Talk:History of theatre/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about History of theatre. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Commedia dell'arte

The servant character type (called zanni) had only one recurring role: Arlecchino (also called Harlequin).

This does not seem to be true. The commedia dell'arte page mentions Columbine and Pierrot/Pedrolino, at least, as stock servant characters. john k (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll also note that this article, beyond that, is terrible. john k (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Renaissance theatre section

This section is cut-and-pasted from English_Renaissance_theatre#Background. Can we edit and expand this to include non-English drama? Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is Egypt in the "Middle East" section

It should be up at the top in Africa with Yoruba theatre. Aren't we past this silly excercize of trying to strip Africa of it's ancient glory? That's so last millennium.... vap (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

About Kabuki...

This sentence doesn't make sense:

"However, Kabuki is less formal and more distant than Nõ, yet very popular among the Japanese public."

"Less formal", "more distant" yet "very popular"?

203.169.48.225 (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"Further reading" section

At present this contains only one work, which may or may not represent a fringe theory: the author's "intuition" that theatre developed separately from religious ritual. Is this point-of-view pushing, or is it something that should be in the article, using the work as a reference? Either way, we should either have a complete "Further reading" section or none: not just one work offering a theory that isn't represented in the article. If none, the current incumbent could then be either used as a reference or removed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

list article, or an overview of the history of theatre?

The article has no lead section, no unifying discussion of "History of theatre," so I wonder whether it isn't more of a list article; each section links to a main article, so it functions more like an index. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

theater and cartoons

I love theather. the wikipedia on history of theater is very interesting. i wish that cartoons would be as interesting as theater. thank you wikipedia.! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.10.159 (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Athens inventing theatre

Sorry about the "dubious" tag, but it was the one that came to mind, and it seemed time to discuss the implications of using the word "invent" rather than going back and forth in edit summaries. Who'd like to begin? I get that the source uses the word, but the claim is large and rather unnuanced; even though it's under the "Western" heading, we might need to include that kind of parameter in the claim. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Simon Goldhill is a well-recognised expert in the field (a professor at Cambridge University) and says it quite explicitly and unambiguously. The footnote clarifies exactly what the sources say. I'm happy to discuss it here, but I'm removing the dubious tag, as it's a standard 'claim' in the field of theatre scholarship and we shouldn't be misleading the readers (800 - 1,000 per day) in the meantime. From the edit at theatre, I'm assuming that Amadscientist was responding to Richard Beacham's argument in the opening of Roman Theatre and its Audience. Having examined it just now (previewable in the most part on Google Books), what he's actually arguing for is the prior existence in Roman culture of "pre-theatrical practices"--i.e., dancing, oral storytelling, ritual. He's offering this to counter the impression, as he puts it, "that theatrical art was suddenly revealed to a fourth-century Roman audience as a foreign entity for which nothing in their own experience or practice had prepared them" (3). He's not suggesting that Rome also invented theatre. The standard accounts of theatre history before the Greeks speak only of these kind of "pre-theatrical practices" or "quasi-theatrical" rituals. These activities only become theatre with the Greeks. I haven't gotten around to cleaning up and improving the pre-Greek/origins section yet, but it's on the to-do list. Nothing in the standard, mainstream sources contradict Goldhill. • DP • ^{huh?} 12:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not arguing what what you're saying here, but you're completely missing my point. This has nothing to do with Greeks vs. Romans; it has to do with the article being global, and the claim being made as if universal, without a qualifying "in the West". Please don't remove the tag till others have a chance to weigh in. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

In other words, I'd rather have it say something like "The history of Western theatre begins in Classical Greece. Theatre as a scripted performance in a purpose-built space (or something less ghastly to that effect) was invented by Athenian" yadda yadda. It's also fine to assert that the theatre of Athens is the earliest form ("The earliest form of theatre as scripted performance" or whatever); but the article should take more care in implying that Chinese or Japanese theatre, for instance, somehow derived from Athens. The intro is also unclear about this because it uses the word "invented" instead of "earliest form". When we say Edison invented the light bulb, we mean that light bulbs all over the world derive from the priority of his invention; but even with scientific inventions that had a quite specific date, one must sometimes qualify by pointing that others had the same item in development but weren't the first promulgator. Or that a theory arose in different places. Since the top photo in the article isn't Western theatre, it all just doesn't seem to cohere. I may be naive in thinking that a scene from Shakespeare at the top would be uncontroversial on English WP. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

How can the {{Dubious}} tag, right next to a specific quote from a respected authority using exactly the same terminology, possibly be justified? It damages the credibility of the article to no good purpose. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I was rather hoping that my recent additions of well-sourced material to the Eastern theatre history sections would have prevented concerns such as the one you raise, Cynwolfe. As you will see from those sections, and as any standard, mainstream academic account of the history of world theatre will confirm (Brockett is the standard text in the US, for example, and the one I have to hand), it all begins in Greece. That is a global perspective. Qualifying it in the way that you suggest is unneccessary and misleading, in light of the standard accounts. The history of world theatre begins in Greece. Indian theatre is the next nearest candidate, and that, as the sourced material in that section details, emerges not only after Greek, but after Roman too. China is even later. I appreciate your concerns, but the way to resolve such matters is by reference to the sources, not a vote. In fact, an argument could be made about origins/originating, given the extent of Hellenistic culture, but to state "invention" does not make that argument. Qualifying the statement on the basis of what you fear it implies, rather than basing it on what the sources actually say, I would suggest, is not the best option. • DP • ^{huh?} 13:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've come here after reading Cynwolfe's post at WP:CGR. Goldhill is a great scholar, but having this article say things like "Athens invented theatre" or "the history of world theater begins in Greece" seems unduly Helloncentric to me. Can Goldhill truly mean that Japanese Noh drama, Chinese opera, and Balinese shadow play are historically dependent upon Greek drama and comedy? I doubt that's what Goldhill meant, but that is exactly what the article text implies. (In other words, I agree completely with Cynwolfe's post above, especially about the implications of the word "invent".) Rephrasing to make it clear that there are multiple independent traditions of theatre with their own histories would hardly be damaging to the credibility of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It's the argument that there are multiple independent traditions that is dubious and unsupported by the standard academic sources. The traditions of drama that you mention evolved many hundreds of years after the invention of theatre in classical Greece. That's the history that the sources explicitly state, and so what the article ought to reflect. It's not just Goldhill - see Brockett and Banham, for example. The article is required to reflect the current state of academic scholarship. Take a look at the section of Indian theatre, which (supported by more sources) explains that Indian theatre was the earliest form of theatre in Asia. • DP • ^{huh?} 17:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I must not be making my point clearly, or I am misunderstanding yours. We can certainly agree that Indian drama develops later than Greek drama, but that doesn't necessitate any Greek influence. Do Goldhill, Brockett, and Banham say, for instance, that Indonesian theatre evolved from Greek? That would be a surprising assertion, but that seems to be what you say these sources claim. Unfortunately, I do not have access to any of these sources at the moment (and the references in the article are vague in some cases, not providing page numbers)—could you provide an apposite quote, or a link? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

