Die innere Vergegenwärtigung des Bühnenspiels in Senecas Tragödien. By
CHRISTOPH KUGELMEIER. Zetemata 129. Munich: C.H. Beck, 2007. Pp. 301.
Paper, €64.00. ISBN 978–3–406–56484–0.
A CJ Online Exclusive
Generally speaking, researchers have identified two distinct possibilities
for the kind of production for which Seneca’s tragedies were intended.
Despite claims that the dispute is settled, [n. 1] the debate continues.
The view of those who believe that Seneca’s tragedies were intended for the
stage is no less firmly met with resistance from those who are of the
opinion that they were instead intended for production within our
imagination only. Kugelmeier (K.) does a wonderful job in describing the
history of this debate in his Einleitung on pp. 9–24 and in the beginning
of chapter III of this book, an expanded version of his 2002
Habilitationsschrift.
In his own words, K. does not intend to offer a simple “confession of
faith” (p. 22) that one side or the other in this debate is correct.
Rather, he proposes to review the entire case and look for new evidence for
the claim that Seneca’s tragedies were better suited for recitation. He
arrives at the firm conviction that the plays were not suitable for the
stage, and were intended only for recitation (p. 233). The question of
whether Seneca’s plays were meant for production onstage or for recitation,
however, is not the same as the question of whether they were fit for only
one of these two purposes.
Even if K. fails to fully discriminate between what Seneca intended to
write and what he wrote, he succeeds insofar as his book is a comprehensive
overview of the state of contemporary discussion of the question.
Proponents of the view that Seneca’s dramatic works were suitable for
onstage production will naturally disagree with most of K.’s findings and
conclusions, and his book will therefore almost certainly be highly
controversial. In what follows, I limit my comments to a few general
points.
K.’s first chapter discusses the history of scholarship on the issue and
sets the stage (if I may) for what is to come. As in all his chapters, K.
displays a thorough knowledge of previous scholarship, even if at times he
does not give others quite their due. For example, on p. 51 K. quotes
Tarrant [n. 2] and his view that Seneca’s extended entry monologues have
their origin in Euripides. The discussion that follows, however, brushes
aside Tarrant’s opinion in a way that fits K.’s argument, but disregards
what Tarrant intended to say.
The center of the book is its second chapter, in which K. describes
problems that may arise during a production of Seneca’s tragedies onstage.
K. structures this chapter under various headings: dealing with space
onstage, asides, entering and exiting the stage, number of actors,
prologues and entry monologues, reports, description of actions as they
occur on stage, chorus, time, motivation and characterization of dramatic
personae. A list of these problems as they occur within individual plays
would have been helpful. In any case, it is important to acknowledge that
only rarely can we refer to actual productions of Senecan tragedies on
stage. [n. 3] This caveat is even more important when it comes to
productions on stages comparable to ancient stages, and under conditions
similar to those in which ancient actors, producers and authors worked, as
K. repeatedly points out. Thus if we claim that a particular scene cannot
or can only with difficulty be imagined onstage, we should not
automatically assume that contemporary tastes and theater conventions are a
valid means of understanding the views and situation of ancient Romans.
Throughout his book, K. displays an awareness of this dilemma and its
consequences for the poetics and aesthetics of ancient theater productions.
Yet a fundamental problem remains: Does the fact that Seneca’s tragedies
can be staged exclude the possibility that, if an opportunity presented
itself, they may also have been recited, and vice versa? Did Seneca’s
intention of writing tragedies for the stage forbid their recital? [n. 4]
With this caution in mind, we need to define what it means to say that a
scene could not be produced onstage in antiquity. Since we lack evidence
that Seneca explicitly did not intend for his tragedies to be staged, only
if we conclude that under no circumstances could a scene be produced on an
ancient stage in his time, are we entitled to claim that this tragedy was
not intended to be staged. If passages in the tragedies provoke rejection
for aesthetic reasons, we can only say that in our view Seneca was a bad
author for the stage. Whether he would have been regarded as a bad poet in
antiquity as well is a separate question. [n. 5]
Scholars have pointed out that some scenes of Seneca’s tragedies cannot be
produced on stage, and K. does not fail to discuss them. In the final scene
of Medea, for example, K. denies that there is enough room onstage for the
dragon chariot, and thinks that Medea cannot climb the wall of the stage.
