Drawing on literary, epigraphical, and archaeological material, this article addresses the interrelation of the performance context, physical form, and aesthetic of ancient Greek puppetry. Puppeteers performed in a variety of contexts, which included processions and public theaters. During religious festivals, they were hired to supplement competitions in drama and music. I classify ancient Greek puppetry into two main types: the phallic puppets used in religious processions in the Eastern Mediterranean, and small-scale puppetry, which was performed in theaters and possibly also in private contexts. I contend that puppetry was not universally considered an insignificant art but was, rather, an important part of the performance culture of the ancient Mediterranean world. The inclusion of puppetry in religious festivals suggests a positive relationship with this art; reactions to puppetry, from laughter to
Puppeteers, known as
While many unknowns remain about what these puppet shows were like, and what stories they told, from the fragmentary evidence that has survived it is possible to make a number of observations about the aesthetics, performance contexts, physical form, and practice of puppetry. I classify ancient Greek puppetry into two main types: the phallic puppets used in religious processions in the Eastern Mediterranean (found not only in ancient Greece but also in Egypt), and small-scale puppetry, which was performed in theaters and possibly also in private contexts. By drawing together references made to puppets in mechanical, philosophical, historical, and epigraphical texts, this article reconstructs many aspects of the materials, construction, and methods of operation employed for stringed puppets and puppet theaters. Though caution should be used when determining how puppetry functions in relation to the rhetorical aims of each text, similarities across texts, even in metaphors, do suggest a common culture of this art form in the ancient Mediterranean world. Wherever possible, I seek to contextualize puppetry in the ancient Greek world within a wider context of puppetry in the ancient Mediterranean, from the Bronze Age to the Roman era. Such connections were recognized by ancient authors, like Herodotus and Lucian, which suggests a complex and deep association between puppetry and religion across multiple cultural contexts.
The history of puppetry in the ancient Greek world is closely linked to religious festivals and the large-scale public events of the theater. This is true of both large-scale processional puppets and miniature stringed puppets. We know the names of only two professional puppeteers, or
Puppeteers in Ancient Greece.
Name | Performance context | Term | Date |
---|---|---|---|
Antiochus IX Cyzicenus4 | Private context | 115–95 BCE | |
Potheinas5 | Public theater (Athens) | Fourth c. BCE | |
-sion6 | Public theater (Delos) | 169 BC | |
Like other theatrical arts, puppetry was closely associated with Dionysus. This connection to Dionysus was not only in relation to theater, but also fertility rituals, to which Herodotus noted Egyptian parallels.
While it is true that many elite Greek and Roman authors associated puppetry with mindless entertainment, scholars writing on the role of puppetry in Greek philosophy have argued that these images help to conceptualize the place of human beings in the universe, and that ‘mindlessness’ might not always hold a negative association. It could instead constitute an important dimension of education and understanding (section 1).
The aesthetic of ancient puppetry was one of
For Aristotle, intellectual inquiry begins with
Greek authors repeatedly associate puppets with frivolity and mindlessness. Comparing his troupe of entertainers (dancers and musicians) to puppet-shows (νευρόσπαστα,
The concept of the mindlessness of puppetry takes on a central role in Plato’s
The Stranger’s speech in
An anxiety that puppetry detracts from serious pursuits emerges in Diodorus Siculus’s account from the 1st century BCE of the Seleucid King Antiochus IX Cyzicenus, who ruled Syria from 115 to 95 BCE. The king practiced puppeteering:
Shortly after Antiochus Cyzicenus gained the throne he lapsed into drunken habits, crass self-indulgence, and pursuits utterly inappropriate to a king. He delighted, for example, in mimes and exhibitionists, and generally in all showmen (
For Diodorus, the theatrical hobbies of Antiochus are equivalent to his neglect of imperial duties, a criticism leveled against many rulers in Greek and Latin literature.
In imperial Greek literature, puppetry was used as a marker of the decline of post-classical Greek culture. Athenaeus displays this elite disdain for popular performance in his dialogue
The itinerant showman Matreas of Alexandria inspired admiration among the Greeks and the Romans. He used to say that he was raising a beast that devoured itself, and a debate continues until today about what Matreas’ beast was. He also wrote parodies of Aristotle’s
Athenaeus implies that such amazement at tricks, shows and jokes is misdirected. Readers are encouraged to be astonished instead by his immense knowledge of Greek culture as he recites the names of individual performers from hundreds of years past, which has been gained from extensive study of Greek literary and historical texts. Athenaeus repeatedly contrasts the classical past (here represented by Aristotle’s
This critical commentary from Athenaeus suggests that the puppeteer Potheinas stood upon the most venerated stage in Greece. But what, exactly, would that audience have witnessed? Potheinas may have used a miniature theater, creating a stage upon a stage, and probably operated multiple puppets drawn by strings. His show would have been difficult to see beyond the lowest rows of the theater and therefore spectators may have crowded into the orchestra to get a better look, as Alciphron writes of the fictional audience of a performer of pebble tricks in the 4th century CE.