To put it another way, is it the intent of the writers of this article to have readers come away with the impression that the Greeks are responsible for the invention of Kathakali, Pekingese shadow puppetry, and Kabuki? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Which vague citations are you referring to? The ones in question in the article are specific and provide direct quotations in some cases in the footnotes (I can't see how they could be more specific... I went to some effort to make the evidence as crystal clear as possible, given that, in the past, an editor has raised a similar query based on false, unsourced information in the encyclopedia). One of my tasks for today, for example, is to try to correct the misinformation given in Theatre of India. I understood your question and attempted to address it. Goldhill says that Athens "invented theatre". The Greeks are the first to create theatre (as distinct from ritual, oral storytelling, dithyrambs, etc.). As the Asian theatre section explains, the earliest theatre in Asia is Indian. Indonesian theatre develops out of Indian theatre (there is a narrative of unambiguous influence there, as theatre spreads out from India across Asia, particularly in the form of puppetry - see the Cambridge Guide to Asian theatre, if I remember rightly). Given the spread of Hellenic culture to India long before native Indian theatre evolved, and archeological evidence of the presence of Hellenic theatres in India, one could make an argument about "origination". I haven't, mainly because I wanted to stick as closely as possible to the exact and careful wording of leading scholars, and more broadly because although their respective dramas have a great deal in common, there are also significant differences, both in the detail of dramatic form and in aesthetic philosophy (happy endings vs. tragic, rasas vs. katharsis, etc.). The article as it currently stands does not make that argument, nor does it create the impression that Athens invented the specific types of theatre that you list, any more than it implies that Athens created the Trauerspiel, well-made play, commedia dell'arte, or any other type of theatre that emerged centuries later. It simply states, in line with the reliable published sources, that Athens invented theatre. That is not an argument about influence (though one could be made) but invention. (As it happens, the 'can of worms' of an 'influence' argument is just as tricky with later theatre in the West as it might be in the East--did medieval theatre spring from a classical influence, from Christian ritual, from native folk traditions, and even in the case of the latter, were they indigenous or did they evolve from the popular theatre of travelling actors across the millennia?) None of the cultures that you've mentioned are isolated from one another--all are in contact through trade (along the Silk Road, for example)--and you have mentioned traditions of theatre that emerged, in some cases, more than a millennium later. The article as it stands is carefully worded, written from a global perspective, and fully sourced with citations from leading experts in the field. In line with Moonraker's comments above, I'm a little baffled as to what more could be required? The arguments offered here seem to be arguments with what the experts in the field say, rather than how the article is representing that knowledge and, as I understand it, that's beyond the scope of the Wikipedia project. I'm happy to engage in the discussion, but with an average of someone looking at the article every two minutes, the dubious tag on such well-sourced material seemed to me to do far more harm to readers than the good of prompting discussion among editors. • DP • ^{huh?} 20:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, DionysosProteus, I find myself confused by your last post. You say you want the article to avoid an argument about origination, and you provide some good reasons for this. Yet, as it stands the article makes an article about origination; the current lede says "Since its invention in classical Athens in the 6th century BCE, vibrant traditions of theatre have flourished in cultures across the world" and the first sentence of the "Greek theatre" section says "The city-state of Athens invented theatre." I find it very hard to read these sentences in a way that doesn't mean "the Greeks were the first to come up with theatre, and anyone else who's had theatre since then was following the lead of the Greeks." That's what "invention" connotes to most people. If someone says that the Greeks invented democracy, they do not mean that the Greeks came up with democracy, which was later independently created by many other peoples around the world; they mean that if a parliamentary election is held in Papua New Guinea, the voters are following in the footsteps of the ancient Greeks. This is at least a plausible argument in the case of democracy (although it's incredibly reductive, to say the least), and it is clearly a statement about origination and diffusion. In fact, even though in your posts you deny that "invent" implies origination, your repeated mention of intercultural contact between Greece and India contradicts this, as it is inconsistent to say that the text doesn't say that Greece is the origin of all theatre, but that Greece really might be the origin of all theatre. At any rate, if you don't want the article text to say that Greece originated the world's theatre traditions, then the current wording ought to be changed, because the understanding that I (and Cynwolfe) have of the word "invented" is pretty common.

As for vague citations: the sentence in the lede, "Since its invention in classical Athens in the 6th century BCE, vibrant traditions of theatre have flourished in cultures across the world", has three citations (in this revision): Banham (1998), Brockett and Hildy (2003), and Goldhill (1997, 54). The first two references lack a precise page number. Banham 1998 is not listed in the bibliography. Goldhill 1997 is in the bibliography, but not with full information—the listing says the article is in Easterling 1997, but that work is not listed. Now, I can figure out with a bit of googling that this work is the Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy, but the bibliography should list this work, no?

The citations for the sentence in the "Greek theatre" section are better, though there's problems with the bibliography there also (Brown is in Banham 1998, not listed, Cartledge is in Easterling 1997, not listed). I don't have access to all these works, but I'm skeptical that they support the article text as written. The footnote says "Brown writes that ancient Greek drama "was essentially the creation of classical Athens…" so the summary in the article says that Brown is crediting Athens with the creation of ancient Greek drama. Cartledge 1997:3 says "Theatre as we understand it in the West today was invented in all essentials in ancient Greece, and more specifically in classical Athens." This is a statement about theatre in the western world, not about all world theatre. (Furthermore, Cartledge is a classicist, not a specialist in theatre history, so I'd be hesitant to use him as a source for later theatre history.) Goldhill is inaccessible to me, but he is writing in a collection about Greek tragedy and his article is specifically about the Athenian audience—this isn't the place I'd look to see where Athenian drama fit into world theatre history! (This is a problem that applies to the Cartledge citation also--a remark that occupies one sentence and is more of a rhetorical prop than an substantive argument gets turned into a central support for a factual assertion in a Wikipedia article. Sadly, this happens all the time…)

