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

158 Discussion of women’s presence in the theater audience has a long history in Classical scholarship.There has been much debate surrounding this issue and the ways in which it has been framed, and recent discussions have led to an impasse. The continuing influence of Enlightenment thinking about the role of women in society has unduly shaped scholars’ use of the available evidence and the ideas it has been allowed to generate. Often the problem is anachronism : the uncritical projection of dominant ways of thinking in the modern age about class and gender relations obscures ancient practices. Both the idea and actual presence of women in the theater have posed problems for ancient and modern critics, but it was only in the Enlightenment that the solution was to banish women from the ancient theater. In addition to the need to untangle ancient evidence and modern concepts, economic considerations need to be integrated into the discussion. The presence of financial barriers (e.g., entrance fees), the limitation of theorika to (male) citizens, and the available spaces for spectators have important implications for women’s attendance. What is needed at this juncture is a broader consideration of women’s public roles in the spheres of ritual and commerce, and a rethinking of the value of the direct evidence from such sources as Aristophanes and Plato. As in the case of modern studies, ancient discussions were shaped in part by ideology and form part of a broader tradition concerning the contested value of a “mass” audience. As I will show, the politicization of the theater audience influenced the ways in which ancient authors discussed the issue of women in the audience. Despite the contradictory views and assumptions in these discussions , they generally share a similar structure and can be used to unearth a critical tradition involving the specter of women in the audience starting with Old Comedy.Taken together, Aristophanes’ playful reference to the very issue of female spectators and Plato’s dire warnings of a cultural collapse (as revealed by the degenerate audience, including women and slaves) represent different emphases in a longstanding debate involving the presence of women chapter 5 women and the TheaTer auDience women and the TheaTer auDience 159 in the audience. The question of women’s attendance is thus more complex and perhaps more extensive than has been previously assumed. The value of anecDoTal eviDence Since there are particularly thorny interpretative issues with nearly all the evidence I consider in this chapter, brief consideration of some late anecdotes can serve as examples of some of the larger interpretive problems associated with the question of women in the audience. The first example comes from Plutarch’s Phocion (19.2–3) in a section that describes the simple lifestyle of the Athenian statesman.1 Following a discussion of Phocion’s proper attitude to wealth and incorruptibility, Plutarch turns to his wives.Whereas nothing is known of the first wife, the second one had a reputation for moderation and simplicity not less than Phocion’s reputation for uprightness. At this point in his narrative, Plutarch refers to an incident in the theater. When the Athenians were watching a performance of new tragedies (i.e., not a reperformance of an earlier “classic” play), the actor playing the part of a queen became irate that the khorêgos, Melanthius, refused to provide him with a large number of ornately dressed attendants. As a result, the actor was unwilling to perform and kept the audience waiting. In response, Melanthius pushed the actor out onto the stage (εἰς τὸ μέσον) and shouted, “Do you not see the wife of Phocion always travels about with one servant? But you are acting pretentiously and corrupting the women” (γυναικωνῖτις).2 The audience heard this exchange and widely applauded the words of the khorêgos. Although this detail is not necessary for Plutarch’s narrative, Phocion’s wife seems to have been present in the theater with a servant for Melanthius to point her out to the pretentious actor. It may be, however, that Melanthius referred to the well-known habits of Phocion’s wife rather than her physical presence in the audience. Nevertheless, Melanthius does voice his concern about the effect that indulging the actor would have on “women” in the theater. The term used by him to refer to “women” is itself worthy of note. It more generally refers to the “women’s quarters” and thus a separate part of the house.3 As I will discuss later, this ideal...

Share