Introduction: The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica as a Monument of Classical Scholarship
The eleventh edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, published between 1910 and 1911, stands as a landmark achievement in the history of reference works. Comprising 29 volumes with 40,000 articles and 44 million words, it was the product of a monumental effort to synthesize the whole of human knowledge at the dawn of the 20th century.1 Often referred to as the "scholar's edition," it marked the culmination of a practice, begun in its third edition, of commissioning articles from the foremost specialists in their respective fields.3 Its historical entries, in particular, were authored by top experts and backed by superlative editing, ensuring their continued relevance as points of departure for scholarly investigation even a century later.5
This edition is not merely a repository of facts; it is a cultural artifact, a monument to the intellectual certainties and methodologies of its era. Published when the British Empire was at its zenith, the encyclopedia is imbued with an authoritative tone and a worldview that places Western civilization, with its roots in Greek antiquity, at the pinnacle of human development.2 While many of its scientific and medical articles are now factually obsolete—for instance, its entry on beriberi speculates a fungal cause, as vitamins were yet to be discovered—and its social perspectives reflect the now-rejected racial and imperialist ideologies of the time, its articles on history, biography, and the humanities remain invaluable.2 They offer a window into the state of scholarship in the early 1900s and preserve detailed information on topics often omitted from modern encyclopedias.2 The work's entry into the public domain and its widespread availability through digital archives like Wikisource, Project Gutenberg, and the Internet Archive have granted it a new life, making it an accessible resource for modern researchers.1
In its treatment of Ancient Greek Theatre, the 1911 Britannica reveals a fascinating and instructive duality. On one hand, it codifies a powerful and coherent narrative of the drama's origins and evolution, presenting a story of linear progress from primitive ritual to high art. This narrative, articulated across entries on drama, literature, and the great playwrights, is built upon the solid foundation of ancient literary sources, chiefly Aristotle, and reflects the historicist models of cultural rise-and-fall popular in the 19th century. On the other hand, the encyclopedia simultaneously functions as a bulletin of contemporary scholarship, documenting the active and often fierce debates that characterized classical studies at the time.
This tension is most apparent in the disjunction between the literary and archaeological accounts. The entry on "Drama" presents the evolution of the tragic form with confident certainty, detailing the contributions of Thespis, Aeschylus, and Sophocles as if they occurred within a stable, understood context.7 Yet, the entry on "Theatre" explicitly outlines the contentious debate between the influential German archaeologist Wilhelm Dörpfeld and his critics regarding the very nature of the 5th-century B.C. stage.8 Was there a raised platform for actors, or did they share the orchestra with the chorus? The encyclopedia presents both sides of this live controversy without attempting to resolve the profound implications this uncertainty has for interpreting the plays themselves. This reveals that the encyclopedia is not a monolithic text but a snapshot of a scholarly moment, capturing its certainties and its active fault lines side-by-side. For the modern historian, this makes it an exceptionally rich source, illuminating the methodologies, disciplinary divisions, and foundational assumptions of classical scholarship in the Edwardian era.
Table 1: Master List of Relevant Articles on Ancient Greek Theatre
The following table provides a comprehensive, thematically organized index of the primary and secondary articles within the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, that pertain to the study of Ancient Greek Theatre. This serves as a navigational guide to the detailed analysis presented in the subsequent chapters of this report.
I. The Theatrical Form: Foundational Articles on "Drama" and "Theatre"
The 1911 Britannica’s framework for understanding Greek theatre rests on two monumental pillars: the article on "Drama," which outlines its literary and historical evolution, and the article on "Theatre," which describes its physical form. Together, they establish the encyclopedia's core narrative and reveal its underlying scholarly assumptions.