To suggest a solution, then, I'd rewrite the sentence in the lede to say "The first recorded examples of theatre comes from classical Athens, where traditions of tragedy and comedy arose in the 6th century BCE. In later times vibrant theatre traditions of theatre have flourished in cultures across the world." A bit could even be added about the profound influence Greek drama had upon later western drama. As for the sentence in the "Greek theatre" section I suggest rephrasing to "Greek drama was the creation of the city-state of Athens" which is actually closer to what Brown seems to be saying (at least if what footnote #6 says is right). --Akhilleus (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining it in more detail. Ah, I see what you mean about the citations now. Actually, the problem is not the cites but the list of sources. I thought I'd included everything that I'd cited, but as you've indicated, that's not the case. I cut and pasted from a draft for a different article to summarise here, which involved pulling out the relevant sources from a far longer list, and clearly I missed a few. I'll go through the footnotes and check that everything appears in the sources list and add whatever is missing. Also, yes, my attention was focused on the section on the Greeks rather than its summary in the lead. In the latter, I left the Banham/Brockett as citations pointing to the entire books because they detail all of the different theatre cultures of the world over the course of their whole books (Banham is cambridge world theatre and Brockett is a global history). Yes, you are correct about the Cartledge/Brown claims: that is precisely why, in the footnote, I quoted directly from them so that there could be no ambiguity or possible accusation of a sleight of hand. I disagree fundamentally about your suggestion about "rhetorical prop" being turned into a central support. I've been very careful in my use of sources and have attended to precisely the issue you have raised, to which the current wording is a considered response in light of a close examination of relevant sources; Goldhill is making an argument about the invention of theatre (not qualified as Athenian or Greek or Western), in much the same way that someone else could make an argument about the invention of democracy or gunpowder, and it's a mainstream position. It's in consideration of possible confusion that I have used the precise wording that the sources use, rather than "origination." There was, a while back, one of these awful general-to-the-point-of-absurdity infoboxes... maybe on the theatre or drama article..? that included a parameter for "origin". Combined with misinformation in the Indian theatre article/summary, it sparked a debate (during which, to be honest, I became pretty frustrated, since it failed to examine any of the sources involved). The upshot was that I spent some time researching and examining precisely this point, and that "invention" was the result of that work.

I disagree fundamentally that "invention" is the equivalent of "origination." As is clear from my comments above, I do think that both are valid descriptions. The latter, though, involves a can of worms that the former does not. Let me detail my own understanding, in order to try to demonstrate that the position at which I have arrived is not simply an overenthusiastic extension of a source (this account is based on the sources given so far, as well as others, my own education--3 degrees in the subject--and experience lecturing in it... I know, waving our competencies about isn't relevant to the project or a substitute for reference to reliable sources, but I'm only seeking to reassure, not substitute). Firstly, there is the problem of what "theatre" is. Some writers, less careful than the scholarship I have selected, have, for example, described certain religious rituals of the ancient Egyptians as a "passion play", because, like the Christian mass, it involves elements of dialogue (call/response etc.) and is "performed". This, however, is an ideological distortion modelled on the Athenian example--i.e., because of the theory that Athenian theatre was a development of ritual, it seeks to universalise that experience. Or there is the example of the oral performance of epic poetry. Or dancing, singing, acrobatics, juggling, (i.e. 'performed' entertainments) etc. Contemporary scholarship, in theatre studies as well as classics, describe these activities as "pre-theatrical" or "quasi-theatrical", precisely in order to mark them off from theatre proper (i.e., a form of art rather than religious devotion, and in the other cases, involving actors and mimetic enactment). I'm not denying that ritual, storytelling, choral dancing, etc. were sources for theatre, but rather asserting that, like, for example, the invention of capitalism (for which China had all the 'ingredients' long before the West but nonetheless did not invent it), these disparate sources were united in an act of synthesis that created something distinct, new, and unique: theatre. The Greeks were the first to do this, even though the ingredients with which they made this synthesis were available to other cultures in the world.

Now it is also clear that other cultures have developed theatre, several centuries or more later. The difficulty comes in establishing what the precise nature of the relationship between the two is. If we were talking about, to put the argument in an extreme form, say, ancient traditions of theatre in Hawaii, Australia, or South America, there would be little doubt that we were dealing with multiple, independent, acts of invention. The article here, then, could present the history of theatre in the way that you suggest, with all those qualifications about the distinctness of the traditions of the East and West, without any objection. But we are dealing with cultures that not only are in direct contact with one another over a period of hundreds of years, but in the case of India (which the sources are willing to identify as the 'fountainhead' of Asian theatre) are actually colonised by the 'Greeks' (if I can collapse the distinction between Hellenic and Athenian for a moment). So, you see, I am trying to point out that making any kind of argument about the relationship between the two is tricky and unable to be based on evidence--that is, to suggest that they are independent is just as unfounded as suggesting that the latter evolve out of the former. The fact is that we don't know whether they are independent inventions or not independent inventions. On the basis of the available evidence, both of those positions are speculative.

This is why I describe "origination" as a can of worms, and distinguish it from "invention". Here are two possible (speculative) scenarios: (1) Greece as the originating fountainhead of world theatre, in which Alexander brings the torch of theatre to India, sets up theatres there, and Greek drama is performed on Asian soil; this Greek drama evolves into Sanskrit drama, as certain of its features mutate in reponse to local conditions--an 'evolutionary' model, if you like. (2) the indigenous synthesis model, in which, as a result of contact between the two cultures, following the example ("what a good idea, to tell stories with several people pretending to be the characters from the story rather than speaking as themselves") of Greek theatre, Indians create a synthesis of their own indigenous materials (the stories from Hindu epic poetry, ancient hymns, Indian aesthetics, etc.) and create Sanskrit theatre, whose features, while resembling many of those of that of the Greeks, are different and distinct (happy endings, use of chorus, etc.). We can't call either of these scenarios acts of independent invention. As I think is clear from what I've written so far, I think that the second scenario is what happened--that's what I mean when I say that I think an argument can be made about "origination". I think something similar probably happened much later in the cultural exchange between India and China. With India and Indonesia, and many other Asian theatre traditions, the first model of transmission (Asian theatre evolving directly out of Indian) is the established scholarly consensus (I think the relation to China is a little more vague). There is much the same problem with the history of the traditions in the West as well (!), as I mentioned previously, in which establishing the precise influence or direct evolution from Greek theatre on/into Medieval European theatre is just as tricky. Again, indigenous sources are important parts of the ingredients.

