entrance
stage
or exit, and those movements that are discrete as two.
only clearly
3. No movement that is not strictly necessitated by the action or the plot is to be
counted.
4. In accordance with the three-actor restriction, when there is a clear need for a
performer to make an offstage change of mask and costume, we must
suppose that one of the characters on stage has exited earlier, whether or not
there was an announcement of that character's movement, so that the
explicit
actor who is to play the new role is provided suitable time to effect the change
and re-enter as that character.11
5. In the same vein, an voice counts as an "entrance" since all such
offstage
intrusions into the stage action are significant and involve speaking actors
whose disposition must be carefully managed and designed by playwrights
the three-actor restriction.12
following
6. Characters mute actors, however central in the action, do
portrayed by stage
not serve to demarcate a of scene.13
change
7. Finally, if a character is silent at first but speaks later in the play without
having left the stage, the entrance is counted from when the character first
- . .
.
appears.14
11
The swift of mask and costume and the role-sharing required of the actors performing
changes
Rhesus?e.g., Odysseus/Alexander (626/642), Diomedes/Odysseus (633/668)?are further evidence
that it is a post-classical tragedy, not Euripides';
see below, note 27.
12
This is justifiable insofar as offstage voices nearly always represent a
sharp disruption and new
in the stage action, much as entrances do. In any case, they do not often enough
development happen
to affect conclusions and, by being applied across the board, introduce no undue
general substantially
bias into the overall analysis of scene length in different authors. It is necessary, then, to treat all
voices as discrete entrances, even in those instances when the same character as the
offstage offstage
voice enters e.g. Ajax (Aj. 333/348), Nurse (Trach. 862/871), Medea (Med. 96/214),
subsequently,
Polymestor (Hec. 1035/1056), Dionysus (Ba. 576/604), Old Man (IA 855/864). Adopting this criterion
actually facilitates the compilation of the data at certain junctures, such as the movements of the
Servant at LB 657: whether taken as an onstage presence or an
offstage voice, this character's
"entrance" into the play demarcates a new scene to the parameters of this study; see Taplin,
according
The Stagecraft, 341. For an overview of offstage voices and their general use in Greek
tragedy, see
Richard Hamilton, "Cries Within and the Tragic Skene," AIP 108 (1987): 585-99.
13
For example, "Citizens" (Seven 35), Antigone/Ismene (OT 1470), Children (Med. 1081), Athenian
Herald (exits at Eur. Supp. 394). The movements of mute characters frequently coincide with those of
speaking characters, which greatly decreases their impact on this study. When they do not, the exact
timing of their exits and entrances is often difficult to determine precisely; e.g. Hermes (Eum. 64-93),
Handmaid (Hec. 484-628), Athenian Herald (Eur. Supp. 381-94). Moreover, rarely does their passage
on or off stage betoken a scenic as to the drama as when a character
change consequential speaking
enters or exits. All in all, omitting the movements of mute characters from the enumeration of scenes
simplifies matters without distorting the data significantly.
14
For example, Cassandra (Ag. 783/1072), Child (Ale. 244/393), (Heraclid. 928/983),
Eurystheus
Adrastus (Eur. Supp. 1/113), Chorus (Eur. Supp. 1/42), Menoeceus (Phoen. 834/977).
7. 118 / Mark Damen
By applying these criteria to the assessment of scenes in tragedy and comparing
plays across time, it will be possible to detect patterns, if any exist, in the overall
disposition of scenes in Greek tragedy as it unfolds across the fifth century. All in all,
what is really being enumerated here are not episodes or "scenes'' by any conventional
definition, but the movements of actors on and off stage through their various roles.15
III. Overview of the Data
First, the evidence validates the general impression that Greek tragedy evolved
toward plays comprised of shorter scenes (Table 1). The average scene length of
Aeschylus' plays is notably higher (95.5) than that of his successors, Sophocles (72.3)
and Euripides (67.8). While the range for the individual plays of all three playwrights
is quite wide, a general tendency toward accelerating stage action over time clearly
exists.
