Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T10:49:42.665Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Problems in Non-Athenian Drama: Some Questions about South Italy and Sicily

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

†Kathryn Bosher
†Kathryn Bosher*
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Get access

Extract

As Martin Revermann forecast in 1999, the reception history of Greek drama has become ‘big business’ and, as the present volume demonstrates, we are indeed trying to move beyond the ‘Atheno-centric civic ideology approach to Greek drama, which has, fruitfully, been dominating our mode of thinking for quite some time now'. Nevertheless, like Revermann, I believe that work on the reciprocity between social context and theatre that Nothing to do with Dionysos? Athenian Drama in its Social Context (1990) so well exemplifies has been and continues to be an important approach to the field. Examining plays not simply as literary works, but as integral parts of social and political systems, remains a useful method of inquiry. Indeed, one strand of useful research may build on the work that has been done to situate Greek drama in Athens to ask similar questions about theatre outside Athens.

In the case of South Italy and Sicily, the problem is particularly pressing. This is not only because of the traditional separation between the fields of philology, epigraphy, history, archaeology, art history and political science, which made comprehensive examination of theatre as a social and political phenomenon difficult in Athens, but also because of competing histories of the development of theatre in the ancient Greek world. In particular, the history of Athenian theatre, both from the literary perspective and now from the socio-political perspective, is so dominant that it often incorporates into its own narrative what evidence there is for theatre outside Attica. Likewise, from the later period, Roman theatre includes the evidence from Sicily and South Italy into its own history, though to a lesser extent. Nothing to Do with Dionysos? may nevertheless serve as a model for the development of a vital, and still missing, perspective on the theatrical evidence that remains from the West. How did drama and the theatre fit into the socio-political contexts of Greek cities outside Attica? Is it possible to write the history of Sicilian and South Italian theatre, or were these new world cities only recipients of the Attic theatre and stepping stones to that of Rome?

I attempt below to set out a few of the questions that, I think, frame the debate. This is a preliminary, tentative examination of some of the problems that arise in this field, and it is not in any way exhaustive.

Type
Research Article
Information
Ramus , Volume 42 , Issue 1-2: The Enigmatic Context: Approaches to Greek Drama , 2013 , pp. 89 - 103
Copyright
Copyright © Aureal Publications 2013

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.)

References

NOTES

1. Revermann (1999), 467.

2. This interest is relatively recent; cf. Csapo (2004), 55: ‘Oddly the expansion and diffusion of the theatre has only recently become an object of serious interest. Most scholars still take it as axiomatic that fifth-century drama was produced only once, at Athens, for a single audience.’

3. Csapo (1986); Taplin (1987 and 1993). See further below.

4. Taplin (2007a). See also Allan (2001) on vases representing Euripides’ The Children of Heracles.

5. Easterling (1994).

6. Revermann (1999) and Duncan (2011). See Liapis (2009) for an argument that the Rhesus was written by an unknown playwright for performance in Macedonia.

7. Todisco (2012); Giuliani (1996), 86. Todisco (2002) has, moreover, gathered an enormous collection of sources on Greek drama in Magna Graecia, ranging from archaeological to literary, in an accessible and inexpensive paperback volume.

8. Taplin (2012).

9. Recent discussions of Doric comic traditions include Kerkhof (2001) and Csapo and Miller (2007); contra see Breitholz (1960). On other traditions, sec Nielsen (2002) and also Wiseman (2000).

10. E.g. Girard (1880, repr. 1900); Heydemann (1886); Aristotle poet. 3 1448a30 = PCG I T1; Athenaeus 14 621D = PCG I T2. See Kutzko (2012), 367, for the idea that Aristotle is uniting rather than distinguishing between the two traditions.

11. That this set of Doric comic writers can be considered a coherent regional theatrical tradilion continuing from the early 5th century well into the Hellenistic period, I argue elsewhere: see Bosher (2006). For a more comprehensive argument about a distinctly colonial perspective that united various genres of writing in the West, see Willi (2008).

12. Winkler and Zeitlin (1990), 10.

13. See, however, Webster (1948). Notwithstanding considerable early scholarship on Aeschylus in Sicily, e.g. Herington (1967).