So, my point is that to say that something is 'invented/first created by' is a very distinct idea from saying that something 'originated/evolved into' all forms of world theatre. The article has been worded carefully, attending closely to reliable, scholarly sources that detail both East and Western traditions from a global perspective, to address these issues. It doesn't say whether they are independent or not-independent traditions, because we can't make that call (because, having happened more than two millennia ago, the evidence is scant!). Making the comparison with a technological/scientific invention, Cynwolfe wrote above that "one must sometimes qualify by pointing that others had the same item in development but weren't the first promulgator". I understand that it seems like asserting the independence of the traditions looks like the more cautious approach, but, as I hope I've demonstrated, it is just as tricky as asserting that everything evolves directly from Athens. • DP • ^{huh?} 11:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I've gone through the footnotes and added any sources to the list that I'd omitted (I also noticed that I'd used the copyright year for Banham, which was a re-issue date rather than first published, so have corrected that too). The Brown and Cartledge citations were offered to substantiate that it's Athens (rather than any other Greek) that invented it (I've only quoted from Brown, but Cartledge uses "invention" too). Checking the punctuation for the Goldhill (full stop in or out of quotation mark?), I noticed I'd omitted "the" from the sentence, so have corrected. Although the Goldhill quotation is taken from his essay in the Cambridge Companion on the audience, it is in the opening paragraph in which he is summarising the importance of Greek theatre in a wider cultural context. If necessary, I'm happy to quote the paragraph more fully here. At the risk of overkill, I've added five more sources that all explicitly state that the Greeks invented theatre and have provided direct quotations from three of them. If you feel it's necessary, I can add the same for the others (I didn't want the note to seem too silly, repeating the same phrase over and over--four iterations seemed quite enough). I limited myself to sources that state explicitly that it was "invented" rather than "originated" or any variation thereof (because of the 'can of worms' reasons given above). I've also included ones that come from an analysis of world culture and from theatre professors as well as classicists. Hopefully that should reassure any doubts about the over-extension of Goldhill's claim. • DP • ^{huh?} 17:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

DionysosProteus, thanks for taking the time to supply the missing bibliography and for supplying additional citations; thanks also for explaining your position in more detail. However, I still must say that I disagree with you, and the main reason is one that I've already stated and repeated: the ordinary meaning of "invent" is "to devise first, originate." I've just quoted a part of one of the definitions of "invent" in the Oxford English Dictionary, it reads in full, "To find out in the way of original contrivance; to create, produce, or construct by original thought or ingenuity; to devise first, originate (a new method of action, kind of instrument, etc.). The chief current sense." So, I realize that you have given careful thought to the wording you've used, but I must strongly disagree with your argument that "invention" does not imply "origination"—this is a common meaning of "invent", as you in fact acknowledge in your last post, when you write that "Goldhill is making an argument about the invention of theatre...in much the same way that someone else could make an argument about the invention of democracy or gunpowder." So you've got a problem here—the article is going to give many readers the impression that Athens is the origin of all world theatre, even though you say this is not your intended meaning. And as I've already suggested, I think that relatively minor changes to the wording can correct this problem.

I don't want to put you to too much trouble, but I would enjoy seeing a larger context for the Goldhill quote (but I can probably get the volume for myself during the next week, if you'd rather not type it out). I should note, though, that while I appreciate the effort you put into finding sources, I'm still concerned with the selections—with the classicists, it's fairly obvious that they are talking about western theatre (or even more specifically Greek drama) even if this is not explicitly qualified. I'm afraid, too, that I have to stick with my impression that passing remarks are being seized upon to justify substantive assertions here. For instance, McDonald (2003:2) writes: "The Athenians invented theater as we know it, but they gave us more than that: the rudiments of science and philosophy, in addition to the political system called democracy. They overthrew their tyrants and by the fifth century had a workable democracy, although women were deprived of the vote (we should remember that they only got the vote in the United States in 1920 and in France in 1945). Slaves, acquired through wars and purchase, serviced the homes and the general economy. There was a population of about three hundred thousand in Attica…It is likely that only males attended dramatic performances. The theatre of Dionysus seated about fifteen thousand to eighteen thousand people and featured a circular playing area called the orchestra…" That's all one paragraph, and a very small part of its first sentence is given to Athens' contributions to theatre history; more space is given to the development of democracy, which is described in a cringe-inducing, reductive way. And it's hardly a stretch to see that when McDonald says that Athens "invented theater as we know it", the "we" is us westerners... Another issue with the sourcing is that a few of these sources seem to be high school/college textbooks (like A History of World Societies), which doesn't strike me as the best kind of source to turn to for this matter. Textbooks on world history are unlikely to be venues for a detailed examination of theatre history.

