Since we unfortunately do not have any of the many parodies of myths which are attested for Old Comedy, we cannot determine whether and to what extent they differed from the surviving plays of Aristophanes. For Pherecrates and Crates, moreover, it is attested that - in contrast to the comic triad Cratinus, Eupolis, and Aristophanes - they avoided direct political attacks. Aristotle states in the Poetics (1449b7-9, translation here and subsequently by Halliwell) that Crates was the first to ‘‘compose generalized stories and plots.’’
The ogre, who can appear in ever-new variations as giant or evil king, highwayman or sorcerer, either encounters a stronger adversary (e. g., Heracles or Theseus) who answers violence with violence, or a clever trickster (e. g., Odysseus or Sisyphus), who achieves victory by means of wit and cunning.
Thus Epicharmus, the Sicilian comic writer of the fifth century, evidently shared with satyr-play a predilection for the strongman and glutton Heracles and the wily Odysseus, and in the (unfortunately only fragmentary) mythical travesties of Old and Middle Comedy we encounter Sisyphus, Daedalus, and Hephaestus as well as such monsters and sorcerers of satyr-play as Polyphemus, Cercyon, Amycus, Busiris, Sciron, Circe, and the Sphinx.
Moreover, satyrs are often the protagonists: comedies with the title Satyroi are attested for a number of authors (e. g., Cratinus).
This creates emotional relief without ridiculing the problems of the preceding tragedies. The opposite effect would in fact seem more likely. In Aeschylus’ Oresteia, for example, the hilarious Egyptian adventure of Menelaus as represented in the satyr-play Proteus intensifies the tragic fate of his brother Agamemnon and his family; in Aeschylus’ Oedipodeia the satyr-play’s representation of Oedipus’ greatest success, his victory over the Sphinx, deepens the effect of his fall. Conversely, the light-hearted world of the satyr-play appears that much brighter against the dark background of tragedy. The contrasting juxtaposition of tragic and comic results in a mutual intensification.
Seaford 1984, 12; Seaford has suggested that ‘‘unlike tragedy, satyric drama retained its Dionysiac content... not only through retaining a chorus of satyrs, but also by virtue of its choice and adaptation of non-Dionysiac myths’’ (1984, 44). On this reading the most recurrent feature of satyr-play - the servitude and liberation of the satyrs - dramatizes (or rather recalls in ever-new variations) ‘‘a sacred story... of the Dionysiac mysteries, in which the imprisonment and miraculous liberation of Dionysus (perhaps also of his followers), comparable to the Eleusinian loss and reappearance of Kore, was an important element’’ (1984, 43). Seaford further argues that the many marvelous inventions and creations and the recurrent anodos (ascent from the underworld) scenes presented in satyr-plays ultimately derive ‘‘from a pre-dramatic celebration by the Dionysiac thiasos of revelations associated with their cult’’ (1984, 42), and he tries to show that other important topoi of the genre (e. g., athletics, child-rearing, and marriage) may bear some relationship to specific features ofthe Anthesteria. This is a fascinating idea, although (like similar ritualistic explanations of the origin and early history of tragedy) it remains highly speculative, and does not suffice as an explanation of the nature and function of the fully developed literary form in its historical and cultural context.
World History