Puppets were used in religious processions across the Eastern Mediterranean world, in Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece, from as early as the 2nd millennium BCE to the Roman era. These processional puppets had ritual significance, in connection with ithyphallic deities and ranged in size from small to larger-than-life, and relied on visible operators.
In the
Writing in the late 2nd century CE, the Syrian author Lucian tells another story about the connection between puppetry and the cult of Dionysus. In his description of the temple of the Syrian goddess, Lucian provides evidence that Dionysus had visited Syria. He says that the Greeks erected phalluses for Dionysus, on which were mounted ‘little wooden men with large penises. They call these
In Egypt and Syria, then, there is mention of relatively small-scale phallic puppets in connection with the cult of Dionysus. Though none of these phallic puppets have been archaeologically recovered, Eric Csapo has argued that there is iconographical evidence for such a ritual from Egypt and the Greek world (
The distortion of scale is a significant feature of these processional phallic puppets. Herodotus emphasizes the scale of the puppets in relation to their oversized phalluses. On the Florence cup, there is a clear difference in scale between, on the one hand, the larger-than-life satyr and phallus pole and, on the other, the human participants, including both the operators and the rider. The fact that the operators of such puppets were visible to spectators, then, need not have detracted from their visual impact: it would have only served to further emphasize the difference in scale between puppet, phallus, and human, which was part of the purpose of these objects.
Diminutive puppets are also attested to in the Eastern Mediterranean, from Old Kingdom Egypt to the Roman era. Like processional puppets, they were operated by strings. They can, however, be differentiated in several respects, including their reliance on an invisible operator (the hidden puppeteer) and the use of a framing device, such as a screen or miniature theater. In the Greek world, the operation of these miniature puppets was considered an art, which in certain cases was rewarded with public recognition, as with the performance of Potheinas in the Athenian theater. Such miniature puppetry could be performed in the context of festivals, where the stimulation of
Already in Plato’s
And these men competed on behalf of the god. The aulete Perigenes.
Kallistratos won with a chorus…Nicander…;
Actors of old tragedy: Menedemos, Eukrates,…
Philon, Autokrates…Kitharists:
Kritoxenos, Hierokles; with a chorus: Straton, Hermonax;
Kitharodes: Dionysios, Drakon, Demetrios;
Actors of old comedy: Tharsynon, Herostratos…
Aulode: Athenikon; Marvel-makers (
Artemo twice, Artemidoros twice, Apollonios twice;
Dancer: Sosos, twice; Puppeteers (
An unusual feature of this inscription is that the hired performers are listed by name, as victors of competitions normally were. Victory lists typically state competitions in the order in which they occurred, so grouping these entertainers at the end suggests that the hired entertainment was reserved for the conclusion of the festival. The timing of the hired entertainment at the Delian festival, which included puppeteering, is in keeping with a record of a festival in 124 CE, the Demostheneia at Oinoanda, in Northern Lycia, South-West Turkey. At the Demostheneia, after 18 days of musical and dramatic competitions, hired performers took the stage for three days. The festival concluded with a single day of athletic competitions.
Several authors mention that puppets were carved from wood. For instance, in
Wooden artifacts survive from antiquity only in very limited environmental conditions, such as the deserts of Egypt and the bogs of Northern Europe, and not, typically, in Greece. The closest surviving analog to such puppets from Greece are terracotta dolls (
Some of these jointed terracotta dolls have holes at the top of the head and in each of the hands, indicating that they were anchored by a rod at the head and manipulated by strings or rods at the hands, though the surviving examples were most likely used as playthings or for ritual purposes, not for performance. One might compare these jointed terracotta dolls with the Sicilian marionettes of the
There may have been several distinct types of miniature puppets in the ancient Greek world, all operated by strings, but requiring different manners of engagement from the puppeteer, depending on construction method. One type is marionettes, operated with strings from above, and likely anchored by a rod at the head, on the model of the terracotta dolls. Another would be string-pulled puppets operated from below. Small string-operated figurines have also been found in Egypt, in tomb contexts, such as the group of dancing pygmies, operated by strings pulled from below, found in the tomb of Hepy from the 12th dynasty at Memphis, ca. 1950–1885 BCE.