There is, of course, scholarship that deals directly with the history and origins of various national/regional traditions of theatre. I know almost nothing about theatre outside the west, but from looking around it seems that among scholars the theory that Sanskrit drama originated from Greek models is unpopular, e.g. S. Tripp, "The Genres of Classical Sanskrit Literature", Poetics (1981) p. 223: "Over the years there has been a good deal of speculation about the origin of the Sanskrit drama (Keith 1924 sums up theories to his date). At one time there was even serious consideration of the possibility that it might be derived from Greek drama." That sounds like derivation from Greek drama is no longer seriously considered. In the Cambridge Guide to Theatre (2005), the entries on India and Japan treat their theatrical traditions as indigenous developments. So I have strong doubts about your statement that asserting the independence of dramatic traditions is just as tricky as saying they all originate from Athens, because scholarship does not seem to see this as tricky at all. Which is not surprising—a theory that Greeks in Bactria transmitted theater to India which spread throughout Asia, leading the Japanese to develop Kabuki is not plausible. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue for me is the propriety of the word "invent," which of course more typically is used in the history of science and technology; when used in the arts, it's usually restricted to usage such as "inventing" a metrical form or a technique of paint application or pointe shoes — that is, an event that can be placed at a sudden "eureka" moment and attributed to an individual, from which subsequent uses of the invention develop. In writing a book that is the product of years of in-depth research, a scholar may choose at a given moment an infelicitous or less-than-accurate word that can be understood in context without being regarded as sacred writ. "The earliest form of fully developed theatre appears in Athens" is a defensible chronological assertion. An art form is not usually said to be "invented": "Dance was invented by … " or "Poetry was invented by … " is not a statement I'd care to see. Or try out "Painting was invented in southern France in 32,000 BC" instead of "The oldest known paintings are at the Grotte Chauvet in France." The article uses the latter for good reasons. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Just passing through today, so I don't have time to address the most recent comments in detail - addressing this issue took some time yesterday and I can't spend it today (need to focus on film) - but should be able to do so tomorrow. But a few quick points: if "invent" was used by just one source, I might agree. But there are six from a range of disciplines and perspectives that use that word explicitly and unambiguously - and please take a another look at them, they are all scholarly, etc. everything we would want for the project [look again at the History of World Societies - it's not a secondary school text - if I had cited from this kind of source, I might agree :)]. If it were a case of an editorial choice that was not reflected in the sources (and so many of them at that), the choice of word could be debated; but when so many souces use it and we reproduce that choice, that's a different matter. Secondly, yes, I agree that one couldn't make an argument about the invention of painting, music, dance, etc. Nor could one do so for "performance". These are all activities that have probably existed as long as human beings have. But theatre is a different matter and was created in a specific time and place that we know about - sometime in the 6th c BCE in Greece. The same is true for the novel and opera, for example. And no, "invent" is not confined to the sciences and technology--it is used frequently in the arts, because there are numerous instances where a specific form of art is the invention of a particular person or culture and we have evidence for it. To say "invent" doesn't mean that the form mutated and evolved directly into the other forms (i.e., is derived from... in the way, say, that human beings evolved from ape-like animals). But the "idea" of theatre was the invention of Greece centuries before and it there is archeological evidence of Greek theatre-buildings in India during the Hellenic period, before the emergence of Sanskrit theatre. This is different from saying that staged Greek drama in India developed into Sanskrit drama - yes, it is an indigenous development (as I indicated above re: its sources). But it is not separate/independent, in the way, say that Wallace and Darwin both arrived at the theory of evolution independently. There are several issues here, which I'll try to separate out and address tomorrow. Please look at the Indian theatre section and its references (including the Cambridge Guide). The scholarly consensus is that all Asian theatre (including Japanese) developed-evolved directly out of Indian (thanks to Buddhist monks). Look at the dates for the start of Indian theatre (earliest surviving 1st CE, probably starting c. 140 BCE). Apologies for the rushed notes, but I thought it was better to get something down. • DP • ^{huh?} 12:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Cynwolfe and Akhilleus, and hope not to repeat too much of what they've said. I've little knowledge of the subject area but despite what you say, Dionysos, "invented" immediately raises my eyebrows and a tomes' worth of vague questions on diffusion and parallel development. I rather like difficult, vague questions, especially when contentious or even unanswerable, but I doubt if most readers come here for that. I daresay most seek answers. If difficult questions are to be raised, they should be presented as lucid summary of scholarly discourse on the same; then the reader can investigate further or shelve the problem and move on. The main event should (I suggest) be descriptive. "Invent" (as I understand it) clearly infers that all forms of theatre under discussion have a Greek (Athenian) origin. I know it's been said before but that really seems implausible. Earliest, yes. That's an evidence-based assertion. The rest is exceedingly broad and speculative, surely? If it's to be covered here, I suggest it has a section to itself, in which different theories of development are explained. Even then, that could be too disputatious for a general article on the History of Theatre.

Seeking guidance on structure, I took a quick look at what's available (to me) at Credo; which isn't much, but I rather like the simple organisation of the equivalent topic at Chambers Dictionary of World History (2005) (retrieved from [1], which introduces the topic thus - "The ancient origins of theatre are thought to lie in religious ritual, which to this day retains dramatic elements of its own. Early drama was always associated with music and dance, an association fully maintained in the traditional theatre of the East." Generalised, but terse and exact as befits an introduction or early sections of an article (my eyebrows remain as low as ever). Thereafter, each section stands alone. Dates are given, and from these the reader can speculate or draw their own conclusions. Haploidavey (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You're touching on a different issue--the origins of theatre. That is a contentious issue and worthy of a decent section. There is a section at present, but it's poor. Whether or not and how theatre emerged from ritual (storytelling is another candidate) is a question for which there is a huge reading list. Jane Harrison started the ritual thing. Aristotle says choral dances. Gerald Else argues for storytelling. That's a vast subject that could easily spawn its own article. That something called theatre was created in a specific time and place is a different matter. That this was Athens in the 6th c. isn't implausible, it's scholarly consensus (see the sources). The Greek form, too, was a form of dance-drama, as were most early forms of theatre and many still today (though this isn't relevant to the issue at hand). That all Asian theatre comes from Indian is also consensus. That Indian develops after Greek occupation, in which Greek theatre was performed in India is also consensus (see the sources in that section). That Indian drama was what resulted from Greek drama evolving in India is another matter entirely. With six reliable sources all saying explicitly and unambiguously variations on the theme "Athens invented theatre", the argument appears to be with what the scholars say, rather than with how this article ought to represent this--which, as I said above, is outside the scope of the project. • DP • ^{huh?} 13:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your very patient, exact responses. I'll mull them thoroughly. And apologies for my seemingly stubborn insistence - I'd not noticed your previous answer before I posted mine (which was as usual over-long in the writing and led to an edit-conflict of sorts). Haploidavey (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

DP, why are you so wedded to the word "invent?" And of course you didn't address my point about how we'd recoil at a statement like "Dance was invented" or "Painting was invented," because frankly that would be a dumb way to put it. "Invent" is not a technical term which we have to replicate, if the sources are represented accurately. How does it harm the presentation of the article to say "The earliest form of theatre appears in Classical Athens"? What information does the reader lose if we ditch the combative "invent?" Cynwolfe (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I've created a new section on the talk page touching on the origins of theatre and the distinction from ritual. Tyrone Madera (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Erm, well I certainly attempted to address it. The reasons a claim for dance or painting is dumb is that the event happened so far in pre-history that we have no idea who or where the first human did it and it's very likely that it wasn't an event but multiple independent events. That is categorically not the case with theatre - we know who invented it first and later indigenous creations cannot be claimed to be uninfluenced by that original act (the culture at least, and there is even evidence for specific people, which when I finish the Athenian tragedy article could have a section... i.e. thespis? which is dubious). I'm discussing it for several reasons: (1) that's what I wrote; (2) it's fully supported by six sources; and (3) wikipedia's guidelines make it clear that the only issue in such discussions is whether the sources are (a) appropriate and (b) being represented here accurately (they are on both accounts). As I tried to explain above, the direct evolution/mutation/however we want to term it is a separate issue that is unresolvable, and I object to the article resolving it either way. • DP • ^{huh?} 15:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