A. Analysis of the "Drama" Entry (Volume 8)
The extensive entry on "Drama," authored by the distinguished literary historian Adolphus William Ward, serves as the encyclopedia's primary narrative of theatrical history.9 Its seventh section, "Greek Drama," presents a confident, linear account of the art form's origins and development, an account heavily indebted to the authority of Aristotle's
Poetics.7
The narrative begins by tracing the ultimate origins of the chorus to the Dorian states, whose rigidly organized, military-based societies developed warlike chants and dances, such as the paeans to Apollo.7 However, it quickly pivots to what it presents as the more direct and significant source: the worship of Dionysus. The article makes a clear distinction between the origins of tragedy and comedy. Tragedy is said to have sprung from the dithyramb, a celebratory song for the "twice-born" Bacchus, which was given a more definite, artistic form by the Lesbian poet Arion around 600 B.C..7 The pivotal moment of "invention" is attributed to Thespis of Icaria in Attica. His crucial innovation was the introduction of a single actor (ὑποκριτής, or "answerer"), who was separate from the chorus and its leader, thereby creating the possibility of dialogue and dramatic action where previously there had only been lyrical recitation and choral song.7
Comedy, in contrast, is traced to a different strand of Dionysian worship. Its roots are located in the coarse humour of Dorian Megaris and the "jolly companions" (κῶμος) who participated in rural Bacchic vintage festivals, carrying phallic emblems and engaging in "ribald licence of wanton mirth".7 This form was reportedly "invented" by Susarion, a Megarian who brought these rustic traditions to Attica.7
This bifurcated origin story—solemn, lofty tragedy from the dithyrambic chorus and riotous, base comedy from the phallic revels—establishes a neat generic and aesthetic hierarchy that persists throughout the encyclopedia's treatment of the subject. The narrative is one of progressive refinement, where raw ritual is shaped into high art through a series of key innovations by named individuals. This evolutionary model, presented as a settled historical account, provides the reader with a clear and authoritative, if somewhat simplified, map of the dramatic landscape.
B. Analysis of the "Theatre" Entry (Volume 26)
While the "Drama" article charts the evolution of the literary form, the "Theatre" article focuses on the physical structure (θέατρον, literally "a place for seeing") in which it was housed.8 It methodically breaks down the building into its three essential components: the auditorium (
cavea), the circular dancing-place (orchestra), and the stage-buildings (skene, literally "tent" or "booth").8 The article explains the geometric principles, derived from the Roman architect Vitruvius, upon which Greek theatres were supposedly planned, illustrating this with a diagram showing how the layout could be derived from three squares inscribed within the orchestra circle.8
It details key architectural and functional features. The orchestra, the domain of the chorus, contained a central altar to Dionysus, the θυμέλη.8 The
skene provided an architectural backdrop, which, according to Aristotle, was enhanced with painted scenery (σκηνoγραφία) first introduced by Sophocles, though Vitruvius credits the painter Agatharchus with working for Aeschylus.8 The entry also describes the stage machinery that enabled key dramatic conventions: the ἐκκύκλεμα, a platform rolled out to reveal interior scenes (as all action in Greek plays was set outdoors), and the μηχανή, a crane used for the appearance of gods, giving rise to the phrase
deus ex machina.8
The most striking aspect of this article, however, is its direct engagement with the liveliest archaeological controversies of its day. After presenting the general features of the Greek theatre, the author turns to the critical question of its 5th-century form. The article summarizes the "main thesis" of Wilhelm Dörpfeld and E. Reisch's seminal work, Das griechische Theater (1896), which argued that in the classical period, there was no raised stage and that actors and chorus performed together in the orchestra. However, it immediately qualifies this by stating that this thesis "is, however,rejected by many archaeologists".8 It then presents the counter-argument from another leading scholar, O. Puchstein, who contended that a stone theatre with a proscenium (a shallow raised stage) did exist in Athens in the 5th century B.C..8 The article does not take a definitive stance, instead directing the reader to a bibliography that includes these competing works.
This section demonstrates the encyclopedia functioning not as a static repository of knowledge, but as a dynamic report on the state of contemporary research. It reveals a fundamental uncertainty at the heart of classical studies in 1911: no one could say for sure what the physical stage of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides actually looked like. This stands in stark contrast to the confident narrative of literary evolution presented in the "Drama" article. The encyclopedia thus establishes a powerful, if unintentional, dichotomy. The literary history of the drama is presented as a settled, well-understood progression. The physical history of the stage, however, is shown to be a site of active, unresolved debate. This dissonance exposes the disciplinary separation between literary history, which relied on ancient texts, and archaeology, which was grappling with new and often conflicting physical evidence. The modern researcher can see in this gap a snapshot of a field in transition, before the full integration of literary and archaeological evidence into the holistic discipline of performance studies that would emerge later in the 20th century.
II. The Great Dramatists: Masters of Tragedy and Comedy
The biographical entries in the 1911 Britannica are central to its project of canonization. In the articles on Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, and Aristophanes, the encyclopedia not only provides biographical detail but also constructs a powerful narrative of tragedy's development, presenting a clear aesthetic hierarchy that would shape the understanding of these playwrights for generations.
A. Aeschylus: The Founder of Tragedy (Volume 1)
Aeschylus (525–456 B.C.) is presented as the monumental patriarch of the dramatic form, described as "in a very real sense... the founder of the Greek drama".11 His biography is inextricably linked with the defining historical event of his generation: the Persian Wars. The encyclopedia asserts that his personal participation in the heroic struggles at Marathon and Salamis directly inspired the "vigour and loftiness of tone" that characterizes his work.11 His childhood in the religious center of Eleusis is similarly cited as a source for his "brooding thoughtfulness on deep questions" concerning the gods, fate, and the afterlife.11
His dramatic contributions are framed as foundational. The article on "Poetry" places him in the highest echelon of world literature, alongside Homer, Sophocles, Dante, and Shakespeare, as a poet in whom "poetic energy and poetic art are seen in something like equipoise".12 His early plays, such as the
Supplices, are noted for their "extreme simplicity of the plot" and the dominance of the chorus, with lyric passages making up more than half the play.11 This is presented as evidence of the tragic form in its early stage, still close to its lyrical, choric origins. Aeschylus is thus canonized as the great originator, a poet whose genius was forged in the crucible of national crisis and whose work laid the very groundwork for the art of tragedy.
B. Sophocles: The Perfection of the Form (Volume 25)
If Aeschylus was the founder, Sophocles (495-406 B.C.) is portrayed as the master artist who brought the tragic form to its absolute perfection.13 The article meticulously catalogues his innovations, which are presented as refinements that created a more complex and harmonious dramatic structure. Chief among these is the introduction of the third actor, a crucial development that allowed for more intricate plot and character interactions, moving tragedy beyond the simpler dialogues possible with only two actors.13 Other contributions noted include his decision to desist from acting in his own plays (reportedly due to a weak voice), which marked a step towards the professionalization of performance, and various minor improvements in stage decoration.13
The encyclopedia leans heavily on the verdict of ancient critics, who praised Sophocles for his "subtle delineation of human nature and feeling," his exquisitely "balanced proportions," and his "mingled felicity and boldness".13 He is credited with shifting the focus of tragedy away from the epic and divine struggles of Aeschylus toward the "purely human, interest of the fable".13 Another key development attributed to him is the dissolution of the thematically-linked tetralogy, in which three tragedies and a satyr play would tell a single continuous story. Sophocles, it is argued, pioneered the practice of "pitting play against play," presenting dramas that were each a complete artistic whole, thereby concentrating the dramatic effect.13 In the
Britannica's narrative, Sophocles represents the classical ideal at its zenith: a perfect synthesis of form and content, where profound human drama is expressed with unparalleled grace, harmony, and structural integrity.
C. Euripides: The Romantic Innovator and Psychologist (Volume 9)
Euripides (480–406 B.C.) is cast as a brilliant, complex, and ultimately problematic figure—a harbinger of tragedy's transformation and eventual decline.14 He is defined as a "son of his day," a thinker and an intellectual who stood apart from the public action of his time and whose work reflected the seismic cultural shifts of the late 5th century B.C..14 The article argues that by his time, the foundations of the old tragedy were crumbling: the popular religion was undermined by skepticism, and the audience was no longer universally equipped to appreciate the austere grandeur of the Aeschylean form.14
In this context, Euripides is credited as the "founder of romantic drama".14 He is said to have saved tragedy by modifying its interests, making his heroic figures more relatable by depicting everyday passions and sorrows, and appealing to audiences with thrilling, complex plots. This move toward psychological realism and melodrama, however, came at a cost. The article acknowledges the frequent criticism of his work, particularly his use of the explanatory prologue and the
deus ex machina to resolve his plots. It defends these devices as necessary compromises, adaptations required to make complex mythologies clear to a changing audience and to fit his innovative, romantic content into the rigid, traditional form of the Greek stage.14 His handling of the chorus, often detached from the main action, is presented not as a flaw but as a "signal proof of his genius," a skillful negotiation of an archaic convention that resisted his new dramatic direction.14 Euripides is thus framed as a transitional figure whose genius strained against the formal constraints of his art, paving the way for later dramatic forms but departing from the perfect harmony of the Sophoclean ideal.
D. Aristophanes: The Master of Old Comedy (Volume 2)
Aristophanes (c. 448–385 B.C.) is situated on a parallel but distinct track from the tragedians, as the undisputed "representative of the Old Comedy".15 The encyclopedia is emphatic that this unique genre was a product of its specific political environment, stating that its form of satirical censorship was "possible only for a thorough democracy".15 The essence of Old Comedy was an "unsparing" critique of public and private life, targeting everything from statesmanship and education to literature and social mores.15
The article portrays Aristophanes as a master of this form, a poet-journalist with immense influence. Yet, it argues that his genius also "transcends the genius of the Old Comedy".15 While he could sting with political invective or mock with light-hearted parody, his highest faculty is revealed in his "wonderful bits of lyric writing," which are compared in their wild, natural beauty to the songs of a nightingale and even to the fancy of Shakespeare.15 The eleven extant plays are presented as a "running commentary on the outer and the inner life of Athens" over 36 years.15 They are divided into three periods, which chart a clear trajectory: an early period of "absolutely unrestrained freedom of political satire" (
The Knights, The Clouds), a middle period of greater caution (The Birds, The Frogs), and a final period that shows the transition toward the less political Middle Comedy (The Plutus).15
The biographical entries, when read together, construct a remarkably clear, almost Hegelian, dialectical narrative of tragedy's development. Aeschylus represents the thesis: his drama is divine, heroic, and formally simple. Sophocles is the perfect synthesis: he humanizes the drama while achieving a flawless balance of all its parts. Euripides is the antithesis: his work is psychological, romantic, and formally strained, a brilliant but destabilizing force that signals the beginning of the form's decline. Aristophanes, meanwhile, represents a separate political-artistic phenomenon, his genius flourishing and then fading with the unique democratic conditions that made it possible. This framework is not a neutral presentation of facts; it is a powerful interpretation that teaches the reader how to value these playwrights according to the aesthetic hierarchies of the early 20th century. It canonizes Sophocles as the pinnacle of classical art and presents the history of tragedy as a dramatic arc of rise, perfection, and fall—a compelling narrative that would prove enormously influential.
III. The Stage as Place: Architectural and Archaeological Context
The 1911 Britannica dedicates significant attention to the physical settings of Greek theatre, synthesizing information from general architectural surveys and specific archaeological reports. The articles dealing with these sites reveal a perspective deeply informed by the aesthetic preferences and archaeological discoveries of the era, creating a clear hierarchy of value based on preservation and perceived classical "purity."