14. Cf. Taplin (1993), 52-54, for a concise history of scholarship on the vases.

15. E.g. Slater (2004), in a review of Taplin (1993): ‘I had intended to start this review by stating that it was no longer “controversial”, as Taplin says [p.3], to argue that Old Comedy was performed outside Athens. That seemed to me to have been reasonably certain since the publication of the Würzburg comic “Telephus” in 1980, with the independent commentaries of Taplin, , “Phallolgy”, PCPhS 33 (1987), 92ff.Google Scholar, and Csapo, , Phoenix 40 (1986), 379ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. I have since discovered that there are still some who believe in an independent South Italian comic tradition. Even so, I should still maintain that the case made here for the influence of Attic Comedy on Southern Italy is so strong, that it is now up to its opponents to refute it.’

16. E.g. Trendall (1936, 1967a, 1967b and 1978) with their supplements.

17. On the relatively few Attic examples of comic theatrical scenes on vases, see Csapo (2010), 1-37; Taplin (1993), 6-11; Trendall (1967a), 19-24. As Csapo has shown, there are many Attic vases which can be associated with the world of theatre, but relatively few which depict comic actors in performance.

18. On Italian regional performance traditions see Wiseman (2000) and Denard (2007).

19. Olivieri (1930), e.g. 132 and 135.

20. Taplin (1993), 41f.

21. Webster (1948).

22. E.g. Pickard-Cambridge (1949); Beare (1954); Beare and Webster (1957).

23. Gigante (1966); and see also Dearden (1988, 1990a and 2012).

24. Kossatz-Deissman (1980).

25. Csapo (1986); Taplin (1987).

26. Small (2003) presents a case that vase-paintings are rarely derived from literary texts, but even she agrees that ‘∣…∣ the Würzburg vase is one of the rare examples of a scene that may truly illustrate a text, or, if not a text directly, then a performance of a text’ (66).

27. Cf. Carpenter (2003 and 2009); Robinson (2004).

28. Csapo (2010).

29. There has been much debate on this question of whether and to what extent Epicharmus influenced Attic playwrights. See Cassio (1985), 39-43, for a review of the arguments on both sides.

30. Csapo (2010), 39.

31. Csapo (2010), 38-40.

32. Discussed most notably by Dearden (1988, 1990a, 1990b, 1999 and 2004). In Bosher (2006), I also make a preliminary attempt at putting together the history of theatre in the West from a western perspective.

33. On Aeschylus' voyages to Sicily, see Herington (1967) and Bosher (2012b); testimonia are collected in Radt (1985) test. K88-92. Contra: Lefkowitz, (1981), 71–73Google Scholar. For Epicharmus, see Willi (2008), 119-92; Kerkhof (2001), 51-177; Pickard-Cambridge and Webster (1962), 230-90.

34. On Philemon, testimonia are collected in PCG 7 T1-36. On Rhinthon, see Gigante (1966); Taplin (1993), 48-52; testimonia are collected in PCG 1 T1-5.

35. Plut. Nic. 29; Satyr. Vit. Eur. P. Oxy. 9.1176 ed. Hunt (1912), fr. 39 col XIX 11 = Kannicht (2004), 189 a-b.

36. E.g. Taplin (2007); Easterling (1994); Gigante (1966).

37. Gigante (1966 and 1971).

38. PCG 3.2, T1.40. See Lefkowitz (1981), 111f., for the argument that this was included as part of an effort to ‘illustrate to Athenians under Macedonian rule the ideals of their city in the fifth century’.

39. Taplin (2007), 2; Herington (1967), 75. For testimonia, see Radt (1985).

40. PCG 1 T8-16, where the following testimonia that associate Epicharmus specifically with Hieran are collected: Marm. Par. 239 A 55 Jac; Clem. Alex. Strom. 1.64,2; Iambi. Vit. Pyth. 166; Plut. De adul. et am. 68A; Plut. Reg. et imp. Apophth. 175B (Hiero 5); the citation in Colum. 1.1.7 is problematic (cf. η.51 below).