How does it harm the presentation of the article to say "The earliest form of theatre appears in Classical Athens"? What information does the reader lose if we ditch the combative "invent?" How would this way of saying it be an inaccurate reflection of the sources? Isn't that what they're saying? You say you don't want the article to resolve the questions of origins either way, but the word "invent" is an absolute declaration of that. Why not simply begin the section with a statement of chronological priority, and lead the reader through the process by which the question of origins is addressed? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I know I risk sounding a little pedantic to say so, but it's important that we don't describe this discussion as one concerning "origins". The origins of theatre is a discussion about its pre-theatre sources. The invention of theatre is something quite different. The former is a substantial and contentious topic in the current scholarly literature and would/should involve separate discussions for each form of theatre that has developed in history (for the Greeks, that stretches way back into the murky depths of the bronze age, for the Indians, the relation to the epics, etc.) The latter is not. A discussion about its origins in relation to this article would concern the contents of that first section. This discussion is about what's currently in the lead, the Athenian, and Asian-Indian sections. It's important that we make that distinction.

I object to the wording that you've suggested because, I would argue, information is lost with it. The Greeks did invent theatre, just like they invented many other things. Theatre is an art form distinct from dance, music, poetry, etc. Its invention has a more or less precise date and location. The sources all support that--those detailing the history of Greece, those detailing the development of world culture, and those detailing the history of theatre. The issue is specific: once you accept, in line with the sources, that Asian theatre directly evolved from Indian theatre; once you accept that Indian theatre was created later than both Greek and Roman theatre; once you accept that the Greeks staged theatre in India before that happened; then the remaining issue is this: what was the precise relationship beween Greek drama and Indian. That is the only issue that is unresolvable. That's the issue that I detailed above in my two "speculative scenarios"--which of those two possible forms--direct descent as one form develops into another (the ape-man model), or indigenous creation in the wake of the Greek example--is historically accurate. We can't know or decide either way. Whichever of these scenarios may be the true one, neither contradict the fact that the Athenians invented theatre. That is and should be an "absolute declaration" because it's a fact that the current state of scholarship agrees on, is supported by archeological and cultural evidence, and is supported by six citations from a broad range of perspectives in the references for this article. To say "the earliest form of theatre appears" makes it sound as if its invention in Greece in the 6th c BCE was only one of many unrelated acts of invention, and that is neither true nor supported by the sources I've provided. The Greeks did invent the art-form that is called theatre and the article ought to say so. • DP • ^{huh?} 16:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I see your distinctions between origins and influence; point taken, and vocabulary established. I still object strenuously to a statement as bare as "The Athenians invented theatre" as unduly weighted. I might be persuaded of "The Athenians were the first to invent a fully developed form of theatre," as a less provocatively sweeping statement that accounts for both origins that predate the supposed "invention" (a word that will continue to sound silly to me in reference to an art form), and the unresolved question of influence. As you acknowledge, what cannot be resolved is whether Greek theatre spawned Indian theatre; therefore, the most rigorous assertion is one of Athenian priority in time. If we wouldn't say "Painting was invented by Paleolithic peoples in Southern France in 32,000 BC," we shouldn't say "Classical Athens invented theatre" unless it's universally agreed that all forms of theatre ultimately derive from the Athenian tradition. (As a side note and attempt at levity, it is odd to see both Akhilleus and me on this side of the argument, since in the past we've had to do things like argue that Athens really was a democracy) Cynwolfe (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's essential that this debate not be one about "origins", then the best thing to do is to avoid using the word "invented" in article text, because as should be quite clear by now, to many people "invented" implies "originated". Through careful discussion of definitions it can be established that this sense of "invented" is not intended, but that careful distinction between "invented" and "originated" is not in the current article text, and it would probably not be stylistically appropriate to add a sentence to the lede qualifying exactly what "the Greeks invented theatre" means. So if we stick with the current wording many readers of this article are going to come away with the impression that the Greeks originated world theatre. Honestly, though, after the latest posts by DionysosProteus I don't think I can accept that he's making a distinction between invention and origination. Above, he gives us two speculative scenarios about the beginning of Indian theatre: "direct descent as one form develops into another (the ape-man model), or indigenous creation in the wake of the Greek example." DP will not allow, however, a separate and independent creation—the Greeks must be involved somehow. This Hellenocentric idea is exactly what I'm objecting to; there is no logical reason to exclude an independent creation by Indian dramatists, nor is it apparent from the text in the article that scholars think that Indian drama received an essential impetus from the Greeks.

Anyway, I think the distinction between "origins" and "invention" is artificial. When discussing the Greek "invention" of theatre, you're discussing the precise moment and manner in which it emerges from Dionysiac ritual (or when and why Thespis stepped out of the chorus, or whatever)—you can't separate the "pre-theatre sources" from the "invention". And this, for me, is a major problem with presenting the Greeks as the inventors of world theatre—it obscures the distinct identity of each theatre tradition, which presumably emerge from different performative activities in each case.

Another point: the use of the term "invented" is hardly obligatory in scholarship on Greek theatre: Brockett and Hildy, one of the sources for this article's footnote #1 (to the sentence "Since its invention in classical Athens in the 6th century BCE..."), write: "The Greek civilization that was to produce the first great era of the theatre took shape between the eighth and sixth centuries." (I was only able to locate the 8th edition of History of the Theatre, whereas the bibliography cites the 9th, so perhaps the wording has changed. N.b., Brockett/Hildy is clearly a textbook for use in college courses.) But here's a simple way to indicate chronological priority without implying anything about originating or even influencing other traditions.

