Talk:Theatre of ancient Rome/Archive 1

Import
I created this article by importing the text from the History of theatre page. Please expand upon it.--Cassmus 09:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Bloodthirsty entertainment
This section contains not a single citation for any of its assertions. While I understand that many people believe these allegations to be true, to a certain extent, they stem from the works of the Christian Fathers, for example Lactantius, who was an impassioned critic of the gladiatorial spectacles in particular. So was there sex on stage? Actual mutilations? If anyone knows of any ancient sources which directly describe such happenings, then they should incorporate such sources into the article, and of course, discuss the credibility of the sources. Until then, I would classify this section as not up to standard. Theonemacduff (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Bloodthirsty entertainment

Unfortunately, the Roman need for excitement and action seemed to know no limits, causing problems for the future of theatre in their society. More and more people, especially the Christian Church began to attack the theatre because of the shocking acts taking place on stage. Obscene language and actions were applauded, bloody violence was acceptable, criminals were killed on stage, sexual acts were performed by prostitutes, and gladiators fought to their bloody deaths. Watching performances was like watching sport for the Roman audiences. Also many of the vulgar ones include various sexual poses popular to that era. Other popular entertainments of the time included chariot races, horse racing, battles, wrestling, animal fights and fights between people and animals such as lions. In the Colosseum amphitheatre, seating fifty thousand spectators, thousands of animals were killed, and people enjoyed watching many forms of violent entertainment.

--Pstanton (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

uh
I'm trying to find a polite way to say this, but this article was such a complete and total disaster I'm just going to act on all the tagging and delete most of it till something decent can be provided. What was here was worse than no article at all. The section on stock characters, though unreferenced, isn't a lost cause. I'll try to dash off something ASAP from a standard history of Latin literature, with some T.P. Wiseman thrown in. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've imported what I wrote for the drama article to provide a start. Yes, the article was a disaster zone. Don't know if it's an area you'd be interested in, but the Theatre in ancient Greece is just as bad, so if you want to take a look at that, it could do with the attention. The section imported here only deals with drama, since I was trying to bring the overview article up to scratch (only got as far as Rome, though). Consequently, it only draws on one source (Brockett) and doesn't touch on theatrical entertainments, which would be a big topic for this period. DionysosProteus (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. What an amazingly swift and useful response. I came back to the article to do triage and thought maybe I was crazy, since suddenly there was actual material! I was just to going throw in a paragraph from Conte, but it would be redundant now. I'm going to add a lede that may indicate the flavors of the Roman theatrical scene a little, but I'll come back when I can and do a better job. At least I can sleep now. Really, you have restored my faith in WP editors. This is not something I wanted to submerge myself in at the moment, and I think now there's enough to proceed thoughtfully over time. I seem to remember looking at the Greek theatre article a long time ago, and covering my eyes and running. I'll put both on my to-do list, though I'm extremely unlikely to get to the Greek anytime soon. And Roman comedy should have an article of its own someday. Cynwolfe (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've never used the "missing info" tag before, but it's the only one I could find that was apt. I guess I'm thinking of it as a warning that the article may not (well, does not) fully address its stated topic, so those using it should approach it with that in mind. Cynwolfe (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem - just a cut&paste job. Lead looks good - made some minor adjustments. Yes, the tag is probably a good idea, since there ought to be lots more here. It might also attract a "one-source only" tag, but since it's Brockett, I doubt anyone will be too concerned for the time being. Still only a start-class article. Yes, a separate article for Roman comedy is desirable, but I would suggest building up material for it in this article first and splitting off when there's enough. I've been drafting an article on Athenian tragedy for a while, but it's incomplete and on the back-burner at present; my reaction to the present article is similar. But, then again, it IS getting about 35,000 hits a month, so I'm wondering if I should follow your example, cull it all and start again with the cut&paste drama section on that period. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I tend to work in the opposite direction, as my list of obscure little articles will show. That is, I write on minutely focused topics and expand outward till I feel I can summarize with confidence for an overview article. This is not best in terms of prioritizing articles in need of attention, and Greek theatre is a higher priority than Roman theatre, in my view. On the other hand, Theatre of ancient Greece doesn't suck in the spectacular way that this article did. Greek tragedy, however, is just a redirect to the theatre article, which is hard to believe at this stage of WP's development. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that approach is the one I tend to pursue also, but it's a habit I'm trying to wean myself away from--precisely because there are so many big-topic articles in the theatre area that are in a terrible shape. I think the Greek one is more insidious because at least the POV of this one was plain to see, whereas that one just has lots of factual errors. I hope to get around to it myself eventually, but by following precisely the method you mentioned - build the Athenian tragedy article first and work up. Your edit re:Senca is well taken - I was trying to avoid the 'range from..to...to...' pattern, but that's not terribly important. Oh, which reminds me... is Wiseman the one who advanced the theory that some of Catullus' poems (such as the Attis one) were intended to be staged? If he is, that would make an interesting section. DionysosProteus (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * T.P. Wiseman does argue for the ubiquity of theatre, to an extent that others would dispute. One theme that motivates his work is to counter the biases we've inherited from the Romantics and 19th-century scholars, who in their understandable zeal to rescue Greek culture from relative neglect created a sense of the Romans as dour, unimaginative types who lacked the joy and playfulness necessary for art. Wiseman argues (I think; it's been years since I read it) that the reason certain passages in Livy or Ovid strike us as dramatic is that they are, in the sense that they come from a tradition in which drama based on Roman legend was regularly presented on the stage and influenced other literary forms (this is related to the observation that all major writers we know about from the mid-3rd to the mid-2nd centuries wrote for the stage in addition to whatever else they wrote). I seem to recall that he even proposes that certain of these passages reflect a five-act structure, and provides a hypothetical synopsis for some lost plays. I would guess that Wiseman either said something along these lines about Catullus, or perhaps that the Attis poem, which is written in an unusual and foot-stompin' meter, if not intended for dramatic performance, draws on such — Attis has a long speech in which he addresses his comrades as if they're a chorus (the poem is full of musical instruments and dancing), and the goddess Cybele has a speech too. Of course all poetry then was meant in a sense to be performed, and not to be read silently from the page, so the distinction between a dramatic presentation and a recitation may be hard to draw. (Like the relation of Pindar's choral odes to the tragic chorus.) Hence the school of thought on Seneca's tragedies that they weren't fully staged productions, but maybe more like staged readings. Although possible, to my mind this restraint would be out of keeping with the Neronian taste for spectacle.


 * I've not read what Thomas Habinek says about theatre in his provocative book The World of Roman Song. The "nude dancing" which I've mischievously included in the lede is a tradition of the Floralia (itself an article in need of development), and several kinds of performances were part of religious festivals. (As a side note, the Eleusinian Mysteries evidently included role-playing and acting out scenes from the myth of Persephone.) Ludi scaenici redirects here, as the theatrical performances that were staged as part of the games (ludi), so there's another section that's needed. Atellan farce isn't mentioned. Roman funerals even had theatrical elements: people, and if I'm not mistaken these were often professional actors hired for the occasion, wore the portrait masks of the deceased's ancestors, and joined in character with the mourning family in the funeral procession. Also absent is a section on the classical tradition, such as the influence of Roman comedy and Seneca on Shakespeare. So it's a mighty undertaking, though less daunting than Latin literature, also a neediest case. I'm working on Roman mythology and Women in Ancient Rome, which are such broad topics that I whittle away one section at a time, and add a thing here and there when something compelling turns up. And now I think a cool cloth to the forehead. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That's all very interesting. But 'dramatic' rather than actual 'drama'. Still, quite appropriate for a section here. Given that you're familiar with a broad range of Roman culture, perhaps when you have a moment you might create a quick "See also" list for this article, linking to any articles that may (now or in the future?) provide information on all the missing elements that you've mentioned? I'll add the ones you've given here, but any others would be great. I may have some articles kicking around somewhere from which I could put together an Influences section, but I wouldn't hold your breath... so many articles, so little time. DionysosProteus (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hey Jayna, I'm looking over your article and I definitely think the parts that you have edited are strong. I know you haven't worked on the bottom of the wikipedia article but you will definitely to either get citations for "stock characters" or do away with the section as I do you'll get points deducted for an entire section without sources. I do think maybe the "origins" section of your article could use one more citation beyond the Zarilli. If not, I think it's perfectly strong enough on its own.

When you edit the sections you haven't touched I'd pay attention to sentences like "Roman actors had bad reputations and their morals challenged even the decadence of Roman society. Their performances could be lewd, highly sexual and offensive" because that has no citation and it might just be someone's opinion or hearsay.

In general, I think everything you've worked on looks great. Your citations are in order and you're giving me plenty of information on Roman theatre. DaniellaBenavides (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Tara's Peer Review
Hey Jayna,

Great improvements to this article! It's structure is clear and informative.

Your lead section is great, but I have a nitpicky note about the opening sentence: Theatre of ancient Rome refers to the time period of theatrical practice and performance in Rome beginning in the 4th century B.C. You start by referring to time period, then to practice, then back to time period. Might be simpler to refer to the practice and performance during the time period of 4th century. It's not a big change, but might ease readability.

The origins, tragedy and comedy sections are clear and succinct, and you'v done a great job of foregrounding evidence without opinion. I do agree that it might be good to have an additional source cited here if possible. I also agree that the stock character section may be worth removing? Or, rather than listing all of the characters, describe what stock characters are, how they were used, and perhaps provide just a few examples with links to others?

As mentioned, the actors and physical space section feels like it still needs work plus there is nothing about the masks of Roman theater, and I'm assuming you haven't gotten there yet. When you do, I agree that you'll want to cite the info and rework the language that feels pretty biased and opinionated. Also, the first sentence of the physical space section feels misleading and contradicts later info in this section that notes the differences between Greek and Roman theaters.

For the notable playwrights section, you may want to rework the lost to flow chronologically? I think it's close but not quite. Also would be helpful to provide years of birth death (if available) and perhaps to list notable works for some of them?

Regarding images, it might be informative to have more images of physical space and layout? Maybe from a birds eye perspective to give a sense of how space was organized. This is so much better. Good work! Making.history (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Auditorium
I took the liberty of correcting the link to "auditorum" in the Stage and physical space section. It used to lead to the Wikipedia page of the Auditorium Theatre in Chicago, Illinois and now leads to the page for the auditorium as a type of room. 07:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jaynakatz. Peer reviewers: DaniellaBenavides, Making.history.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Carolinehcollins. Peer reviewers: Carolinefreeman.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 12 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nealthane. Peer reviewers: Jway04, Classicaldisappointmentuno.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)