Geoff S. Bowe draws a distinction between Aristotle’s moving
Several scholars have attempted to reconstruct the mechanism of Aristotle’s automatic puppet. Pavel Gregoric and Martin Kuhar suggest that the pegs were arranged around a central cylinder, and around this a weighted rope, such that the release of the rope would twist the cylinder and, in turn, ‘release the ropes attached to the other parts of the automaton, thus setting them into motion’ (
Galen compares the tendons of human hands and legs to the strings of puppets.
However, Nussbaum cites Michael of Ephesus (1070–1129 CE), whose commentary on Galen’s text explains the mechanism. According to Michael, the puppeteer releases the cables, which strike against one another and cause the puppets to move. As the cause is not visible, the puppets appear to be self-moving.
Miniature theaters are evidenced both archaeologically and textually. The connection between Osiris and Dionysus perhaps helps to explain the appearance of a miniature theater in the tomb of Khelmis, a singer of Osiris Antinous, at Antinoe (Antinoopolis), likely dating between the 3rd and 5th centuries CE. Inside the theater, there were figures on pivots operated by strings.
Given comparable evidence from Antinoe, and Heron’s automatic theater with doors, it seems possible that Greek puppeteers could have sometimes used miniature theaters with doors which could open and close to reveal a scene. Such a theater could be mounted upon a table, covered with a screen, behind which the puppeteer could crouch or sit. It is not difficult to imagine that such a contraption would be portable enough for itinerant puppeteers to carry, along with their puppets.
The idea that puppeteers were not seen by spectators in the case of the miniature theater is bolstered by their appearance in philosophical texts to indicate an unseen force which sets things into motion. For instance, Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish Middle Platonist philosopher of the first half of the 1st century CE, uses the image of the puppeteer to indicate the invisible force of God, suggesting the reader learn ‘who it is that, all invisible, invisibly sets the puppets in motion and pulls their strings’, whether that be the mind of the individual or the mind of the universe.
In Plato’s parable of the cave, icons are carried along the cave, above a low wall, which Plato compares to the partition used by puppeteers. This image suggests that the puppeteer would be hidden by such a wall and manipulate their puppets from below:
Picture further the light from a fire burning higher up and at a distance behind them, and between the fire and the prisoners and above them a road along which a low wall has been built, as [like or similar to] the exhibitors of puppet-shows (ὥσπερ τοῖς θαυματοποιοῖς,
In this parable, the educated are capable of understanding that icons are casting shadows on the cave wall, while the uneducated respond to the shadows as if they are real. This points again to a distinction between a philosophical reaction to
Asli Gocer has interpreted this passage to refer to shadow-puppets, arguing for direct continuity between ancient Greek and Turkish Karagöz puppets which arose in the Ottoman period (
This section considers evidence for the operation of ancient Greek puppets, based on descriptions of their movements in philosophical texts. In a pseudo-Aristotelian treatise,
In the same way too [i.e. as the operators of machines] the men who run puppet-shows (οἱ νευροσπάσται,
The focus on the single string (μήρινθος,
Philo describes the start-and-stop movement of puppets when he compares the seven parts of the soul, which he defines as the five senses and the faculties of speech and generation, to a puppet show:
Just like in puppet shows (ἐν τοῖς θαύμασιν,
As in Aristotle, the motions of the puppet are controlled by a single puppeteer, identified with the rational part of the soul in Philo’s simile. The word ἡγεμονικός (
In the 2nd century CE, the Numidian philosopher Apuleius adapted the pseudo-Aristotelian image from
Even the people who set in motion gestures in wooden puppets, when they pull the string for the limb they want to get activated, then the neck will turn, the head will nod, the eyes will roll, and the hands present themselves for service—and the creature as a whole will appear to be alive.
Apuleius’ description does not suggest that the entire puppet was operated by a single string, but that it was more like a marionette, with strings associated with each limb. It is also remarkable that Apuleius seems to be familiar with such elaborate puppets, with eye-motions as well as moving limbs.
