Satyr-plays in the first half of the fifth century BCE were closely connected to the tragedies that accompanied them in the festival. The same author, actors, choregos, and chorus were involved; and often (at least in Aeschylus' case)the same continuous plot was spread over all four dramas. Yet critics of Athenian tragedy have usually ignored the satyric component; and scholars of satyr-drama have generally treated the genre as having too much in common with comedy as with tragedy. This article seeks to reassess the relationship between tragedy and satyr-drama of that period, by considering some of the stylistic, performative, and thematic elements that they share and the audience responses that they elicit. My primary focus is on the satyr- chorus. After a brief review of prevailing views and recent scholarship on satyr- plays, I consider the ways in which the satyr-chorus was presented )visually, linguistically, and musically) to the Athenian audience. I suggest that the audience was frequently led to adopt a split subject position that identified (simultaneously or alternately) both with the main heroic and divine characters and with the irresponsible, yet childishly appealing, chorus of satyrs. I explore some possible psycho-social effects of such split identification, with reference to some recent works of cultural poetics and film criticism: in particular, I propose that satyr-plays replayed, in exaggerated and disguised form, certain issues of male ego-formation, class differentiation, and sexual expression that were implicit in tragedy (but distinctly different from those of comedy). I suggest further that in many respects the socially inept and dependent (slavish/childish) satyrs correspond quite closely in their relation to the main characters and actions of the play to the theater audience itself, whose chief pleasure consists of watching helplessly from their seats as the more masterful "heroes" and gods take care of the serious business on stage, for better (as in satyr-drama) or for worse (as in tragedy). In the concluding section, I discuss the likely contents, flavor and effects of Proteus, the satyric fourth play of Aeschylus' Oresteia. I argue that this play contained several significant revisions and complications of the plot of the first three plays: most notably, the sacrifice/rescue of Iphigeneia and the travels of a phantom/Helen to Troy/Egypt, revisions that are clearly attested in Stesichoros and Euripides (IT, Helen), but regarded by previous critics as inappropriate to the tone or import of Aeschylus' trilogy. In this, as in several other respects, the early satyr-play appears to anticipate some of the forms and functions of the later Greek pastoral romance and novel. In a short Appendix, I also consider the possibility that Proteus included some reference to the recovery of Aithra (from Troy or Egypt) by her grandsons Demophon and Akamas.
HOW MUCH LATIN DID ÆLFRIC'S MAGISTER KNOW? Get access MARK GRIFFITH MARK GRIFFITH New CollegeOxford Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Notes and Queries, Volume 46, Issue 2, June 1999, Pages 176–181, https://doi.org/10.1093/nq/46-2-176 Published: 01 June 1999
Intertwined with the celebration of Athenian democratic institutions, we find in the "Oresteia" another chain of interactions, in which the elite families of Argos, Phokis, Athens, and even Mount Olympos employ the traditional aristocratic relationships of xenia and hetaireia to renegotiate their own status within-and at the pinnacle of-the civic order, and thereby guarantee the renewed prosperity of their respective communities. The capture of Troy is the result of a joint venture by the Atreidai and the Olympian "family" (primarily Zeus xenios and Athena). Although Agamemnon falls victim to his own mishandling of aristocratic privilege, his son is raised by doryxenoi in Phokis (Strophios and Pylades), a relationship which is mirrored by that with the Olympian "allies," Hermes and Apollo. Orestes' recovery of his father's position is thus shown to depend upon a network of "guest-friends" and "sworn-comrades," reinforced by the traditional language of oaths and reciprocal loyalty. In the Eumenides, the alliance between the Olympian and Argive royal families is re-invoked as the basis both for Athena's protection of Orestes, and finally for Zeus' concern for his daughter's Athenian dependents. In contrast to this successful "networking," and the resultant benefits that trickle down to the citizens of Argos and Athens, stand the seditious oaths and perverted "comradeship" of Aigisthos and Klytaimestra; likewise, the Erinyes are unable to draw on equivalent claims of pedigree or xenia to those enjoyed by Orestes and Apollo. Like all Greek tragedies, the "Oresteia" presents the action through constantly shifting viewpoints, those of aristocrats and commoners, leaders and led, while the propriety of this hierarchy itself is never questioned. And although the action moves from monarchical Argos to an incipiently democratic Athens, paradoxically we hear less and less about "ordinary," lower-class citizens as the trilogy progresses. Thus, at the same time that the trilogy reinforces the sense of collective survival and civic values (the perspectives, e.g., of the Argive Elders, Watchman, Herald, and Athenian Propompoi), it also suggests that these can be maintained only through the proper interventions of their traditional leaders. Aeschylus' plays were composed during a time when the Athenian democracy was still developing, and elite leadership and patronage were still taken for granted. Attic tragedy and the City Dionysia may be seen as a site of negotiation between rival (democratic and aristocratic) ideologies within the polis, wherein a kind of "solidarity without consensus" is achieved. Written and staged by the elite under license from the demos, the dramas play out (in the safety of the theater space) dangerous stories of royal risk-taking, crime, glory, and suffering, in such a way as to reassure the citizen audience simultaneously of their own collective invulnerability, and of the unique value of their (highly vulnerable, often flawed, but ultimately irreplaceable) leading families.