As for the relationship between Greek and Indian theatre, and the origins of any other tradition of world theatre, I think editors here are being unduly pessimistic. Sure, in some sense the question of whether Greek theatre influenced Indian theatre is unknowable, but that hasn't stopped scholars from coming to conclusions that they believe are strong, and we can discover what those conclusions are and report them. And so far, what I've seen indicates that scholars see the Indian tradition as an indigenous development which does not take its impetus from Greeks (Bactrian or otherwise). Brockett/Hildy's History of the Theatre largely concentrates on Europe and the Americas, dealing with the theatre of Asia and Africa in its two final chapters, as if the original version of the text had concentrated solely on the west and a multicultural perspective had to be added later to accommodate the changing demands of audiences. At the beginning of the Asian chapter, Brockett/Hildy write (p. 591): "Thus far, only Western theatrical traditions have been traced. But Asian traditions also are strong and of long standing. While classical, medieval, and Renaissance eras were underway in Europe, the theatres of India, China, Japan, and Southeast Asia were developing forms that have remained vital. The years between the beginnings of the Christian era and 1700 saw the perfection of conventions so different from those of the West that the two traditions have remained almost wholly distinct down to the present, despite sporadic interaction during the twentieth century." I see nothing here or in the rest of the chapter that gives support to DionysosProteus' speculations that ancient Greek theatre had anything to do with Indian theatre at all—in other words, neither of his two speculative scenarios for the beginnings of Indian theatre are covered. As I've already mentioned, the entry on "India" in the Cambridge Guide to Theatre (available here if you have access to Credo Reference) has an extensive discussion on the history of Indian theatre, including a long discussion of its origins (or "invention" if you prefer) and the only reference to Greece is to contrast the theatre structures of Sanskrit drama with those of Greece, Rome, and Elizabethan England. In other words, this entry says nothing about Greek invention, origination, influence, inspiration, or any other effect upon Indian theatre whatsoever. I notice that the only source cited in the Indian theatre section of this article that comes close to dealing with the question of Greek influence is Richmond, Swann, and Zarrilli (1993, 12), and that page notes (correctly) that the classical Sanskrit drama postdates the classical Greek and Roman theatre. But this hardly shows that one had any effect upon the other. The question of influence is raised in a different passage of the same book, which is at best equivocal about Greek influence. Given this, I don't think it's appropriate to develop this article with the assumption (never stated explicitly in the article) that Greek theatre has any relationship to Indian theatre at all—unless sources can be presented that say this is the consensus viewpoint. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. What he said. Akhilleus, do you have a suggested wording? I've restored the "dubious" tag on the word "invent," as my understanding is that the tag shouldn't be deleted until the issue is resolved. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

And yet the tag was deleted. Not sure why: this is a civil, well-reasoned discussion based on sources and scholarly principles. The word "invent" is problematic to some of us, and having the tag in the article alerts others to the discussion. The more voices weigh in on this, the better, I'd think. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

As the editor responsible, may I quote from the template talk page? This allows use where there is an "ongoing dispute"—as here— but continues:

"The purposes of this template are:

To warn readers that a statement in the article may not be accurate
To alert editors that additional sources need to be found, to ascertain which of the conflicting views in the dispute is more authoritative

Do not add this template to a page more than a reasonable number of times."

As in the edit summary, I'm suggesting that its use is inappropriate as there are now seven (E&OE) references in the footnote, and "additional sources" probably don't need to be found. I completely accept that a new outlook from other contributors would be a good idea, particularly as I haven't myself found anything useful to say towards resolving the issue. Would an WP:RFC widen the input? Old Moonraker (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care if the tag remains or not, but it should be noted that part of the dispute is whether the references actually support the article text. Some of them do not use the word "invent", as I've noted above, and some of those that do make the statement in contexts that are more limited in scope than the article text. Furthermore, there are sources that treat other traditions of theatre (e.g., Indian) as indigenous creations, and I've also found some sources that explictly deny any Greek influence upon ancient Sanskrit drama. So there's a real question whether the text in the lead and in the "Greek theatre" section accurately represents the balance of scholarly opinions. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the dubious tag because, with six reliable sources accurately represented (as I am happy to demonstrate), it is inappropriately used and alarmist. A number of misunderstandings (which are fine) and misrepresentations (which are not) have crept into the discussion. I'll be back later this evening to respond fully. • DP • ^{huh?} 17:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that the sources are accurately represented (note, for instance that the section of Brown quoted says "creation", not "invention"), and I am beginning to see the continued removal of the tag as uncooperative. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at the seven others cited. Brown is there to address the Doric/Athens issue. With direct quotation given in the footnote for many of them, that is a difficult position to justify. Please take another look at the Indian theatre sources, and Brockett too - you have misrepresented both. With a large number of readers looking at the article while we discuss, there are more appropriate ways to seek further input. • DP • ^{huh?} 17:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) I've looked at the sources I have access to (Brown, Cartledge, Goldhill, McDonald), DionysosProteus, and I disagree that they are accurately reflected by the article text. I've already explained why at great length above. You are not convinced, I suppose, but that doesn't negate the fact that I disagree with you. There are, of course, more sources than those cited in the footnote, and some of these sources indicate that the simple (or simplistic) statement that the Greeks invented theatre is inaccurate.

I have looked at Indian theatre sources. Richmond, Swann, and Zarrilli's (very brief) treatment of the possibility of Greek influence upon Sanskrit drama is quite skeptical (e.g., they state "Scraps of evidence have been amassed in support of this so-called Greek influence". Brockett/Hildy make a sharp contrast between Western and Asian theatre (in extremely unfortunate essentialist terms, but this makes for a very strong contrast), and they say "the two traditions have remained almost wholly distinct down to the present century." They also say that in previous parts of their text they have only been tracing the history of western theatre, and since their statements about Greek influence were made in that part of the text, any statements about Greek "invention" only apply to the tradition of theatre in the west. I have, furthermore, looked at the Oxford Guide to Indian Theatre (OUP 2004)—the entry on "Sanskrit Theatre" states "any speculation on Greek influence is far fetched…the theory of the emergence of Sanskrit theatre under the foreign influence of Greeks or Sakas (as advanced by Levi) stands rejected." (p. 416).

Furthermore, the fact that an article gets a lot of page views is not a reason to remove a tag. It is, however, a strong reason for making sure that the article is accurate and precise as possible—and the sources do not support a blanket assertion that the ancient Greeks invented world theatre

Finally, since you seem to think misrepresentation is some kind of malfeasance, I'd appreciate it if you refrained from attributing such to me. Try to see it as disagreement about the meaning of the text, instead. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion from the Greece & Rome Project

When I first noticed this issue three days ago, I posted to the Greece & Rome Project. One might expect to find editors there who are knowledgeable on the subject; one might also expect (but not find) editors willing to champion outsized claims for Athens. Below I paste the discussion from the project talk page, where none of those responding finds "Athens invented theatre" to be a claim we want to make. 'Scuse my joke about Orpheus in the original post; it was meant to convey good humor. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Athens invented theatre

Now, I know that when people come here with a question like this, it's usually because something ugly's been happening on an article's talk page, but this notice is intended to forestall that.

