In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

118 The theater audience was a motley group. It did not merely reflect certain parts of the civic body, it also reflected the various groups of residents and visitors to the city. In addition to its citizen population, Attica was a community that comprised various sorts of noncitizens vital to the life of the polis. Both non-Athenian Greeks and non-Greek foreigners engaged in periodic and regular travel to Athens; many of them resided in the city. In contrast to much recent work on the theater with its emphasis on citizens, this chapter seeks to repopulate Classical drama in terms of the non-Athenians and nonGreeks present both in the audience (as spectators) and in the theater (i.e., involved in the production but also as spectators). Although studies based on the idea of a “notional or proper” male (often citizen) audience have usefully revealed some of the ways in which drama explored issues of male identity and citizenship, this begs a crucial question: what other males were present?1 What in fact did this community assembled in the theater look like? In fact, there were numerous noncitizen groups in the theater, and their presence merits closer attention. Such attention to the noncitizen, non-Greek, and nonfree in the theater can contribute to a radical decentering of “Greek” drama and open up a new history of the theater beyond the traditional confines of the polis. Scholars interested in political dimensions of drama have discussed various aspects concerning the ethnicity and civic status of spectators. There has thus been some study of the possible significance of the presence of noncitizens for our understanding of the social dynamics in the theater.2 Much additional evidence for noncitizens exists, however, in the audience and the theater. As Hall succinctly puts it, there is a great need to “reassess the theatrical texts from the perspective not only of the indigenous Athenian citizen spectator, but the potential spectator of metic or servile status from Thrace, Scythia, Phrygia, Lydia, Syria, and all the other territories from which the Athenians drew their slaves.”3 The reason is clear: drama produced in Athens and rechapter 4 nonciTizenS in the TheaTer nonciTizenS in the TheaTer 119 performed abroad was not just an Athenian product in that it involved many non-Athenian Greeks in its production, dissemination, and reception. Noncitizens in the form of non-Greek slaves and metics were also involved in dramatic production. In the Classical and Hellenistic period, Athenian drama was not simply an Athenian or Greek product; it was produced by and, to a certain extent, for others. In this chapter I discuss the evidence for the various ethnic and social divisions among those present in the theater. Evidence for noncitizens ranges from descriptions of the audience, to (historical, literary, and epigraphic) accounts of participants in Dionysiac rituals and dramatic production, and to the very librettos of ancient drama. Parts of my discussion thus range over noncitizen involvement as sponsors, trainers, and actual performers on stage. To some extent, performance in and for the theater industry is another dimension of audience participation. Additionally, I also raise the issue of naturalization in Athens as a reflection of the innate heterogeneity of the citizen body itself. In general, I would note that discussion of the presence of noncitizens is hampered by the ideological exclusion, if not dismissal, of such groups as slaves and metics from many ancient accounts of the theater. The sources are often fragmentary and more suggestive than informative, but there are overwhelming indications that foreigners, metics, and even slaves actively participated in various capacities at dramatic performances. In contrast with past studies, I stress the significant internationalization of the performances and spectators in Athens (at the City Dionysia and the Lenaia) and in the deme theaters of Attica (at the Rural Dionysia). Although the existence and gradual extension of the distinct audience in the front sections of the theatron may have created an ideal “civic audience,” dramatic performances had to grapple with marked class and ethnic divisions that continually threatened to disrupt and blur such clear distinctions. foreignerS (Xenoi ) anD meTicS (meToiKoi ) Many foreigners were present in Athens and made their way to the theater during the dramatic festivals. From guests to foreign dignitaries, xenoi came from all walks of life. Those xenoi who stayed in the city for some time were required to register as metics, a term that people generally avoided when referring to themselves. Metics were obliged to pay the metoikion...

Share