IV. Aeschylus' Tragedies
Contrary to the prevailing trend, however, the data for Aeschylus' surviving plays
dispel any notion that the evolution of average scene length in Greek tragedy toward
a faster turnover of scenes proceeded in any gradual or even rectilinear fashion, at
least prior to 456 BCE (Table 2). Though it is true that classical tragedy on the whole
gravitated toward
decreasing average scene length and that Aeschylus' fastest
moving play (The Libation-Bearers) falls among his last, at the same time the evidence is
clear that his drama in general cannot be taken to entail any demonstrable progress
toward shorter scenes over time. In particular, when The Oresteia (Agamemnon, The
Libation-Bearers, Eumenides) embodies within a single trilogy both his play with the
lowest average scene length (The Libation-Bearers) and that with the second highest
Table 1. Overall Scene for the Classical
Length Tragedians16
Averages Range
95.5 136.9-59.8
Aeschylus
72.3 98.1-54.1
Sophocles
67.8 93.5-58.2
Euripides
[with Rhesus 67.0 93.5-52.4]
15
Graham Ley, "A Scenic Plot of Sophocles' Ajax and Philoctetes," ?ranos 86 (1988): 106, notes the
of entrances and exits in Greek tragedy: "It is clear that in a form of this kind especially
significance
the very creation of what we understand as drama came
(i.e. Greek tragic drama), where perhaps
from the manipulation of the arrivals and departures of characters, there is unlikely to be
explicitly
co-incidental about the introduction or removal of an actor into or from the presence of a
anything
fixed and partly defining chorus/7
16 as determined is
The full data for the breakdown of plays into scenes by entrances and exits
contained in Appendix 3 at the end of the paper.
17 scene the range
Since the authorship of Rhesus is debated and its average length falls below
attested for Euripides, I exclude it from the data here; see below, note 27.
8. THE SCENICSTRUCTURE CLASSICAL
OF DRAMA / 119
Table 2. Aeschylus
Entrances-Exits/ Position in
Play Lines Average Trilogy Premiere
Prometheus Bound 8/1095 136.9 first (?) uncertain
Persians 10/1077 107.7 uncertain 472 BCE
Seven Against Thebes1* 12/1078 89.8 467BCE
third
Suppliants 11/1073 97.5 first post-467 BCE
Agamemnon19 13/1673 128.7 458
first BCE
Libation-Bearers 18/1076 59.8 458
second
BCE
Eumenides 13/1047 80.5 third458 BCE
[Oresteia trilogy 44/3796
86.3]
TOTAL 85/8119 95.5
(Agamemnon), it is hardly possible to credit Aeschylus with anything but masterful
flexibility in this regard. Moreover, if Prometheus Bound, Aeschylus' play with the
highest attested average scene length, is to be dated among his later works, as some
scholars assert, the notion of smooth and continuous progress in this regard over the
course of time is hopelessly undercut.20
To the contrary, what drove Aeschylus tomodulate scene length was evidently not a
growing mastery of this aspect of the art form or a search for the best means possible by
which to enact a complex nexus of scenes. From at least the last decade of his career on,
18
Questions of authenticity and interpolation bedevil the end of Seven Against Thebes; see Taplin, The
Stagecraft, 169-70. In the play as transmitted, there are two scenes after 821 (Antigone and Ismene enter
at some point between 861 and 961; the Herald enters at 1005). Omitting the entire passage along with
these entrances scene
changes the average length of Seven Against Thebes only somewhat (82.1) and
does not alter its position relative to the other plays of Aeschylus (between Suppliants and Eumenides).
19 on and off stage are
In Agamemnon, the movements of Clytemnestra see
notoriously problematical;
J.R. Wilson, "Unsocial Actors in Agamemnon," Hermes 123 (1995): 398-403, and Thomas G. Rosenmeyer,
The Art of Aeschylus (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982), 70-74. If the minimalism presumed
in this study distorts the reality of Aeschylus7 staging in which Clytemnestra may be supposed to have
entered and exited several more times in the course of the drama, the advantages provided by
reducing character movements to a minimum in order to assert as much as possible across
uniformity
the data more than compensate for any misconstructions of what may have actually transpired on the
classical stage. It is worth in mind that this is not a in the uses to which
bearing fundamentally study
the Greek an to assess
tragedians put entrances and exits but attempt only the general picture of
character movement therein. Thus,
equalizing the criteria comes at a higher premium than deliberat
ing the nature of scene transitions in specific plays.
20
Taplin, The Stagecraft, 460-69 (Appendix D), discusses the notoriously question of
problematical
the authorship of Prometheus Bound as it relates to the issue of stagecraft, its
arguing against
However, even if Prometheus Bound is not by Aeschylus, it is certainly
authenticity. "Aeschylean"?
after all, it bore
enough hallmarks of his style to warrant included among his works?and,
being
whether or derivative, itmust constitute evidence of a sort about the typical Aeschylean mode
original
of crafting plays. Since average scene
length is a generality of just that type, I have included Prometheus
Bound among the plays taken into consideration here.
9. 120 / Mark Damen
he knew how to move scenes on when the situation demanded.
clearly quickly stage
Rather, itwas what the story type and plot elements of individual plays required. That
is, if Prometheus Bound is a slow-moving drama, it is not because Aeschylus did not as
yet grasp how to accelerate dramatic action through a succession of rapid-moving
scenes; neither is it because he did not have at his disposal performers capable of such
or even was hesitant to include a sequence of characters
entering and exiting the stage
quickly in that it might confuse the audience. The drama moves slowly primarily
because this part of the Prometheus myth requires that the hero be "bound," leaving
him immobile on stage, which by necessity slows down the stage action.
