CHORAL IDENTITY IN GREEK TRAGEDY HELENE FOLEY G EORGE WALSH, IN WHOSE HONOR I presented this lecture in February 2001, has written memorably on the greek chorus, above all in his 984 book The Varieties of Enchantment. Walsh's eloquent discus sion of worldly and enchanting choral poetry in Euripides is a hard act to follow, but at least I can feel assured that he would have been sympathetic to later attempts to pursue this complex topic further. In the early nineteenth century (1808-9), August Wilhelm Schlegel fa mously described the chorus of Greek tragedy as the ideal spectator. Many have undertaken to qualify or reassess his nevertheless valuable views since. Among important objections, critics raise the problem of dramatic irony. The actual spectators to the plays often know considerably more than the chorus, whose ignorance, lack of comprehension, or conventionality can lead them into errors of judgment. Second, as John Gould in particular has emphasized, the core tragic audience consisted of male citizens of Athens, despite the presence of others ranging from foreigners and children to(pos sibly) slaves or women. By contrast, the tragic chorus itself is predomi- nantly made up of women, slaves, foreigners, or old men; men of military age far more rarely compose such choruses(all extant cases are soldiers and none are athenian unless we include the chorus of salaminian soldiers from Sophocles' Ajax). *If these marginal groups do not appear to represent he external audience and its politico-religious community directly within the plays, why are they there and what role do they play within the dramas? (trans. [1846] 1973, 69-70). On the role of the Greek chorus more generally, see esp 2001,esp.18-20.38.44: Burton1980 183; Goldhill1996,254-55; Gould1996,219,232, nd1999,89; Rosenmeyer197.esp.36.38-39,and42;1982.145-87;and1993,csp.559,56land571: 45; Hose 1990-91. 1: 32-37; Mastronarde 1998, 59; and 1999, 90, and Fletcher 1999, 30. See Rosenmeyer 1977 on irony and 3. On the question of women in the audience, see Podlecki 1990: Henderson 1991; and Goldhill 1994. ould 1996. 220. with the critic by Goldhill 1996; Silk 1998a; Griffith 1998, P. 42, n. 74; form. Calame's essay attempts to show how a marginal chorus can, through ritual and performance, lead the audience"to be active at the side of the virtual author"(153) Classical Philology 98(2003): 1-30 [C 2003 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved] 0009-837X/03/9801-0001S1000 This content downloaded from 145.97 173 155 on Wed. 01 Feb 2017 10: 50- 30 UT Allusesubjecttohttp://aboutjstor.org/termsClassical Philology 98 (2003): 1–30 [ç 2003 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved] 0009-837X/03/9801-0001$10.00 1 CHORAL IDENTITY IN GREEK TRAGEDY helene foley George Walsh, in whose honor I presented this lecture in February 2001, has written memorably on the Greek chorus, above all in his 1984 book The Varieties of Enchantment. Walsh’s eloquent discus￾sion of worldly and enchanting choral poetry in Euripides is a hard act to follow, but at least I can feel assured that he would have been sympathetic to later attempts to pursue this complex topic further. In the early nineteenth century (1808–9), August Wilhelm Schlegel fa￾mously described the chorus of Greek tragedy as the ideal spectator.1 Many have undertaken to qualify or reassess his nevertheless valuable views since.2 Among important objections, critics raise the problem of dramatic irony. The actual spectators to the plays often know considerably more than the chorus, whose ignorance, lack of comprehension, or conventionality can lead them into errors of judgment. Second, as John Gould in particular has emphasized, the core tragic audience consisted of male citizens of Athens, despite the presence of others ranging from foreigners and children to (pos￾sibly) slaves or women.3 By contrast, the tragic chorus itself is predomi￾nantly made up of women, slaves, foreigners, or old men; men of military age far more rarely compose such choruses (all extant cases are soldiers and none are Athenian, unless we include the chorus of Salaminian soldiers from Sophocles’ Ajax).4 If these marginal groups do not appear to represent the external audience and its politico-religious community directly within the plays, why are they there and what role do they play within the dramas? 1. Schlegel 1846, 76–77 (trans. [1846] 1973, 69–70). On the role of the Greek chorus more generally, see esp. Bacon 1994–95, 8–9, 17–18; Bierl 2001, esp. 18–20, 38, 44; Burton 1980, 1–4; Davidson 1986a, 75; East￾erling 1997, 163, 165; Gardiner 1987, 3, 5, 183; Goldhill 1996, 254–55; Gould 1996, 219, 232, and 245; Griffith 1998, p. 42 and n. 74; Henrichs 1996, 48–49; Kirkwood 1958, esp. 196; Mastronarde 1998, 57, 71–72, and 1999, 89; Rosenmeyer 1977, esp. 36, 38–39, and 42; 1982, 145–87; and 1993, esp. 559, 561 and 571; and Silk 1998b, 197–202, on nineteenth-century views. 2. See, e.g., Kirkwood 1958, 184; Kaimio 1970, 99; Gould 1996, p. 219 and n. 2, p. 232; Goldhill 1996, 245; Hose 1990–91, 1:32–37; Mastronarde 1998, 59; and 1999, 90; and Fletcher 1999, 30. See Rosenmeyer 1977 on irony and the tragic chorus. 3. On the question of women in the audience, see Podlecki 1990; Henderson 1991; and Goldhill 1994. 4. Gould 1996, 220, with the critical responses by Goldhill 1996; Silk 1998a; Griffith 1998, p. 42, n. 74; and Mastronarde 1998, 56. Goldhill (1996, 255) stresses that the chorus remained a group voice despite its individual character; Silk (1998a, 13) remarks on the lack of contingent background for choruses in compari￾son with characters, the chorus of Eumenides excepted, and their earlier history as anonymous groups (16). Calame 1999 redefines the ideal spectator as virtual and thus reappropriates Schlegel’s insights in a new form. Calame’s essay attempts to show how a marginal chorus can, through ritual and performance, lead the audience “to be active at the side of the virtual author” (153). This content downloaded from 145.97.173.155 on Wed, 01 Feb 2017 10:50:30 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms