The main obstacle hindering the recovery of the original production practices of Greek tragic plays is scanty evidence. The most important testimony, of course, resides in the text of the plays themselves. As these plays were composed for a first performance in the Theater of Dionysus, it is that first performance in that particular theater in the fifth century bce that has become the focus of investigation. And this approach seems justified, even if the texts that we possess today may, to a limited extent, reflect changes made for a subsequent performance in the same theater or indeed in another theater. It appears that the basic layout of the theater throughout the Greek world remained more or less the same during the course of several centuries. There would, of course, have been local variations of a minor nature, and no two performances of a given play would ever be exactly the same, even in the Theater of Dionysus. However, the texts as we have them must be seen primarily as evidence for that very first production, and this will be the working assumption followed here.
We must at the same time acknowledge the ongoing debate over the extent and accuracy of any picture of the original performance which may be reconstructed when the text is used as the primary evidence. On the one hand, it has been argued that all ‘‘significant’’ actions in a Greek tragedy are embedded in the words (Taplin 1978, 17). On the other hand, it has been maintained that the text itself carries no sign of entire dimensions of important action, much of which can actually be recovered through consideration of other factors such as performance space (Wiles 1997, 15-21 and passim). There is clearly cause for considerable caution, especially since the very methodology of so-called performance criticism has been challenged (Goldhill 1986a, 276-86; 1997c, 336-40).
Closely connected with the evidence of the texts is the evidence provided by the archaeological remains of the Theater of Dionysus in Athens. The obstacles here, however, are formidable, since by and large the surviving remains date to later periods. Moreover, there have been varying interpretations of the earlier archaeological layers, with the result that crucial details about the exact configuration of the performance space at different stages in the fifth and fourth centuries bce remain a matter of controversy. Nevertheless, the essential relationship between the texts and the original performance area seems clear enough.
The third type of evidence comes from vase-painting. Here again, however, there are significant problems of interpretation (see Small, chapter 7 in this volume). It is difficult to be sure of the extent to which a more or less contemporary painting actually reflects a particular performance, or performance in general, rather than the imaginative creativity of the artist. Moreover, as has been convincingly argued (J. R. Green 1994), the convention for depicting a tragic subject differed from that relating to comedy because the figures were not shown as actors in their masks and theatrical costumes, but as characters from the myth that supplied the subject matter of a play. Nevertheless, there are sometimes hints of a theatrical context, although these too must be treated with caution since they often do not relate specifically to the Theater of Dionysus.
Serious problems also surround the fourth main type of evidence, namely material found in other ancient written sources, such as observations made by the scholiasts (ancient commentators). In many cases their comments about original performances refer to the situation in their own day, often several centuries after the fifth century. We must now consider what kind of tentative picture can be built up, drawing on these different types of evidence, concentrating on the texts of the plays and the archaeological remains of the theater.
World History