view Abstract Citations (48) References (9) Co-Reads Similar Papers Volume Content Graphics Metrics Export Citation NASA/ADS The Third MIT--Green Bank 5 GHz Survey Griffith, Mark ; Langston, Glen ; Heflin, Mike ; Conner, Sam ; Lehar, Joseph ; Burke, Bernard Abstract The MIT-Green Bank III (MG III) 5 GHz survey covers 1.11 sr of sky in the right ascension range 16.5^h^-5^h^ between +17^deg^ and +39.15^deg^ declination (B1950). The final MG III catalog contains 4761 sources detected with a signal-to-noise ratio > 5. The catalog was produced from two separate north and south surveys with the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO)^3^ 91 m transit telescope. The north survey was produced from data collected while scanning the telescope north from +19.0^deg^ to +39.15^deg^ declination, and the south survey from data collected from scans from +37.15^deg^ to +17^deg^ declination. The completeness and reliability of the final source list is checked by examination of north and south source lists in a twice observed comparison region, lying between +19.15^deg^ and +37^deg^ and below -10^deg^ Galactic latitude. The comparison region covers 0.569 sr of sky and contains 2412 sources. In this region, the MG III catalog contains 917 sources brighter than 90 mJy and is shown to be 99.8 +/- 0.4% complete at this flux density level. Spectral indices are computed for sources identified in the NRAO 1400 MHz Survey (published by Condon and Broderick). A comparison of the spectral index distributions below -10^deg^ and between +/- 10^deg^ Galactic latitude is presented. Publication: The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series Pub Date: September 1990 DOI: 10.1086/191495 Bibcode: 1990ApJS...74..129G Keywords: Radio Sources (Astronomy); Sky Surveys (Astronomy); Astronomical Catalogs; Gravitational Lenses; Astronomy; RADIO SOURCES: GENERAL; RADIO SOURCES: IDENTIFICATIONS full text sources ADS | data products NED (4756) CDS (3) SIMBAD (1) Related Materials (2) Catalog: 1999yCat.8052....0B Catalog: 2003yCat.8052....0B
Previous articleNext article No AccessBook ReviewsAeschylus: "Choephori". A. F. Garvie Mark GriffithMark Griffith Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Classical Philology Volume 84, Number 4Oct., 1989 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/606076 Views: 3Total views on this site Copyright 1989 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.
Previous articleNext article No AccessWhat Does Aeneas Look like?Mark GriffithMark Griffith Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmailPrint SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Classical Philology Volume 80, Number 4Oct., 1985 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/366939 Views: 30Total views on this site Citations: 1Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1985 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article: Aeneas' episches Vergessen, (Apr 2014): 27–74.https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666252709.27
A few years ago, as part of an investigation of the authenticity of Prometheus Bound, I published figures for the occurrence of non-Aeschylean words in that play, as compared with two undisputedly Aeschylean plays (Th., Pers.) and with one Sophoclean play (Aj.) The figures showed that Prom, contained a greater number of words not found elsewhere in the surviving plays of Aeschylus (Eigenwörter); and also that, like Soph. Aj., but unlike the six undisputed plays of Aeschylus, it contained a relatively large number of Eigenwörter that occur more than once in the play, some of them quite common and familiar words. The discrepancy between Prom, and the two Aeschylean plays chosen for comparison was quite marked; and the high rate of repeated Eigenwörter for Soph. Aj. seemed to confirm that this criterion might be a good one for distinguishing unAeschylean characteristics in a non-Aeschylean play. But the sample was very small, and I was conscious that the criterion (or the particular application of it) was somewhat arbitrary; I was therefore not very confident of the value of my findings.
Previous articleNext article No AccessBook ReviewsThe Violence of Pity in Euripides' "Medea". Pietro Pucci Mark GriffithMark Griffith Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmailPrint SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Classical Philology Volume 79, Number 2Apr., 1984 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/366850 Views: 12Total views on this site Copyright 1984 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.
Research Article| April 01 1983 Personality in Hesiod Mark Griffith Mark Griffith Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Classical Antiquity (1983) 2 (1): 37–65. https://doi.org/10.2307/25010781 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Mark Griffith; Personality in Hesiod. Classical Antiquity 1 April 1983; 2 (1): 37–65. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/25010781 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentClassical Antiquity Search This content is only available via PDF. Copyright 1983 The Regents of the University of California Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.
