-
Notes
- University of Texas Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
203 inTroDucTion 1. Stallybrass and White 1986: 87. 2. See Straub 2007 on the abolishment of the footman’s gallery in 1759 by turning it into regular paying seats and dispersing footmen throughout the theater. Spectators could nonetheless express disapproval: see, e.g., Blackadder 2003. 3. D. Kennedy 2009: 3. 4. Age classes are mentioned in comedy (e.g., Ar. Peace 50–53, Assembly Women 1146; Men. Dyscolus 965–967; cf. Arist. Politics 1336b20–24); see further Henderson 1991a: 135– 136. But aside from age restrictions for various duties (e.g., political service), the age of majority was not a significant fault line in the same way as class, social status, or gender; as “social beings” children were readily assimilated to these categories (see Golden 1990). The topos of young vs. old in comedy notably embodies political and social values in terms of different generations. See, e.g., Csapo 2002: 127–135; Dover 1993: 22–24. 5. The tendency to view the audience in terms of individuals is further promoted by the conditions of industrial capitalism. See Marx, “On the Jewish Question” (in McLellan 2000: 46–70) for the bourgeoisie’s problematic disassociation of the role of man in civil society (i.e., as a private individual) from his life in the political community (i.e., as a citizen and thus part of a political body). The political emancipation achieved by the rise of the bourgeoisie “is the reduction of man, on the one hand to a member of civil society, an egoistic and individual, on the other hand to a citizen, a moral person” (64). Discussion of the tragic hero in Hegel, Freud, and Lacan has further contributed to the elision of the constitution of groups; see further duBois 2010: 78–88. 6. Ubersfeld 1981: 306; Elam 1980: 86. 7. Bennett 1997: 211. 8. Fischer-Lichte 1982: 52. 9. See Bennett 1997: 34–67 on reader response theory and its significance for signaling the prominent role of the theater audience in dramatic production. See further Eagleton 1996: 47–78 for discussion of the theoretical underpinnings of the shift of attention to “readers” in the work of Iser 1978 and Jauss 1982. D. Kennedy 2009 stresses the limitless factors involved in analyzing (modern) spectators. 10. Elam 1980: 34; see further Bennett 1997: 67–85; D. Kennedy 2009; Leach 2008: 165–179; Pavis 1982. 11. See Revermann 2006b for a useful study of the theatrical competence of the AthenoTeS noTeS to PageS 4–9 204 nian audience. Goldhill (1997: 66) rightfully notes that the “frame of the drama is framed by the audience.” 12. See Ubersfeld 1982. 13. DFA; Csapo and Slater 1995 provides a useful survey of the audience, but it omits much of the evidence in its brief compass and requires updating. 14. Discussion of Roman audiences: Csapo and Slater 1995: 306–330; Friedländer 1965; Marshall 2006; Moore 1998. 15. The essays in Winkler and Zeitlin 1990 provide a clear example of the use and limits of this approach to ancient drama; see further Foley 2001; Goldhill 1997; McClure 1999. See Hall (2006: 224) for her reflections on the “other” in drama as informed by the culture of the Cold War. 16. See Butsch 2008 for discussion of the significance of this paradigm for nineteenthand twentieth-century American culture. Kaimio 1999 notes the tendency in recent Classical scholarship to focus on the “political emphasis” of Greek drama and offers a useful discussion of the non-Athenian citizenship of choreuts, actors, and poets; the audience, however, is notably omitted from Kaimio’s discussion. 17. Citizens as middling hoplite farmers: see, e.g., Hanson 1995; Morris 2000: 109– 154. Cf. E. Cohen 2000; Harris 2002; van Wees 2001, 2004. 18. See, e.g., Cerri 1979; Citti 1979; di Benedetto 1971. 19. Goldhill 1997: 66, 67. See further Foley 2001: 3; Goldhill 2009: 47; Hall 2009: 90; McClure 1999: 17. See also P. D. Arnott 1989: 8–9 for the “middle-class tastes” and “xenophobia” of the audience. 20. Wiles 1997: 212. Ehrenberg (1962: 27) claimed that “the audience was the Athenian people, the same people who formed the assembly” and that (28) the “general composition of the assembly and the theatre was the same”; see also MacDowell 1995: 7–26. 21. Quotations from Zeitlin 1996: 363, 347. This complex model has been elaborated in subsequent studies: see, e.g., Foley 2001; McClure 1999; Ormand 1999; Taaffe 1993. 22. See, e.g., Goff 2004; N. F. Jones 1999; Patterson 1987. 23...