Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T01:13:20.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ATHEISTIC AESTHETICS: THE SISYPHUS FRAGMENT, POETICS AND THE CREATIVITY OF DRAMA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2014

Tim Whitmarsh
Tim Whitmarsh*
Affiliation:
Corpus Christi College, University of Oxford
*
*tim.whitmarsh@ccc.ox.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The famous Sisyphus fragment of a tragedy or satyr play is one of the best known documents of ancient atheism, proposing as it does a social-constructionist theory of the emergence of religion as a form of social control. This article argues that the fragment should be seen not just as a philosophical contribution to Presocratic and sophistic thought on the gods, but also as a work of theatrical poetics: it alludes to Hesiod's foundational role in the articulation of Greek theology, self-reflexively explores the role of the literary author in the creation of belief systems, and unpacks the specific role of the theatre in the manufacture of images of divinity, not just through acting but also through technical effects such as the bronteion.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Cambridge Classical Journal , Volume 60 , 30 April 2014 , pp. 109 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2014. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I am grateful to audiences at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, UCLA and Corpus Christi College, Oxford, for comments on this paper. Felix Budelmann and Tom Phillips kindly read and much improved drafts.

References

Works cited

Ahl, F. (1984) ‘The art of safe criticism in Greece and Rome’, AJP 105: 174–208.Google Scholar
Calder, W. M. III (1981) ‘Once never; twice ever’, CJ 77, 48.Google Scholar
Caire, E. (2002) ‘L'homme qui inventa la divinité’, in Dorival, G. and Pralon, D. (eds.) Nier les dieux, nier dieu, Aix-en-Provence, 37–49.Google Scholar
Cerri, G. (1976) Il linguaggio politico nel Prometeo di Eschilo, Rome.Google Scholar
Cole, T. (1967) Democritus and the origins of Greek anthropology, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Conacher, D. (1980) Aeschylus' Prometheus bound: a literary commentary, Toronto.Google Scholar
Croally, N. (1994) Euripidean polemic, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (1989) ‘Sisyphus and the invention of religion (‘Critias’ TrGF 1 (43) F 19 = B 25 DK)’, BICS 36, 16–32.Google Scholar
Diggle, J. (1996) ‘Critias, Sisyphus (fr. 19 Snell)’, Prometheus 22, 103–4.Google Scholar
Dihle, A. (1977) ‘Das Satyrspiel Sisyphos’, Hermes 105, 28–42.Google Scholar
Dillon, J. and Gergel, T. (2003) The Greek sophists, Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
Dover, K. J. (1976) ‘The freedom of the intellectual in Greek society’, Talanta 7, 24–54; reprinted in The Greeks and their legacy (Oxford, 1988) 135–58.Google Scholar
Fleming, T. (1980) ‘ Enemies of poetry by W. B. Stanford’ (review). CJ 76, 267–9.Google Scholar
Fraenkel, E. (1942) ‘The stars in the prologue of the Rudens ’, CQ 36, 10–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, D. W. (2010) The texts of early Greek philosophy. Part II, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Henrichs, A. (1975) ‘Two doxographical notes: Democritus and Prodicus on religion’, HSCP 79, 93–123.Google Scholar
Hesk, J. (2000) Deception and democracy in Classical Athens, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphreys, S. C. (2002) ‘Classics and colonialism: towards an erotics of the discipline’, in Most, G. W. (ed.) Disciplining classics – Altertumswissenschaft als Beruf, Göttingen, 207–51. Revised in and cited from The Strangeness of gods: historical perspectives on the interpretation of Athenian religion (Oxford, 2004) 8–47.Google Scholar
Jacoby, F. (1959) Diagoras ὁ ἄθεοϛ, Berlin.Google Scholar
Kahn, C. H. (1997) ‘Greek religion and philosophy in the Sisyphus fragment’, Phronesis 42, 247–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lada, I. (1993) ‘“Empathetic understanding”: emotion and cognition in classical dramatic audience-response’, PCPS 39, 94–140.Google Scholar
Lefkowitz, M. R. (1987) ‘Was Euripides an atheist?’ SIFC 5, 149–66.Google Scholar
Lefkowitz, M. R. (1989) ‘“Impiety” and “atheism” in Euripides’ dramas’, CQ 39, 70–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansfeld, J. (1980) ‘The chronology of Anaxagoras’ Athenian period and the date of his trial. Part II: The plot against Pericles and his associates’, Mnemosyne 33, 17–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nongbri, B. (2008) ‘Dislodging “embedded” religion: a brief note on a scholarly trope’, Numen 55, 440–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, R. (2011) Prodicus the sophist: texts, translations, and commentary, Oxford.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, P. (2012) ‘Sophistic ethics, old atheism, and “Critias” on religion’, CW 105, 167–85.Google Scholar
Parker, R. (1997) Athenian religion: a history, Oxford.Google Scholar
Pechstein, N. (1998) Euripides Satyrographos: ein Kommentar zu den euripideischen Satyrspielfragmenten, Stuttgart and Leipzig.Google Scholar
Riedweg, C. (1990) ‘The “atheistic” fragment from Euripides’ Bellerophontes (286 N²)’, ICS 15, 39–53.Google Scholar
Saïd, S. (1985) Sophiste et tyran: le problème du Prométhée enchaîné, Paris.Google Scholar
Santoro, M. (1994) ‘Sisifo e il presunto ateismo di Crizia’, Orpheus 15, 419–29.Google Scholar
Scodel, R. (1980) The Trojan trilogy of Euripides, Göttingen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scullion, S. (2002) ‘“Nothing to do with Dionysus”: tragedy misconceived as ritual’, CQ 52, 102–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sedley, D. (2013) ‘The atheist underground’, in Harte, V. and Lane, M. (eds.) Politeia in Greek and Roman philosophy, Cambridge, 329–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smyth, H. W. (1984) Greek Grammar, rev. edn, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Sourvinou-Inwood, C. (2003) Tragedy and Athenian religion, Lexington.Google Scholar
Sutton, D. (1981) ‘Critias and atheism’, CQ 31, 33–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trzaskoma, S. and Scott Smith, R. (2005) ‘Apollodorus 1.9.7: Salmoneus’ thunder machine’, Philologus 149, 328–46.Google Scholar
Versnel, H. S. (2011) Coping with the gods: wayward readings in Greek theology, Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitmarsh, T. (2011) Narrative and identity in the ancient Greek novel: returning romance, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitmarsh, T. (2013) Beyond the Second Sophistic: adventures in Greek postclassicism, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Whitmarsh, T. (forthcoming) Battling the gods: the struggle against religion in ancient Greece, London.Google Scholar
Wilamowitz = von Wilamowitz-Möllendorff U. (1875). Analecta Euripidea, Berlin.Google Scholar
Wilson, P. and Taplin, O. (1993) ‘The “aetiology” of tragedy in the Oresteia ’, PCPS 39, 169–80.Google Scholar
Winiarczyk, M. (1979) ‘Diagoras von Melos: Wahrheit und Legende’, Eos 67, 191–213.Google Scholar
Winiarczyk, M. (1981) Diagorae Melii et Theodori Cyrenaei reliquiae, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Winiarczyk, M. (1987) ‘Nochmal das Satyrspiel Sisyphos’, WS 100, 35–45.Google Scholar
Woodbury, L. (1965) ‘The date and atheism of Diagoras of Melos’, Phoenix 19, 178–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yunis, H. (1988) ‘The debate on undetected crime and an undetected fragment from Euripides' Sisyphus ’, ZPE 75, 39–46.Google Scholar