At the same time, however, the data for average scene length in Aeschylus suggest
there was perhaps another factor at play, the position of a tragedy in its trilogy. To a
greater degree than with Sophocles or Euripides, the essential unit of performance in
Aeschylus is the "connected trilogy," three tragedies linked by narrative, which were
originally designed to be performed together. Two of Aeschylus' four slowest-moving
dramas as determined by scene length are known to have stood first in their trilogies:
Agamemnon (128.7) and Suppliants (97.5). Another, Prometheus (136.9), was almost
certainly designed to lead off. The position of the fourth, Persians (107.7), is not known.
Next come the two known third plays in trilogies: Seven Against Thebes (89.8) and
Eumenides (80.5). And finally, the fastest-paced of Aeschylus' extant plays is The
Libation-Bearers (59.8), the only certain middle play.
With that firm conclusions
the allowance cannot be grounded on such slight
evidence, the data suggest that, besides the particular story, the average scene length
of a play is to some extent affected by its position in a trilogy, i.e. a relatively slow pace
for the first play, accelerated action during the second drama, and a moderate tempo
in the concluding tragedy. Nevertheless, in light of how little evidence underlies this
hypothesis, it seems inadvisable to speak in conclusive terms about this?or itwould
be more so if there were not sound and compelling principles of dramatic construction
evident in such a of the action. In scenes and slower
disposition particular, longer
action early on allow a more static and rhetorical posture at the outset of a trilogy,
when the audience's curiosity and attention are naturally high and the exposition of
the plot calls for careful delivery of the underlying situation to the viewers. Later,
however, during the second play, when audience focus is at a greater risk of
wandering and as the complications of the plot are unfolding but must by definition
remain unresolved, a faster pace suits better. The final play affords the opportunity to
slow the pace again, as the plot reaches closure and the playwright brings his themes
home. So, whether or not it was typical of Aeschylus, the largo-allegro-andante
performance tempo attested in The Oresteia makes good general sense in the larger
context of his theatre and is supported by the data derived from his other remaining
dramas that appear to accord well with such a notion.21
21 same
The is, of course, impossible to determine in Sophocles and Euripides since there is not
enough known about the relative positions of their plays in trilogies to do a comparative analysis.
Moreover, when the plays in a trilogy are unconnected in plot, one must ask whether the order in
which were would have mattered at all in the structuring of scenes.
tragedies produced
10. OF DRAMA
THE SCENICSTRUCTURE CLASSICAL / 121
V. Sophocles' and Euripides' Tragedies
In Greek tragedy after Aeschylus, a clear pattern in average scene length does, in
fact, emerge, but once more not the one which the general tendency towards faster
stage action over the course of the classical age would lead one to expect. Among the
data for Sophocles' and Euripides' plays, there is again neither a gradual decrease in
average scene length visible, nor even regular progress toward a faster turnover of
scenes. In fact, the opposite appears to be true.
Contrary to the dominant trend, Sophocles' extant plays gravitate toward longer
average scene length (Table 3). While the dating of Antigone and Oedipus Tyrannus is
debatable at best?most critics, however, would not situate these plays in the final
reason to posit Oedipus Tyrannus in
phase of Sophocles' career, and there is some good
the early 420s?Philoctetes and Oedipus at Colonus can be securely fixed among his last
works.22 Just that alone, however, makes it clear Sophocles' drama could not have
gradually evolved over time toward plays with shorter scenes, since his two slowest
moving tragedies are among the last he wrote. If there is any pattern deducible from
the scant data at hand, Sophocles' style of composing scenes must have evolved in a
manner almost directly opposite to the way scene length was changing during his
lifetime. That is, from the late 440s up until nearly the end of his career, Sophocles was
braking, not accelerating the pace of his dramas. Only with his last tragedy, Oedipus at
Colonus, is it even possible to say he wrote a play with a faster rate of scene change
than one before it. It constitutes the only evidence this playwright ever accorded with
the general pattern of quicker stage action in his day.
It is important to recognize, however, that we cannot rely too much on these data
because they are problematical inmore ways than one. First, very little of Sophocles'
total dramatic output survives?less than ten percent, in fact?which is a weak basis
Table 3. Sophocles
Entrances-Exits/
Play Lines Average Date of Premiere
Antigone 25/1353 54.1 441(?)BCE
Ajax 25/1420 56.8 (?)
Trachinian Women 19/1278 67.3 (?)
Electra 19/1510 79.5 (?)