But given Seneca’s letter 88.22—a letter which admittedly does not talk
explicitly about tragedy, but also does not exclude it—I am puzzled as to
why K. (pp. 28 and 40) rejects Hine’s comments on Med. 1023f. [n. 6] In his
letter, Seneca points out that in his time stages were equipped with quite
sophisticated machinery. Hine is therefore right to point out that this
scene from Medea could indeed be realized on the contemporary stage. There
might have been a house on the Roman stage even if the stage itself was
roofed. Indeed, this roof might have helped Roman stage mechanics come up
with a solution for the dragon chariot, to make up for the lack of the
Greek mechane. The case of the appearance of Cerberus at Hercules furens
592 is similar. K.’s argument against Eisgrub’s proposal [n. 7] to have
Cerberus played by several actors in one costume is weak (p. 75). Just
because it was customary in antiquity for one actor to represent a single
animal on stage at any one time, does not mean that Seneca could not have
innovated. And even if he was not so innovative, one actor might have worn
a single costume that featured three heads.
A particularly unconvincing part of K.’s book is his discussion of two
scenes, beginning at Thy. 970 and Med. 893, that have been claimed as
evidence that Seneca intended his plays to be staged. I concentrate here on
Thyestes. K. argues (pp. 222f.) against Braun’s [n. 8] opinion that scenes
of this type are rare; that anyone who is familiar with the myth knows what
to expect at this point in the play; that the inexplicit nature of Seneca’s
description of the scene stimulates the listener’s imagination and
heightens suspense; that to realize the scene onstage would entail very
crude props; and that the question of how Thyestes recognizes his brother’s
crime is less important than the atrocity itself. The fact that comparable
scenes are limited in number does not prove or disprove anything; how many
Roman tragedies have survived? Second, it is true that these subjects of
tragedies and myths were all known to everyone, regardless of whether they
listened to a recitation or visited the theater. But this proves precisely
that how an author dealt with a given myth was important. Third, who are we
to judge whether certain stage-props were unusual in Seneca’s times, given
the limited number of extant plays from the period? And even if these props
had never been seen before, who tells us that Seneca was a conventionalist?
So too the claim that the inexplicit description of the scene heightens
suspense and stimulates our imagination could lead instead to the question
of why Seneca did not use this type of scene more often.
More promising is K.’s attempt to evaluate problems and possibilities of
the recitation of Seneca’s tragedies in Chapter 3. K. nicely shows that
Seneca’s plays might have been “produced” as a recital. But I found no
argument that convinced me that Seneca intended his plays for recitation
only. On the other hand, most of the problems that Seneca’s plays may have
caused on stage persist if they are acted out in our minds. Thus, for
example, the question of how to explain HF 59 (p. 168) in the sequence of
events still remains, whether the play was staged or not.
In sum, K.’s book largely confirms the conclusions Zwierlein arrived at
roughly forty years ago. [p. 9] At the same time, it is unlikely that his
work will settle the issue and end the debate over what Seneca intended to
write and what he wrote.
WOLFGANG POLLEICHTNER
Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Germany
[n. 1] Cf. U. Pappalardo, Antike Theater: Architektur, Kunst und Dichtung
der Griechen und Römer (Petersberg, 2007) 167 (German translation from the
Italian original by E. Lein and S. König-Lein) (the tragedies are intended
for recitation); A. Speyer, Kommunikationsstrukturen in Senecas Dramen:
Eine pragmatisch-linguistische Analyse mit statistischer Auswertung als
Grundlage neuer Ansätze zur Interpretation (Göttingen, 2003) 281 (the plays
can be staged and were probably intended for the stage).
[n. 2] “Senecan Drama and Its Antecedents,” HSCP 82 (1978) 213–63, at 235–6.
[n. 3] On past attempts to stage Seneca’s plays in modern times, see K. on
pp. 18–21 with n. 35; and the updated appendix by W. Stroh, “Staging
Seneca: The Production of Troas as a Philological Experiment,” in J.G.
Fitch, ed., Seneca. Oxford Readings in Classical Studies (Oxford, 2008)
195–220.
[n. 4] See, e.g., P. Kragelund, “Senecan Tragedy: Back on Stage?” in Fitch
(n. 3, above) 181–94, at 181–2 and n. 2.
[n. 5] Cf. Speyer (n. 1, above) 281.
[n. 6] H.M. Hine, Seneca, Medea, with an Introduction, Text, Translation
and Commentary (Warminster, 2000) 208.
[n. 7] A. Eisgrub, Seneca, Hercules furens. Handlung, Bühnengeschehen,
Personen und Deutung. Diss. (Würzburg, 2003) 125.
[n. 8] L. Braun, “Sind Senecas Tragödien Bühnenstücke oder
Rezitationsdramen?” Res publica litterarum 5.1 (1982) 43–52.
[n. 9] O. Zwierlein, Die Rezitationsdramen Senecas. Mit einem
kritisch-epexegetischen Anhang (Meisenheim am Glan, 1966).
You may remove yourself from the CJ-Online list-serve by sending an email
to: [log in to unmask] Leave the subject line blank, and in the first
line of the message write: UNSUBSCRIBE
|