A. Principles of Theatrical Architecture
The main article on "Architecture" establishes a fundamental principle of Greek theatrical design: the strategic use of landscape. It notes that "In selecting the sites for their theatres, the Greeks always utilized the slope of a hill, in which they could cut out the cavea, and thus save the expense of raising a structure to carry the seats, at the same time obtaining a beautiful prospect for the background".16 This observation highlights the Greek integration of architecture and nature, a stark contrast to the self-contained, freestanding amphitheatres later perfected by the Romans. The article provides a concise list of the most significant known examples, identifying the theatre of Dionysus at Athens, the immense theatre at Megalopolis (cited as the largest), and the theatre at Epidaurus (the most perfect), with further mentions of sites in Dodona, Pergamum, Syracuse, and Segesta.16 While the entry on "Building" offers general principles of stone construction applicable to these monumental works 17, the "Architecture" article also touches upon the aesthetic ideals of "proportion, harmony, and symmetry" that governed their design, treating them as major works of public art.16
B. The Theatres of Athens
The comprehensive article on "Athens (Greece)" provides a detailed topographical survey of the city's theatrical venues, grounding the dramatic tradition in its specific urban landscape.18 The primary focus is the Dionysiac Theatre, situated on the southern slope of the Acropolis. The authors, James David Bourchier and Maximilian Otto Bismarck Caspari, are careful to note that the visible remains are a complex archaeological puzzle, with the current stage and orchestra arrangements belonging primarily to the Roman period.18 They credit Wilhelm Dörpfeld with identifying traces of the original circular Greek orchestra from the 5th century B.C. beneath these later additions. The article chronicles the theatre's evolution, from the wooden stage-building erected in the time of the orator Lycurgus (c. 330 B.C.) to the later, more elaborate stages of the Roman era.18
Beyond the main theatre, the article describes other performance-related structures. The Odeum of Pericles, built nearby, is mentioned as a venue for musical contests and play rehearsals.18 Crucially, the entry details the "Street of the Tripods," which led east from the theatre. This street was once lined with monuments erected by wealthy citizens (
choragi) who had sponsored winning choral performances at the Dionysiac festival. The sole surviving example, the elegant Choragic Monument of Lysicrates (dedicated 335–334 B.C.), is described as a physical testament to the intensely competitive and civic nature of the dramatic festivals.18 By detailing these sites, the article paints a vivid picture of a city where theatrical performance was deeply embedded in its religious, civic, and physical fabric.
C. The Theatre at Epidaurus: An Acoustic and Structural Marvel
The article on "Epidaurus," written by the archaeologist Ernest Arthur Gardner, lavishes praise on its theatre, which had been excavated by the Greek Archaeological Society in the decades prior to the encyclopedia's publication.19 It is described, quoting the ancient traveler Pausanias, as the most beautiful in Greece and is lauded in the encyclopedia's own voice as the "most typical of Greek theatres".19 Its state of preservation is a key reason for this assessment: the auditorium is "remarkably perfect," with almost every seat intact, and the full circle of the orchestra is clearly marked by a limestone sill.19
The theatre's "extraordinary acoustic properties," allowing a speaker in the orchestra to be heard perfectly throughout the vast auditorium, are highlighted as a marvel of ancient engineering.19 The article describes the foundations of the stage-building and, like the "Theatre" entry, notes the scholarly debate over the date of its proscenium, mentioning both the excavator's view that it was original (attributing the design to Polyclitus the Younger) and Dörpfeld's argument that it was a later addition.19
The collective treatment of these sites reveals a clear scholarly preference. The Theatre at Epidaurus is held up as the ideal. Because it is so well-preserved and appears to conform to a simple, harmonious, and unified plan, it is deemed "most typical" and "most perfect".19 The Theatre of Dionysus in Athens, by contrast, is presented as a more problematic site. While historically far more significant—being the venue for the premiere of every surviving 5th-century tragedy—its archaeological record is messy, a palimpsest of successive rebuildings that "contaminate" the original Greek form with later Roman alterations.18 This reflects a common aesthetic bias in early 20th-century classicism, which privileged idealized, "pure" Hellenic forms over what were often seen as the more complex or decadent styles of the Hellenistic and Roman periods. This framing subtly influences the reader to see the archaeologically "cleaner" site of Epidaurus as more representative of the classical ideal, even though the cultural heart of that ideal beat in Athens.
