Prologues in ancient Greek drama: Functions and aesthetic evaluation in antiquity
EDN: ISMHML
Abstract
This article examines the functions and aesthetic evaluation of prologues in ancient Greek drama based on classical sources. Through a comprehensive analysis of Aristotle’s Poetics and Rhetoric, Aristophanes’ comedies, and fragments of other comic poets (such as Machon and Antiphanes), the study explores how prologues were perceived in antiquity — both in terms of their structural purpose and their qualitative assessment. A key distinction is made between tragic and comic prologues: while clarity was prioritized in tragedy, comedy demanded additional elements of entertainment and humor in order to engage audiences. The central focus of the article is the concept of the “cold” (ψυχρός) prologue, particularly in reference to critiques of Diphilus’ comedies. The term is analyzed in its various possible meanings — ranging from “unclear” and “tedious” to “unfunny” — and contextualized within the framework of ancient literary criticism. The discussion incorporates passages from Xenophon, Theophrastus, and comic fragments to demonstrate how ψυχρός functioned as a pejorative label, often associated with failed attempts at humor, excessive complexity, or dull exposition. Additionally, the article examines an anonymous comic prologue (Com. Adesp. fr. 1008 K–A) to illustrate how excessive detail or length could undermine a prologue’s effectiveness. The study concludes that an ideal prologue in ancient drama balanced exposition, clarity, and entertainment, with “coldness” arising from a disruption of this equilibrium. By reconstructing ancient evaluative criteria, the article sheds light on the performative and rhetorical expectations of prologues, contributing to broader discussions about genre-specific aesthetics in Greek theater.
Keywords
About the Author
E. N. BuzurnyukRussian Federation
Ekaterina Nikolaevna Buzurnyuk, Cand. Sci. (Philology) Researcher, Laboratory for Commenting on Ancient Texts; Associate Professor, Faculty of History and Philology, Institute for Social Sciences
121069, Moscow, Povarskaya Str., 25a
119571, Moscow, Prospekt Vernadskogo, 82
References
1. Apostolakis, K. (2019) Timokles. Translation and commentary. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
2. Austin, C. & Olson, S. D. (Eds.) (2008). Aristophanes. Thesmophoriazusae. Oxford Univ. Press.
3. Buzurnyuk, E. N. (2023). Struktura prologa v komediiakh Aristofana [The structure of the prologue in Aristophanes’ comedies] (Cand. Sci. (Philolgy) Diss., А. M. Gorky Institute of World Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences). (In Russian).
4. de Martinis, L. (Ed.) (2013). Senofonte. Tutti gli scritti socratici: Apologia di Socrate; Memorabili; Economico; Simposo. Bompiani.
5. Dedoussi, C. (1975). The new comedy prologue of Pap. Argentor. Gr. 53: Its interpretation and authorship. Δωδώνη, 4, 255–270.
6. Dror, R. (2024). Lucian’s principles of historical composition in light of ancient rhetorical theory. Classical Quarterly, 74(2), 677–690.
7. Freese, J. H. (Trans.) (1926). Aristotle. The “art” of rhetoric. Harvard Univ. Press.
8. Gow, A. S. F. (Ed., Intro, & Comment.) (1965). Machon. The fragments. [Cambridge] Univ. Press.
9. Gutzwiller, K. (1969). Ψυχρός und ὄγκος: Untersuchungen zur rhetorischen Terminologie (Diss., Univ. of Basel).
10. Kaibel, G. (1899). Ein Komödienprolog. Nachrichten von Königl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse, 1899(4), 549–555.
11. Kaimio, M. (1998). The meaning of ΨΥΧΡΟΣ in Sophocles Ant. 88. Mnemosyne, 51(4), 435–437.
12. Kaimio, M., & Nykopp, N. (1997). Bad poets society: Censure of the style of Minor Tragedians in Old Comedy. In J. Vaahtera, & R. Vainio (Eds.). Utriusque linguae peritus: Studia in honorem Toivo Viljamaa (pp. 27–29). Turun Yliopisto.
13. Khan, H. A. (1967). Machon fr. XVI.258–61 and 285–94. Mnemosyne, 20(3), 273–278.
14. Lausberg, H. (1990). Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Franz Steiner.
15. Leventhal, M. (2024). Comic receptions at Machon fr. 16.258–284 Gow. Mnemosyne, 77(1), 157–167.
16. Losev, A. F. (2000). Istoriia antichnoi estetiki [History of ancient aesthetics], Vol. 4: Aristotel’ i pozdniaia klassika [Aristotle and the Late Classics]. AST; Folio. (In Russian).
17. Olson, S. D. (Ed., & Comment) (2016). Eupolis. Heilotes — Chrysoun genos (frr. 147–325). Verlag Antike.
18. Sobolevskii, S. I. (Trans., & Comment.) (1935). Ksenofont Afinskii. Sokraticheskie sochineniia: Vospominaniia o Sokrate; Zashchita Sokrata na sude; Pir; Domostroi [Xenophon of Athens. Socratic Writings: Memoirs of Socrates; Defence of Socrates; Symposium; Oeconomicus] Academia. (In Russian).
19. Takho-Godi, A. A. (Ed.) (1978). Antichnye ritoriki [Ancient orators]. Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta. (In Russian).
20. Van Hook, L. (1917). Ψυχρότης ἢ τὸ Ψυχρόν. Classical Philology, 12(1), 68–76.
21. Wright, M. E. (2012). The comedian as critic: Greek Old Comedy and poetics. Bristol Classical Press.
Review
For citations:
Buzurnyuk E.N. Prologues in ancient Greek drama: Functions and aesthetic evaluation in antiquity. Shagi / Steps. 2026;12(1):120-138. (In Russ.) EDN: ISMHML
JATS XML




