Oedipus Tyrannus 19/1530 80.5 429^25(?) BCE
Philoctetes 15/1471 98.1 409 BCE
Oedipus at Colonus 21/1779 84.7 405 BCE
TOTAL 143/10341 72.3
22
The precise dating of Oedipus Tyrannus is problematical, but likelihood and consensus accord in
setting its premiere after 429 BCE, most probably at some point shortly thereafter. R. G. Lewis, 'An
Alternative Date for Sophocles7 Antigone," GRBS 29 (1988): 35-50, reviews the evidence for dating
Antigone and suggests 438 BCE as an alternative. If so, it would not affect the data here
significantly.
11. 122 / Mark Damen
for conclusions of sort. Second, what evidence there is runs
drawing general any
inexplicably counter
to the known course of progress in scene structure across the
century, which makes it seem all the more suspect. Thus, these conclusions may be
easily dismissed?or they would be, if the comparable data for Euripides' work which
is relatively better attested did not conform to much the same pattern.
Just as with Sophocles, the datable plays deriving from Euripides' earlier career
(Alcestis, Medea, Hippolytus) slowly climb in average scene length, reaching a crescendo
with those tragedies produced in or shortly after 415 BCE (Trojan Women, Helen,
Phoenician Women) (Table 4). Following that, the average scene length drops dramati
Table 4. Euripides
Date of Premiere
Entrances-Exits/ Projected
Play Lines Average Known (Zielinski)23
Alcestis 20/1163 58.2 438 BCE
Medea 23/1419 61.7 431 BCE
Heraclidae 17/1055 62.1 430?4 BCE
Hippolytus 22/1466 66.6 428 BCE
Andromache 20/1288 64.4 426?4 BCE
Hecuba 21/1295 61.7 424?4 BCE
Suppliants 17/1234 72.6 422?4 BCE
Electra 22/1359 61.8 416?4 BCE
Trojan Women 18/1332 74.0 415 BCE
Heracles 18/1428 79.3 414?4 BCE
Iphigenia (T) 16/1496 93.5 413?4 BCE
Helen 24/1692 70.5 412 BCE
23
Zielinski's analysis of iambic trimeter in Euripides (T. Zielinski, II, De Trimetri
Tragodoumenon
Evolutione a on the
Euripidei [Cracow, 1925]) suggests growing tendency playwright's part to resolve
the meter over the course of his career, i.e. to substitute other poetic feet for iambs. Using this, Zielinski
was able to infer when the undated most see T. B. L. Webster,
plays of Euripides likely premiered; The
Tragedies of Euripides (London: Methuen, 1967), 2-9, who recaps Zielinski's conclusions. Zielinski's
work has also been reviewed and largely confirmed by A. M. Dale, Euripides Helen (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1967), xxiv-xxviii, and more recently Martin and Gordon Fick, Resolutions and Chronology
Cropp
in Euripides: The Fragmentary Tragedies, Bulletin Supplement 43 (London: of London,
University
Institute of Classical Studies, 1985). Thus, I have included his suggested dates as a guideline to the
order in which were first produced, but neither Zielinski's conclusions nor
general Euripides' plays
any chronology which the analysis of scene length here may seem to betoken can serve as a firm
foundation for assigning dates to Euripides' dramas.
12. THE SCENICSTRUCTURE CLASSICAL
OF DRAMA / 123
Table 4 (continued). Euripides
Date of Premiere
Entrances-Exits/ Projected
Play Lines
Average Known (Zielinski)
Phoenician Women24: 23/1766 76.8 411-409 BCE
Ion 20/1622 81.1 410?4 BCE
Orestes 28/1693 60.5 408 BCE
Bacchae25 23/1392 60.5 406 BCE
Iphigenia (A)26 27/1629 60.3 406 BCE
[Rhesus27 19/996 52.4]
TOTAL 359/24329 67.8
[with Rhesus 378/25325 67.0]
cally (Orestes, Bacchae, Iphigenia inAulis). Thus, Euripides' later plays follow the same
pattern as Sophocles' Oedipus at Colonus in a long, slow upward trend
reversing
encompassing the majority of his career until very late when his style suddenly shifts
toward a more rapid turnover of scenes. The evidence also hints that Euripides began
24
How the additions made after Euripides' lifetime affect the average scene
length of Phoenician
Women is notclear, but it appears there is enough genuine material in the play that we can
remaining
a sense of of scenes.
gain Euripides' original disposition
25
The lacuna before Bacchae 1330 is estimated to be about
fifty lines. Adding it into the total line
count increases the play's scene length =
average only slightly (23/1442 62.6).
26
Poe, "Entrance-Announcements," 122 (n. 4), reviews salient and addresses the
bibliography
complications of dealing with the purported interpolations, textual corruptions and general questions
of authenticity surrounding the texts of in Aulis and Phoenician Women. His there is
Iphigenia analysis
a model of sage counsel the difficulties that these plays present to the wider assessment of
concerning
Euripides' stagecraft. For instance, if the beginning of Iphigenia in Aulis represents alternative versions
of the opening scene, each should be enumerated so, fortunately, does not affect the
separately. Doing
data for the play's average scene length in any significant way. Both reduce the play's scene
average
a little: the (49-114) to 59.0 (26/1533) and the "dialogue"
length "monologue" prologue prologue (1
48, 115-63) to 60.1 (26/1562).