41. Schol. (M) Aesch. Eum. 626 (PCG 1, Epicharmus fr. 221).

42. For the possibility that Aeschylus came only twice, see, for example, Kiehl (1852) and Bosher (2012 b); testimonia, brief discussion and other sources in Radt (1985) test. K88-92.

43. Translation after Podlecki (1966), 7.

44. See Wilson (2007b), 356f.

45. Podlecki (1966), 7.

46. Cf. Radt (1985) 7est. D8a,b,c,d.

47. Cf. Pind. Pyth. 1, though Salamis, of course, not Marathon, is made parallel with Himera.

48. είςτό μνήμα δ έ φοιτώντες ÔOOLÇ έν τραγωιδίοας ήν ό βίος ένήγιζόν τε και τα δράματα ύπεκρίνοντο (‘All those whose livelihood consisted in performing in tragedies would, while visiting his memorial, pay him their respects [or possibly ‘make an offering’] and perform dramas there’, Life 1.44; Radt test. 8).

49. That this poem was inscribed on a memorial is suggested in lines 3-5; see also Wilamowitz (1906), 87, cited in PCG 1 T18: carmen subscriptum statuae in theatro Syracusano. numéros in comoedia solitos auxit Theocritus Reiziano, maxime Doricos ita reddi ratus, fartasse ex exemple Epicharmi (‘This poem was inscribed on a statue in a Syracusan theatre. Theocritus increased the normal number of verses with a Reizian [a type of verse], judging in this way especially that the Doric verses were restored, perhaps after the example of Epicharmus’).

50. The παισίν of the original is reasonably emended to κάαιν. Sec Handley (2003), 142-48 for a discussion of the epigram and a summary of the argument (146f.). I added the phrase ‘for all men’ to my very rough translation to try to catch the ambiguity of the word.

51. His contemporary, Columella, also marks Epicharmus as Sicilian in a difficult passage where the reference to Epicharmus is in doubt (Colum 1.1.7 = PCG 1 T22).

52. His reference to the ‘old Sicilian’ is in keeping with his mention of Homer as ‘Maionides’ and Hesiod as ‘Ascraeus’ in the same passage. As Gibson (2006), 322, notes, the identification of the Siculus senex as Epicharmus is not absolutely certain, but it is accepted by many.

53. The following, for example, cite him as Athenian: Life 1 = Radt test. A1; Suda s.v. Aeschylus = Radt test. A2, where his journey to Sicily is also noted; Vita Pind. Metrica 21 = Radt test. B6; Gell. Noct. Alt. 17.21.10 = Radt test. G54; and, although many others link him with Athens or the Athenians, e.g. Diog. L. 2.43 = Radt test. E9; Athen. 1 19 Ε = Radt test. ΕΙ0, for example by mentioning the battle of Marathon (e.g. MarmorPar. = Radt test. Fal 1), or the honours the Athenians confirmed on him after death (e.g. Schol. Aristophanes Frogs 868 = Radt test. Gm75b-c; Philostr. Vit. Apoll. 6,11 = Radt test. Gm76. A scholiast and Tzetzes identify him as of Eleusis (Radt test. D8a-d).

54. For a full set of testimonia, see PCG 1 T1-39: some (e.g. Suda s.v Epicharmos = PCG I T1; Aristotle Poet. 3 1448a30 = PCG 1 T4) associate him explicitly with Sicily; others do not, when they list him, for example, among other great poets (e.g. Plato Theaet. 152e = PCG 1 T3; Anon. De. Com. 9 p.7 Kost. = PCG 1 T6). See Cassio (1985), 43-51, for a discussion of Alcimus and Aristoxenus and the importance of Epicharmus’ work in Sicily and South Italy in the 4th century not only as a dramatist, but also as a philosopher and thinker.

55. Anon. De com. 53 p. 10 Kost = PCG 7 T2.

56. Suda s.v. Rhinthon = PCG 1 T1; Steph. Byz. 603.1 = PCG 1 T2.

57. Lefkowitz (1981).

58. As Eric Csapo suggested in a comment on a draft of this article.

59. See Willi (2008), esp. 160, for a discussion of the individuality of the development of Sicilian drama.

60. Taplin (1993), 48-52.

61. I am grateful to Professor Eric Csapo for very kindly reading and commenting on a draft of this article.