IV. The Ritual Roots: Conceptual and Mythological Origins
The Britannica's narrative of Greek theatre is firmly rooted in the soil of religious ritual. The encyclopedia argues that drama was not a sudden invention but an evolutionary development, a process of formalization whereby the raw, ecstatic energy of Dionysian worship was gradually shaped into the high art of tragedy and comedy. The articles on "Chorus" and "Dionysus" are essential for understanding this foundational premise.
A. The Role of the "Chorus"
The entry for "Chorus" defines the term's origins in the most fundamental way: as a "sacred dance, accompanied by song" performed at festivals of the gods.20 The article states with unequivocal certainty that ancient Greek drama had its birth in the specific choruses sung in honor of Dionysus. It draws a sharp line between the origins of the two dramatic genres, mirroring the account in the "Drama" entry. "Tragedy," it explains, "originated from the dithyrambic chorus of the spring festival," a more solemn and celebratory form.20 "Comedy," on the other hand, "sprang from the κῶμος or band of revellers... chanting the 'phallic songs,' with ribald dialogue between the leader and his band".20
The article then charts the chorus's historical trajectory within the dramatic form itself. It notes the "gradual subordination of the lyrical to the dramatic side in tragedy" as the role of the individual actors grew in prominence.20 This process, it states, culminated in the chorus's "complete disappearance in middle and new comedy".20 By presenting the chorus as the primordial seed from which drama grew, and then tracing its diminishing role, the encyclopedia reinforces its central narrative of evolution. The chorus is the vital, lyrical heart of the original art form, a direct link to its ritual past, which is progressively superseded as dramatic, plot-driven action becomes the dominant interest.
B. The Cult of "Dionysus"
The article on "Dionysus" provides the mythological and religious context for the rituals described in "Chorus." It presents the god as a complex figure with a dual nature: on one hand, a popular, native Greek god of wine and cheerfulness; on the other, a foreign deity whose worship involved "ecstatic and mysterious rites introduced from Thrace".21 The encyclopedia recounts the core myths essential to his connection with drama. It tells of his birth from Zeus and the mortal Semele, which led to him being enclosed in Zeus's thigh—a story that made him "twice born." This double birth, the article notes, was the event celebrated by the singing of the dithyrambus, explicitly linking the god's personal mythology to the very hymn that would become tragedy.21
The article also alludes to the more primal aspects of his cult, including his association with the phallus as a symbol of nature's fertility and the Orphic myth of Dionysus-Zagreus, a god who is torn apart and reborn, embodying the cyclical decay and renewal of vegetation.21 This concept of a suffering, dying, and rising god provides a powerful thematic template for tragedy. Having established these connections, the article concludes with a direct signpost for the reader, stating, "For the connexion of Dionysus with Greek tragedy see Drama".21
When read together, these articles construct a clear and powerful argument about the origins of theatre. The narrative is one of secularization and artistic refinement. The process begins with the primitive, chaotic, and ecstatic religious energy of the Dionysian cult. This raw material is then channeled into ritual forms—the dithyramb and the komos. Finally, these rituals are given structure and plot, becoming the recognizable art forms of tragedy and comedy. This framework, which shows the influence of the "Cambridge Ritualists" school of thought that was ascendant at the time, presents the origin of drama as a completed historical process. Art is shown to have sprung from ritual. This evolutionary lens, however, subtly de-emphasizes the ongoing religious significance of the dramatic festivals in the classical period. By framing the story as one of art taming and superseding religion, it can overlook the extent to which a performance of a play like The Bacchae in 405 B.C. was still a potent religious event, not merely a secular aesthetic experience. The narrative reflects a distinctly modern, post-Enlightenment worldview that privileges a story of rational, artistic progress over the persistence of religious belief and experience.