27
To judge by scenes, Rhesus is the fastest-moving in the Euripidean corpus. In this way and
play
others, it defies easy analysis, and, as such, its authenticity has been much debated. While the evidence
here suggests the play we have is not Euripides' inasmuch as no other extant classical
tragedy exhibits
so a turnover of scenes, it should be noted that the data do not preclude the possibility that
rapid
Rhesus derives from Euripides' period of playwriting the rest of his surviving see
pre-dating corpus;
William Ritchie, The Authenticity of the Rhesus of Euripides Press,
(Cambridge: Cambridge University
1964), 361; and more recently, Luigi Battezzato, "The Thracian Camp and the Fourth Actor at Rhesus
565-691," CQ 50 (2000): 367-73. In spite of that, however, it seems more likely
our
play is a fourth
century namesake of Euripides' original in that, following the last tendency visible in Greek tragedy,
it is reasonable to presume average scene in tragedy continued to drop after the end of the
length
classical age. If so, fourth-century tragedy would have conformed with comedy which, to judge from
Menandrean drama, also shortened scenes and accelerated the stage action in general over the course
of the generations succeeding the fifth century. Thus, Rhesus fits well into a post-classical of
pattern
dramatic more
evolution encompassing rapid scene change and other broader stage effects.
13. 124 / Mark Damen
this change a little earlier than his older rival. To wit, Sophocles' Philoctetes in 409 BCE
still has a high average scene length (98.1), while Euripides' Orestes, which was
produced in the following year, changes scenes much more rapidly (60.5).
The timing of this volte-face implies some correlation in the tragedians' work. That
both follow the same general pattern is significant inasmuch as each bolsters the
evidence for the other and hints there was some common factor at play, an agency
independent of their often divergent tastes in drama. What that factor or factors might
have been is not immediately clear, but the coincidence in timing shows it was not
likely to have been a matter of their personal preferences alone. While for many
historians a date in the late 410s raises visions of the calamitous Sicilian Expedition,
the reason that disaster might have influenced average scene length in Athenian
tragedy is not readily apparent. If any connection at all exists between these
phenomena, it can only have been indirect, part of the larger program of change visible
in the arts at and around this time.
Evidence indeed suggests tragedy, and Athenian art in general, underwent a
dramatic transformation as Athens' fortunes declined over the course of the
Peloponnesian War (431-404 BCE). In particular, those tragedies dating to and after
the late 410's exhibit distinct changes in tone, notably the addition of comic elements
as seen in several of Euripides' later plays, especially those resolving in "happy
endings" (Helen, Iphigenia among the Taurians, Ion). It is likely these "untragic" tragedies
served several purposes, one of which was to bolster the spirits of a despondent
populace. Helen, for instance, exhibits quite a few elements traditionally employed in
sudden even an obnoxious
comedy: trickery, disguise, recognition, gate-keeper.28
Analysis of the scene length of this play shows, however, that there is another
important comic element present: relatively short scenes constituting a faster pace of
action. This is almost certainly a product of the influence comic drama brought to bear
on tragedy at this most tragic of times in classical Athenian history.
it is often difficult to determine exact movements over the course
Though very stage
of Aristophanes' plays, a glance at two inwhich exits and entrances are relatively easy
to determine, The Acharnions and The Clouds, demonstrates, as few would doubt, that
the pace of action in comic drama as measured the turnover of scenes
Aristophanes' by
is significantly quicker than that of tragedy (Table 5). The data for the only satyr play
preserved entire, Cyclops, which represents another sort of comic drama popular in
this age, also support this assertion: 17/709 = 41.7. Thus, it is warranted to surmise
that, along with the appropriation of other comic features, Euripides' later plays reflect
the sort of dramatic action typical of comedy that was as a rule disposed into shorter,
faster-changing scenes. Hence, the importation of comedie elements may be invoked
as at least one way of explaining the inversion in average scene length among late
classical tragedies. And that comedy is the most likely culprit here opens, in turn, the
possibility that it also figured into the earlier lengthening of scenes, a process under
way by the late 440's, nearly three decades prior.
28
Dale, Helen, xi-xvi, with clarity upon the comic elements in Helen.
Euripides expounds
14. THE SCENICSTRUCTURE CLASSICAL
OF DRAMA / 125
Table 5.
