Ways of Hearing in Sophokles: Auditory Spaces and Social Dynamics in the Elektra, Philoktetes, Trachiniai, and Oidipous Tyrannos by Miranda Evelyn Marie Robinson A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Classics University of Toronto © Copyright by Miranda Robinson 2014 Ways of Hearing in Sophokles: Auditory Spaces and Social Dynamics in the Elektra, Philoktetes, Trachiniai, and Oidipous Tyrannos Miranda Robinson Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Classics University of Toronto 2014 Abstract It has long been known that sight was a crucial component of the fifth-century Athenian theatre. And while that is true, it can also be argued that aurality, the ability to hear and be heard, is an equally important aspect of Athenian drama. This dissertation strives to reclaim a place for hearing in studies on tragedy generally and on Sophokles in particular. Adopting terms from radio theory and media theory, I suggest that Athens was both an acoustic space and an aural community. In the course of an examination of four tragedies, I engage with the following question: how do the characters in these plays hear? Analyzing each play in turn, I show how hearing can occur physically, socially, publically and politically respectively. For Elektra, hearing is a physical and psychic blow; for Philoktetes, hearing is how he connects with the world around him and how he tries to reconnect with people; for Deianeira, hearing is a dangerous phenomenon capable over overturing her own predictions and capable of causing her to lose control of the final shape of her aural reputation; for Oidipous, hearing is an expression of his political status and ultimately a cause of his fall from power. The results of this study show that, in each case, the act of hearing is an invasive process in which the sonant object, ii mobile and semi-autonomous, can intrude upon new spaces, stage and body alike. This dissertation contributes to a growing body of literature on aurality in tragedy and enhances our understanding of the interconnections between hearing, society, politics, and the individual. iii Acknowledgments I would never have been able to finish my dissertation without the guidance of my committee members, help from friends, and support from my family and partner. In particular, this dissertation could not have been written to its fullest without Dr. Victoria Wohl, who served as my supervisor, as well as one who challenged and encouraged me throughout my time spent studying under her. I humbly thank you. I would also like to offer my deepest gratitude to the other members of my committee, Dr. Jonathan Burgess and Dr. Martin Revermann, for the assistance they provided at every stage of this project. And I am much obliged, too, for the time and comments of Dr. Rachel Barney, who served as my internal reader. Finally, I am entirely beholden to the external reader of my thesis, Ruth Scodel, whose comments have been enlightening and encouraging. Vehement protestations of gratitude go to those who shared their time and their ears—especially Dr. Seth Schein and Dr. Lynn Kozak—and to those who have shared literature—Dr. Anne- France Morand, Dr. Brad Inwood, Dr. Sean Gurd and Dr. Albert Mudry. Words are powerless to express my gratitude to my family: my parents, my Granny, my bestest buddy and go-to German helper Miranda, Romi and Obi (faithful companions and professional stress-relievers). But most of all, I thank Phil, my love and my safe place, who took care of me when I forgot to. iv Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IV TABLE OF CONTENTS V INTRODUCTION AURALITY AND THE THEATRE OF SOPHOKLES 1 1.1 CLASSICS, RADIOS, AND THEATRES 5 1.2 AURAL COMMUNITIES 12 1.3 A WAY OF HEARING SOPHOKLES 16 1 βάλλει δι᾽ ὤτων: “IMPINGING MISSILES” ON THE ACOUSTIC “INNARDS” OF THE STAGE IN SOPHOKLES’ ELEKTRA 20 2 OH DEAREST SOUNDS! PHILOKTETES AND THE AURAL COMMUNITY 49 3 WANDERING WORDS: λόγος, κλέος AND “BEING HEARD OF” IN THE TRACHINIAI 80 4 ONE MUST HEAR: THE POWER DYNAMICS OF HEARING IN THE OIDIPOUS TYRANNOS 113 EARLIDS SOME FINAL THOUGHTS 144 BIBLIOGRAPHY 149 TEXTS AND EDITIONS 149 REFERENCES 151 v Introduction Aurality and the Theatre of Sophokles The title of this dissertation is Ways of Hearing in Sophokles because it engages with the question, in what ways do the characters of Sophokles’ plays listen. Through examinations of the Elektra, Philoktetes, Trachiniai, and Oidipous Tyrannos, the following chapters study the physical, social, public, and political dynamics at play when any one character hears. These are the ways that the characters in those plays hear. And in each of these ways of hearing, there are similarities between the way auditor and sound interact; these correspondences are related to