V. Situating the Stage: Drama in the Context of "Greek Literature"
To complete its comprehensive survey, the 1911 Britannica situates the development of theatre within the grand sweep of Greek literary history. The article on "Greek Literature" provides the chronological and cultural map, making a clear argument for drama's place as the crowning achievement of Athens' golden age and reinforcing the encyclopedia's pervasive Athens-centric view of classical culture.
A. The Place of Drama in the Literary Timeline
The substantial entry on "Greek Literature" organizes the vast output of the ancient Hellenes into a clear, periodized structure.22 It divides the ancient literature into three main epochs: (A) The Early Literature, to c. 475 B.C. (encompassing epic, elegiac, and lyric poetry); (B) The Attic Literature, 475–300 B.C.; and (C) The Literature of the Decadence, 300 B.C. to A.D. 529 (subdivided into the Alexandrian and Graeco-Roman periods).22
"Tragic and comic drama" are placed squarely at the heart of the second period, "The Attic Literature".22 This era, defined by the cultural and political dominance of Athens, is also credited with the masterpieces of historical prose (Herodotus, Thucydides), oratory (Lysias, Demosthenes), and philosophy (Plato, Aristotle). By positioning drama as the premier poetic form of this specific period, the encyclopedia intrinsically links its flourishing to the unique social and political conditions of 5th-century Athens. The article underscores this point by asserting that Greek literary forms were not copied from foreign models but were the "spontaneous expression of that life in youth, maturity and decay".22 The development of drama is thus presented as an organic outgrowth of the Athenian
polis itself.
This framework constructs "Attic Literature" as a distinct and superior period, with drama as its most glorious product. The narrative aligns perfectly with the claims made elsewhere, such as in the "Aristophanes" article, which insists that the political satire of Old Comedy was "possible only for a thorough democracy".15 A direct causal link is forged between the political system of democratic Athens and the emergence of its highest literary forms.
While historically defensible in many respects—the great playwrights were indeed Athenians, and their work was produced for Athenian festivals—this Athens-centric model has significant historiographical implications. It tends to marginalize or subsume non-Athenian contributions. For example, the Dorian origins of the chorus and the Megarian roots of comedy, acknowledged in the "Drama" article 7, are quickly absorbed into the grander story of Athenian artistic achievement. Furthermore, the very name of the subsequent period, "The Literature of the Decadence," frames all that followed the Attic peak as a falling-off, a decline from a singular moment of unparalleled genius.22 This powerful narrative structure equates "classical" with "Athenian," cementing the 5th century B.C. as the apex of cultural production—a foundational belief in the Western-centric worldview that the
Encyclopaedia Britannica both reflected and actively promoted.
Conclusion: A Synoptic View of Greek Theatre from a 1911 Vantage Point
The Encyclopaedia Britannica's eleventh edition offers a remarkably coherent, detailed, and powerfully argued account of Ancient Greek Theatre. Its narrative, synthesized from dozens of articles written by the leading scholars of the day, is one of evolutionary progress, aesthetic hierarchy, and Athenian exceptionalism. The story begins in the primal, ecstatic rituals of Dionysian worship, which are gradually tamed and formalized into the distinct choric traditions of the dithyramb and the komos. From these ritual seeds, drama is "invented" by Thespis, who introduces the first actor, and is then cultivated into a high art form. Tragedy reaches its heroic, divine-focused beginnings with Aeschylus, attains a state of perfect humanistic harmony with Sophocles, and then turns toward psychological realism and romanticism with Euripides, a brilliant but destabilizing innovation that signals the start of a "decline." In parallel, the unique political freedom of Athenian democracy gives rise to the trenchant satire of Aristophanic Old Comedy, a form that fades as its enabling political conditions disappear. The physical stage for this evolution is the great open-air theatre, a marvel of acoustic engineering carved from a hillside, with the theatre at Epidaurus representing its most perfect surviving form.