Aristophanes29
Entrances-Exits/
Lines Play Average Date of Premiere
Acharnians 37/1234 33.4
425
BCE
Clouds
30/1511 50.4
423
BCE
VI. Tragedy and Comedy
At present, our picture of fifth-century Greek comedy, and in particular its early
evolution, is cloudy at best. Nevertheless, some benchmarks in the general develop
ment of the art stand out. The first complete comedies surviving date to the 420s,
giving witness that the popularity of this art form had risen to a certain level of public
awareness by that point in time. It is also clear that
comedy had been growing in
as a dramatic medium well before this time. For instance,
visibility initially it was
produced only at the Dionysia, but in the late 440s a second festival, the Lenaea,
inaugurated the performance of comedy as well. Thus, by the middle of the century
comedy had evidently begun to stand alongside tragedy as a popular genre of drama,
even if historical records give us no sense that audiences at the time deemed it the
counterpart or rival of tragedy, or that it even as yet stood in the mainstream of public
arts. After all, the new festival showcasing
comedy was strictly a local affair?only
Athenians and their close neighbors attended the Lenaea?and at the Dionysia comic
poets were given much less "air time" than their tragic agnates in celebrating the god
who was their common forebear. Indeed, all evidence suggests that until quite late in
the classical age the attention of theatre-goers in Athens was directed largely toward
the tragedians' work over the comic playwrights'. So at least on the surface, the
frenetic sideshow of comedy, even if building in popularity, should have given the
tragic poets little to worry about. Certainly, the historical data from the time give no
credible reason to believe comedy would ever eclipse tragedy in the public mind, as in
fact it later did in the fourth century.
But the Greek tragedians vied not only with each other for
prized honors but also
with all other art forms for public attention and acclaim. While we in
retrospect may
see little ground for concern, tragic dramatists may not have watched the rise of
with serene was, in fact, on an arena the
comedy dispassion.30 Comedy intruding
tragedians had once owned exclusively and were now having to share. Outright
humor, the sort that Aeschylus uses when he has Clytemnestra say to Cassandra, "If
you're stupid and don't understand what I'm saying/Instead of your voice, talk with
29
The movements of characters in are to reconstruct,
Aristophanes' plays notoriously problematical
and thus I do not mean to posit the calculations of the average scene
length of these plays as in any way
definitive, only suggestive of how quickly scenes rolled over in Old For instance, it is
Comedy.
possible to construe as many as eleven more scenes in The Acharnians, which would lower the average
scene to 25.7 (48/1234). Likewise, The Clouds may be seen to have at least four more
length scenes,
its average scene
making length 44.4 (34/1511).
30
C. W. Marshall, "Alcestis and the Problem of Prosatyric Drama," CJ 95 (2000): 229-38, adduces
another way in which and comedy may have interacted in the 430s BCE.
tragedy
15. 126 / Mark Damen
your barbaric hand!" (Ag. 1060-61),31 had after Aeschylus' lifetime come to look less
like the stuff of tragedy and ever more like the property of comic poets, at least to
judge from the relative rarity of comparable moments in the early extant works of
Sophocles and Euripides.32 Though still far from it, tragedy was beginning to assume
the modern sense of the word, in no small part because it had now an antonym,
comedy.
This shift could not have pleased the tragedians. Dealing with comic drama in
ascendance meant either creating distance between the genres by excluding comical
elements from tragedy or competing for public attention in one important arena with
an eager, emergent
prot?g?. On the flip side of the Dionysia, however, the opposite
was true. The comic poets were more than to acknowledge
willing openly their debt to
tragedy and use its popularity with the audience in their own behalf, a fact well
demonstrated in Aristophanes' frequent citation of tragedy and impersonation of
tragic celebrities on stage. Similar echoes from the other wing of the festival are
hardly
ever heard, at least in the tragedies dating to the 430s and 420s. All in all, it seems
likely in more ways than one that from a tragedian's perspective this was not very
funny.
Later, however, changes in the political and social situation of Athens rendered a
very different audience and dramatic climate. Especially in the wake of the Athenians'
misfortunes during the later phases of the Peloponnesian War, the aura of gravity
haloing tragedy for much of its existence had, as time passed, begun to reflect all too
well the sense of gloom and despair hanging over the city, ever more so as the sad
outcome of the age unfolded. So, while the tragedians still commanded center stage,
the comic poets dashing about in the background had been making substantive
progress in winning the public's attention?and, no doubt, their affections also. And
because comic poets had borrowed so much from the tragic arts, it amounted to hardly
more than collecting on debts owed, when the
tragedians began to increase the share
of comic elements in their later on the and
plays, capitalizing essentially growth
popularity of Old Comedy. Those in the tragic arts who remembered the liberties
Aeschylus had enjoyed inmixing comedy and tragedy may even have reasoned this
was what had once been theirs.
only recovering
But itwas by that day much more. Artists like Aristophanes and Cratinus had, in the
meantime, made advances in the of drama and humor on
presentation especially
stage, with the result that along with heroes-in-disguise and obnoxious gate-keepers
came the comic playwrights' tendency to dispose the action on stage into shorter,
faster-moving scenes, not something typical of tragic drama composed in Aeschylus'
day even when he was going after a laugh. Of course, a quicker pace of stage action
31
Rosenmeyer, The Art
of Aeschylus, 69, points to comic in Eumenides: "Eumenides, of all
qualities
Aeschylus' plays, is closest in diction, tone, and spirit to the comic model." The of
fragments
Aeschylus' drama also hint at his use of comedy, including
an
Odysseus in The Bone-Gatherers
a
(Ostologoi) who recounts being hit in the head with chamberpot.