In History of theatre, the statement has been made (more or less) that Athens invented theatre; it has sources that use precisely this language. I've been around Wikipedia long enough to know that them's fightin' words. Not only does it elicit the nationalist impulse to argue that if Athenian theatre was rooted in the rites of Dionysus, it was Thracian (shades of Orpheus), but even though it's under a Western header my feeling is that the claim should be delimited somehow because the article has a global perspective. Anyone who has something reasonable to say, with a good source that will give us a less contentious way to express the priority of Athens in the Western tradition, is invited to the talk page. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you may be flirting with Occidentalism. ;-> Athenian theatre is older than Indian or Chinese theatre; every so often, the Europeans did do things first. There have been western idiots beyond number; but a stopped clock is right twice a day. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

But I see the actual issue is a strong and tendentious diffusionist, which claims that Athens must have inspired all theatre, even Kalidasa and Peking opera. That's even sillier. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to note that by Western tradition Athenian theatre is accorded such first place status, but that this evaluation has been considerably nuanced by a large body of more recent scholarship. Eusebeus (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was hoping to work out a statement not quite so bald as "Athens invented theatre," along the lines of what Eusebeus says, and in keeping with what PMA outlines. I was thinking along the lines of "The Western tradition of theatre begins in Classical Athens" or "The earliest form of theatre appears in Classical Athens" or "Classical Athens created the first fully developed theatre" — something that both asserts the chronological priority of Athens, and emphasizes that while elements of theatre might be found before that, it's in Classical Athens that they first coalesce into the recognizable art form "theatre," without claiming that Athens gave birth to later theatre universally. (Not to muddy the waters, but in my day we were taught that Greek theatre had very little to do directly with Shakespeare, whose classical models were Roman comedy and Seneca. So the whole genealogical approach can become of questionable value, or at least not very illuminating, unless you're talking about reception in the manner of Racine's.) The article talk page could probably use some more perspectives in order to arrive at a clear consensus. As I've said there, to me this is a difference between asserting that "Painting was invented in southern France" and "The oldest known paintings are at the Grotte Chauvet in France," the latter being what the History of painting article says. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What seems hopelessly ignorant to me at History of theatre is that the footnote speaks of fifth-century Athens and surviving dramatic works. What does that have to do with the origins of any kind of drama? The tradition of Aeschylus' introduction of a second actor could justify it, I guess, but I think Thespis' use of one role-playing actor with a chorus in sixth-century Athens under Pisistratus is more commonly considered to be Athens' claim to be the site of the appearance of drama's basic element (not an uncontested claim: as Wikipedia says here, though not on the basis of a good source, "Thespis's true contribution to drama is unclear at best"). It can also be said that Athens' precocity in drama is reflected in its early theaters (buildings) as permanent structures whose evidence remains. But I hope any statement of the importance of what happened at Athens (before any of the surviving literature: the author of our article probably only meant to say that "the books of plays in my library begin with Persians") will be accompanied by some reference to the importance placed in our Greek sources for the non-Athenian precursor threads: e.g. Arion, Adrastus (his cult at Sicyon, where Themistius says tragedy was invented), and (if we're talking about comedy, which I guess we're not) Epicharmus.

Perhaps I can sum up for practical purposes and suggest that the abbreviated factoid for a general article like this might be, that an influential ancient story with some apparent truth to it is that Thespis in Pisistratus' Athens is where to draw the line between the various precursors in Greek poetry and what we can really be tempted to call "drama." With the further developments in fifth-century Athens, the addition of a second actor and the production of so many plays that survived for readers in significant numbers all the way to today, we have the beginning of our literary tradition of drama (nothing to do with the "invention of theater"). Wareh (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, there you go, additional important distinctions. Would it be all right if I copied this discussion to the talk page of the article in question? Or would the individual editors here prefer either to make their own comments, or not to go on record there? I say this because I've tagged the word "invent" as dubious, but it keeps getting deleted. I think it's clear that the word "invent" is a serious sticking point for some editors, not just me. The discussion, let me also note for those who are wary of getting involved, is civil and respectful. Just lengthy. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I've gone further. The lead works fine simply saying Since Athens of the fifth century BCE. Controversial claims should not be made in leads, if anywhere; above all, they should not be made as passing references in sentences about something else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Page move contravenes the style manual

There was no consultation or discussion when this page was moved, and the new article title contravenes the WP:TITLEFORMAT guideline. I propose a swift revert. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed by User:Breawycker—thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was: Recent move was speedily reverted by another editor. Station1 (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

History of Theatre → History of theatre – Revert previous page move, which contravened the WP:TITLEFORMAT guideline. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"Theatre" is not a proper noun, and should be lower case. What's up with this? Cynwolfe (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Origins

I've changed this section to give it a less biased slant. The previous version gave a rather crudely materialist version of the origin of ritual activity as a kind of wish-fulfillment related to basic needs like eating; whereas there is plenty of scholarship to show that ritual has a far more mature and endorsable significance than this.Wwallacee (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of theatre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100402061014/http://world-theatres.com/longruns.html to http://www.world-theatres.com/longruns.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is there not a section on American theater? Is there room in this article for a short section on American theater to be added? Lizziebennet22 (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)lizziebennet22

Article Revision (Addition)

Why is there not a section on American theater? Is there a reason this information was omitted? Is there room in the scope of this article to add a section on American Theater and the influence other cultures have had on American theater? American theater truly is a melting pot of various cultures and nuances in theater and was very influenced by past theatrical traditions. I think it would be interesting to note where American theater came from and how it became its own entity. Lizziebennet22 (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)lizziebennet22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizziebennet22 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I have written a paragraph on a section of American theatre. There is room for more to be written. Do you have a preference on where this new section is added or advice on where it would fit best? Lizziebennet22 (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)lizziebennet22Lizziebennet22 (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

After reviewing the article and its organizational structure, I think the section on American theatre would best fit after European Theatre because of the strong influences Europe had on Americas theatre today. If someone else has a better idea of where this would fit or if it would fit better in another article feel free to move it around and edit it as needed. I am by no means a perfect writer and any edits to help improve the article would be much appreciated. Thank you! Lizziebennet22 (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Lizzibennet22Lizziebennet22 (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC) User:Lizziebennet22/sandbox

Lack of evidence that Theatre originated from Ritual

Contrary to what Aristotle may have said, theatre did not, in fact, originate from ritual. Or at least, there is no conclusive evidence of this. That being said, I am Boldly changing the article to reflect this. Feel free to discuss it here if you feel otherwise.

Source:

Cohen, Robert (2020). "Chapter 7: Theatre Traditions". Theatre: Brief Edition. Donovan Sherman (Twelfth ed.). New York, NY. ISBN 978-1-260-05738-6. OCLC 1073038874.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 25 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lizziebennet22.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)