the concepts of mobility, intrusion, violence and community. The pin at the theatre of Epidauros is a well-known anecdote. I myself have heard it dropped in the center of the orchestra from the top tier of the stands and can well attest to the veracity of the anecdote. This common experience among tourists to Greece has made the acoustics of the ancient Greek theatre something of a legend. And while the theatre of Sophoklean drama was hardly the stone wonder now made famous by Epidauros, the acoustics would still have been remarkable.1 Many argue that the orchestra of the theatre of Dionysos in the time of Sophokles was probably rectilinear, like the deme-theatre in Thorikos, though others suggest that the orchestra was circular.2 The stage, probably a meter high with steps coming up the centre from the orchestra, and stage building would have most likely been wooden. In the hillside were set seats of hard earth in something of a semi-circle; though the ends probably fanned out slightly more. According to Goette, the threatre’s slope, where the seats were, was limited to 10 meters 1 For a comparison of the acoustics at Epidauros and those at the Theatre of Dionysos Eleutherios in Athens, see Hunningher 1956: 313. For the acoustics at Oinades, see Kampourakis 2009. On the potential limits of the acoustics, see Meier 1993: 59. He suggests “that the plays can have been properly comprehensible for ten thousand spectators at most.” For a comprehensive account of the history of scholarship on the theatre in Athens and an argument for a circular space, see Wiles 1999: 44-52. Wiles, in passing, refers to acoustics in order to support his position when he says that “we have to think of the acoustic requirement that there should be no spillage, no reverberation and maximum proximity” (51). 2 See Roselli 2011: 66-7; Goette 1995: 28, 2007: 116-118; and for a discussion of the evidence leaning towards a circular space, see Revermann 1999. Though this thesis will not engage with the long-debated discussion, refer to Revermann’s work (1, fn. 1) for important bibliography on the topic. 1 by a northern boundary indicated by a cut in the hill and by the Odeion in the east. The western dimensions remain uncertain. Given the evidence, Goette argues that the capacity of the theatre was probably limited to somewhere between five and six thousand auditors.3 Still, to have created a space in which sound could reach all the furthest ends and so many auditors was a feat. Arnott notes that the Greeks were self-taught in their acoustic design, “working empirically and with no foundation of theoretical understanding.”4 The importance of sound and good acoustics cannot be overstated for the Athenian theatre. Hunningher, for example, suggests that the origin of the skene lies not in the need for a pictorial backdrop to indicate place, but rather in the acoustic benefits of a wooden wall that could reflect back sound waves and thus amplify the actor’s voice.5 Why was such importance placed on acoustics? In the first place, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the audience was in a far better position to see than to hear. Hence, the acoustics benefits of Hunningher’s walls or the later resonant stone theatre of Epidauros are clearly designed to enhance the auditors’ capabilities. And secondly, the audience of the theatre was one that was highly practiced in the art of listening; experience with the courts and assembly prepared the auditor of tragedy to listen.6 Arnott draws attention to an interesting anecdote that demonstrates the acuteness of the Athenian ear: “[o]ne of the favorite jokes of the fifth-century theatre concerned the actor 3 Goette 2007: 118-119. According to Hunningher, by contrast, actors faced an auditorium measuring 240 feet from the lowest to the highest tier in the centre, though the distance was considerably smaller on the right and left sides (1956: 309). On the nature of the theatre audience and its makeup as well as for an argument on the political leanings of such an audience, see Sommerstein 1998 and 2010: 118-142. For an alternative view and a discussion of the likely size of the audience, see Dawson 1997. Dawson suggests a size of 3,700 (7) and argues that the audience was copmposed of more affluent members of the community and quite likely women (6-10). For the potential of extra, free standing-room only ‘seating’ that would increase the numbers and diversity of the audience, see Roselli 2011: 72-75. On the composite nature of the audience members, cf. Roselli 2011: 51-54. Finally, for a review of the evidence of women in the theatre, see Podlecki 1990: 27-43. 4 Arnott 1989: 74-5. For an apt review of ancient treatises on the acoustic design of the theatre, see Hunningher 1972: 310-314.