32
This is not to assert that tragedies composed in the 430s and 420s eschew humorous elements
entirely. Characters like Heracles in Alcestis, the Guard in Antigone and the Nurse in Hippolytus
constitute notable where an role in the tragedians' work. But these
exceptions comedy plays important
characters are
just that, exceptions in a general climate of "tragic" tragedy. Ajax, Medea, Oedipus
Tyrannus, and Trojan Women certainly provide audiences with relatively few moments of levity or
reasons to laugh.
16. THE SCENICSTRUCTURE CLASSICAL
OF DRAMA / 127
was more complicated to integrate into tragedy than adding a slapstick porter-scene to
Helen {fiel. 437-82) or having Ion rebuff Xuthus' apparent come-on (Ion 517-26), which
explains why comic characters show up in tragedy before average scene length begins
to drop. The latter involves a more comprehensive investment in the comedie mode,
and itwas, all in all, a monumental one not without
change to effect in the art, effort
or risk.
But for all it entailed, the change turned out to be well worth the investment of
genius and energy. Importing comic elements proved in the end an inspired move, at
least when measured by its results. It stimulated the last bloom of classical tragedy, in
particular, Euripides' final flourish of masterpieces: Orestes, Iphigenia in Aulis, and
Bacchae. Nor did Sophocles fail to rise to the challenge as Oedipus at Colonus shows,
though he seems not to have thrived in the new tragicomic climate as heartily as
Euripides. Comedy, after all, had never been Sophocles' forte, and by now he was
almost ninety.
Ultimately, the tragedians' adoption of comic elements betokened things to come. In
the next humorous drama rose to the dramatic arts in
century, pre-eminence among
Attica, and Euripides in retrospect ruled the tragic stage, winning among other
posthumous titles the distinction of being hailed "the forefather of New Comedy."
Surely, one element in the formulation of that opinion was the comfort those who
nurtured Menander?and later were nurtured on him?could feel as they watched the
late Euripides' accelerated stage action. A comparatively brisk pace of scenes was, by
then, what the Greek audience expected and enjoyed.
VII. Conclusion
The record of Greek theatre demonstrates well that, despite the newness of the art
form and technical barriers like the three-actor rule, ancient playwrights as early as
Aeschylus possessed the skill to move stage action through a quick succession of
scenes when the dramatic situation called for such a disposition of action. Unfortu
nately, the data do not reveal how that skill was acquired, amonumental achievement
given that the first Greek playwrights had no prototypes of complex drama to imitate.
At the same time, affords some evidence about the later classical tradition. The
history
dramas composed by Sophocles and Euripides, Attic tragedians writing inAeschylus'
wake, show a growing disinclination to engage in plays with a rapid turnover of
scenes, to the of faster action evidenced
contrary general pattern increasingly stage
across the century. If not what we might expect on first inspection, this pattern of
evolution in scene length is not intrinsically chaotic either. Indeed, it proves remark
toward a of not shorter scenes?in
ably rectilinear?only moving pattern longer,
response not to some simple, prescript norms but to its passage through the dynamic
environment housing it and complex channels of unforeseeable social change.
In sum, close analysis of the evidence shows that, while uniform
change in Greek
could and did happen progressively over a long period of time
tragedy (e.g. metrical
resolution in Euripides), in terms of scene length this art exhibits more the leaps and
starts, bumps and backwashes that typify real life, exemplifying that model of
evolution in which change proceeds in bursts and pauses with of
long periods
stagnation punctuated by sharp and significant crises. In retrospect, this is indeed the
very thing to be expected, not a gradual pattern of transformation but a series of swift
17. 128 / Mark Damen
and dramatic which and common sense dictate are
metamorphoses, experience
inherent the growth of classical tragedy toward a more
in any living biosystem. Thus,
frequent a tale of fluctuation
turnover of scenes is at heart and sudden progress, of
indecision and conflict, of concerted resistance but eventual surrender to an alluring,
encroaching outsider who is really an insider, a story so dramatically human it seems
worthy of Greek tragedy itself.