The scholarly apparatus that underpins this narrative is as revealing as the narrative itself. The encyclopedia's authority is built on a deep reverence for ancient literary sources, especially Aristotle, whose account of tragedy's development provides the central spine for the entire history. At the same time, it demonstrates a commitment to contemporary scientific method, particularly in its careful documentation of ongoing archaeological debates about the nature of the classical stage. This creates a fascinating tension, with the confident certainty of the literary history existing alongside the acknowledged uncertainty of the archaeological record. The work's critical judgments are guided by a clear classical aesthetic that privileges harmony, balance, and proportion, a standard against which Sophocles is hailed as the supreme master and other playwrights are judged.
Ultimately, the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica endures as a document of immense value for any serious student of Greek theatre. It is more than a simple collection of data; it is a synoptic vision of its subject, filtered through the lens of early 20th-century scholarship. Its limitations—its evolutionary biases, its Athens-centrism, its now-outdated assumptions—do not diminish its importance. On the contrary, they enhance it. For in reading these articles, one learns not only about the theatre of ancient Greece but also, and perhaps more importantly, about the history of how that theatre has been studied, interpreted, and canonized by the modern world. It is an unparalleled snapshot of a scholarly moment, preserving a worldview as monumental and instructive as the ancient ruins it sought to describe.
Works cited
Wikisource:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, accessed on July 10, 2025, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:WikiProject_1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica
Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition - Wikipedia, accessed on July 10, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_Eleventh_Edition
Encyclopaedia Britannica Dict.A.S.L.G.I.11thEd.Chisholm.1910-1911-1922.33vols. - Internet Archive, accessed on July 10, 2025, https://archive.org/details/EncyclopaediaBritannicaDict.a.s.l.g.i.11thed.chisholm.1910-1911-1922.33vols
1911 Encyclopædia Britannica | PDF | History | Classics - Scribd, accessed on July 10, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/743897479/1911-Encyclop%C3%A6dia-Britannica
Selections from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica - Sir Thomas Browne, accessed on July 10, 2025, https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/_Texts/EB1911/home.html
1911 Encyclopædia Britannica - Wikisource, the free online library, accessed on July 10, 2025, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica
1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Drama/7 - Wikisource, the free online library, accessed on July 10, 2025, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Drama/7
1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Theatre - Wikisource, the free online ..., accessed on July 10, 2025, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Theatre
1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Drama - Wikisource, the free online ..., accessed on July 10, 2025, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Drama
1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Drama/Bibliography - Wikisource, the free online library, accessed on July 10, 2025, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Drama/Bibliography
1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Aeschylus - Wikisource, the free ..., accessed on July 10, 2025, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Aeschylus
1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Poetry - Wikisource, the free online library, accessed on July 10, 2025, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Poetry
1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Sophocles - Wikisource, the free ..., accessed on July 10, 2025, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Sophocles
1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Euripides - Wikisource, the free ..., accessed on July 10, 2025, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Euripides
1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Aristophanes - Wikisource, the free ..., accessed on July 10, 2025, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Aristophanes
1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Architecture - Wikisource, the free ..., accessed on July 10, 2025, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Architecture
1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Building - Wikisource, the free online library, accessed on July 10, 2025, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Building
1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Athens (Greece) - Wikisource, the ..., accessed on July 10, 2025, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Athens_(Greece)
1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Epidaurus - Wikisource, the free ..., accessed on July 10, 2025, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Epidaurus
1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Chorus - Wikisource, the free online ..., accessed on July 10, 2025, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Chorus
1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Dionysus - Wikisource, the free ..., accessed on July 10, 2025, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Dionysus
22. 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Greek Literature - Wikisource, the free online library, accessed on July 10, 2025, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Greek_Literature
No comments:
Post a Comment