Because of the life-like nature of their movements, puppets were used as images by philosophers to discuss the ability of spectators to discern between reality and illusion. In
Rather than identify a singular form of puppetry in the ancient Mediterranean, I have argued that puppets were constructed and operated in multiple ways. This diversity is hardly surprising, given the vast chronological, geographical, and cultural span of the ancient Eastern Mediterranean world. Furthermore, the puppets used in processions can be distinguished from the puppets of the miniature theater despite the common terminology used for both (
The association between puppetry and mindlessness present in philosophical texts is not to be taken as an indication of the lack of importance of puppetry in the ancient Mediterranean. If anything, the reoccurrence of puppets in philosophical texts would suggest the opposite: puppetry was a common part of the performance culture of the Greeks and their neighbors. Herodotus’s and Lucian’s claims about phallic puppets in connection to Dionysiac ritual suggest an important role for the religious ideation of puppetry in multiple cultural contexts, while the appearance of puppeteers at the festival on Delos further suggests a connection between puppetry and theater festivals. It is likely that the oversized phalluses of processional puppets and their operation stimulated laughter on the part of spectators, which was a meaningful part of these celebratory festivals. In particular, the
Hestiaea and Oreus had a bronze statue of a pebble-conjurer, Theodorus, in their theater, and the Athenians erected a statue of Eurykleides (a
Scholars of ancient philosophy, working on puppet metaphors and similes, have also considered how ancient puppets may have functioned; see Nussbaum (
Diodorus Siculus,
Ath. 1.19e, translation in
Herodotus (hereafter Hdt.) 2.48–9, text and translation in Godley (
For instance, commenting on Herodotus’s description of the processional puppets in Egypt, Alan B. Lloyd writes, ‘Νευρόσπταστα “marionettes” are well known in Greece, though practitioners of the puppeteer’s art were much despised’ (1994: 222).
The connection between puppets, play and education is particularly emphasized in Plato’s
The wondrous aspect of ancient religion can be seen, for example, in the use of miraculous technologies in cultic contexts. Gerolemou (
Pl.
Aristotle,
Xenophon,
Marcus Aurelius,
Pl.
Pl.
Pl.
Diod. Sic. 34/35.1, with minor adaptations from the translation by Walton (
Most notably the emperor Nero, e.g. Suetonius,
‘For in later times the Greeks attached much more value to crafts involving manual skill than to intellectual pursuits that require an education’ (Ath. 1.19a, translated by
Ath. 1.19d–20b, translation in Olson (
Alciphron,
Hdt. 2.48; translation in Godley (
Hdt. 2.49; translation in Godley (
Cross-pollination between Greek and Egyptian theater and ritual is clear; especially in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Osiris, like Dionysus, was associated with the agricultural cycle. Plutarch, writing in the 1st century CE, also mentions an affinity between the festival of the birth of Osiris, the Pamylia, and Dionysiac ritual, each of which involved phallic processions: Plutarch,
Lucian,
Lucian
Florence, Museo Archeologico Etrusco no. 3897.
Csapo cites an inscription from Euboia (
Pl.
On possible meanings of this term, see Ferri (
Aristotle,
Horace,
Galen,
An ivory doll with jointed limbs was found in the sarcophagus of Crepereia Tryphaena (2nd century CE), along with jewelry for the doll, including a diadem. Clothing does not survive in the doll’s kit but was likely made of highly perishable materials (
Elderkin (
Similarly, the arms of a small wooden female figurine from Egypt of ca. 945–664 BCE, Metropolitan Museum of Art no. 58.36a–c (
Pseudo-Aristotle,
It is not possible to establish direct continuity between ancient Greek and modern Sicilian puppet traditions, although puppets were likely known in Sicily in antiquity, as the island was well connected to the theatrical traditions of the wider Greek world from the late 6th century BCE through to the Roman period. Bosher (
Metropolitan Museum of Art no. 34.1.130; see Anonymous (
Arist.
Arist.
Galen,
Galen,
Galen,
Nussbaum (
Nussbaum (
Diod. Sic. 34/35.1, discussed above.
Pseudo Aristotle,
Paris correspondent (
Hero of Alexandria,
Kotlińska-Toma (
Philo,
Philo,
Plato,
Ps.-Arist.
Another example of the imitative nature of puppets appears in Athenaeus, who says that bustards ‘move around like marionettes (
For another example of puppets used as a symbol of control, see Philodemus,
Philo,
Runia (
Philo,
Kurke (
Apuleius
Philo,
Plutarch,
This research was supported by the Warburg Institute in London, and first presented at the conference
The author has no competing interests to declare.