Appendix 1. The Exclusion of
Choral Movements and Odes From the Data
From the vantage point of modern theatre, which for the most part does not utilize
choruses, it is natural to ask whether the data for scene length might be brought into
sharper focus ifwe exclude choral activity and focus only on the "dialogue" sections
of Greek tragedy (episodia, or "episodes"). That, however, entails an unrealistic and
infeasible view of the use of the chorus in Greek tragedy. The point at which a chorus
enters the course of a even sometimes exits and re-enters, cf. Eum.
during play?and
234/244, Aj. 814/866, 385/515?and Hel. long choral odes last are issues as
how
important to the pacing of drama in classical Athens as the movements and words of
any single character. Furthermore, while tragedy may seem to have a basic structure of
alternating episodes and choral sections, the reality is, in fact, farmore complex, as Poe
articulates well (see note 1). Thus, to separate choruses from episodes not only violates
a fundamental premise of this genre but is very difficult to effect with any consistency,
are put to in the classical tragedies.
especially given the imaginative use that choruses
So, for instance, when Euripides' Medea first cries out near the beginning of the play
(Med. 96) and the Chorus enters in response (Med. 131), the ensuing lyrics (Med. 131
213) are then divided among the Nurse, Medea, and the Chorus. Is the Chorus's
entrance, then, to be seen as a scene?and it is well to bear in
demarcating separate
mind that at this juncture the audience first encounters the Chorus with Medea, an
in the which marks this as a critical transition in the
important relationship play,
should it be seen as a "choral ode," since it encompasses a
play?or strophic parodos
("entrance song"), and thus grouped along with the other lyrics which belong to the
or
Chorus entirely? The same could be asked of the parodoi in either Euripides'
Sophocles' Electra. In general, if a character interacts in song with the chorus, is it to be
counted as dialogue or discounted as ode? All in all, choral activity is too often fully
integrated into other characters' activities, making it impossible to distinguish be
tween it and movements.
"dialogic"
Fortunately, as difficult as it is to engineer, the removal of choral activity appears to
make little significant impact on this study, because omitting the odes and movements
of choruses shifts the numerical outcomes only slightly. As demonstrated below, if the
statistics for scene length are recalculated so as to overlook all independent choral
activity, i.e. actions
and words that do not immediately involve other characters, it
speeds up Aeschylus' drama by only a fraction (less than 3%) since his choruses by
nature tend to run long. For the other two surviving tragedians, it slows down the
turnover of scenes in their plays more substantially (by around 10%), because the
choruses of their dramas usually constitute less of the drama than the episodes.
19. 130 / Mark Damen
Euripides
Entrances-Exits/
Play (Date) Lines Average <With choruses> Difference
Alcestis (438) 15/983 65.5 <58.2> +7.3
Medea (431) 18/1215 67.5 <61.7> +5.8
Heraclidae 13/933 71.8 <62.1> +9.7
Hippolytus (428) 18/1250 69.4 <66.6> +2.8
Andromache 16/1112 69.5 <64.4> +5.1
Hecuba 16/1111 69.4 <61.7> + 7.7
Suppliants 12/1018 84.8 <72.6> +12.2
Electra 18/1224 68.0 <61.8> +6.2
Trojan Women (415) 15/1104 73.6 <74.0> -0.4
Heracles 12/1121 93.4 <79.3> +14.1
Iphigenia (T) 13/1307 100.5 <93.5> +7.0
Helen (412) 19/1494 78.6 <70.5> +8.1
Phoen. W. (411-409) 18/1503 83.5 <76.8> +6.7
Ion 15/1398 93.2 <81.1> +12.1
Orestes (408) 23/1583 68.8 <60.5> +8.3
Bacchae (406) 17/1053 61.9 <60.5> +1.4
(A)
Iphigenia (406) 21/1291 61.5 <60.3> +1.2
[Rhesus 15/836 55.7 <52.4> +33]
TOTAL 279/20700 74.2 <67.8> +6.4
[with Rhesus 294/21536 73.3 <67.0> +6.3]
Appendix 2. Enumeration of Scenes Through Character Movement:
Methodologies for Measuring Scene Length
1. Unannounced Movements
Entrances: Antigone/Ismene (Seven 861 or 875 [or 961?]), Herald (Aes. Supp. 836/
872), Theseus (Eur. Supp. 381, 838, 1165; contra Halleran, 21, who is correct that
standard practice would call for Theseus to enter at, for instance, 1123, but for the
purposes of this study the exigencies of uniformity and simplicity militate otherwise),
Theoclymenus (Hel. 1165).
Exits: Pedagogue (Med. 106 or 111; escorts children inside the house), Handmaid
(Hec. 894; delivers Hecuba's message to Polymestor), Messenger (Eur. El. 858; exits
after his report of Aegisthus' death has been completed), Talthybius (Tro. 1155; exits to
dig Astyanax' grave, returns at 1260), Theoclymenus (Hel. 1440; exits because he must
not overhear what Menelaus or the Chorus says, then returns at 1512).