Talk:Satyr play

Comments

The satyrs were goat-men..........

Factual errors

I've gone through and changed multiple things that are incorrect within this article, most notably the labelling of Satyr plays as 'comedy' (which they were not, they have a basis in tragedy, but the tragedy is exaggerated and warped so as to be funny; but it is very seperate from Greek the comedy of Aristophanes and co, secondly the statement about the chorus (they were ALWAYS Satyrs, that's why they're called 'Satyr Plays') and mythology (You could argue that all tragedy is mythological in some form- only Euripides breaks with it in any significant way, and comedy is absolutely littered with mythology. But in any case, Satyr plays were based on mythological events which are then warped for humour- see the Cyclops) as well as some additional info about their purpose. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.114.182.17 (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

I disagree with the above comment that the satyr plays were not comedies. The were comedies, although not the comedy style of Aristophanes, they still had the same sexual innuendo and disrespect of the Gods found in the Greek comedies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.145.29 (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Satyr plays, though they were funny, were not comedies. the City Dionysia had dramatic competitions for Comedies and for Tragedies. Authors like Aristophanes would write a single play for the comic competition; tragic playwrights would write four plays -- three tragedies and a satyr play, that would be produced together, as a set, on the same day. Satyr play was thus a separate genre, and can helpfully be thought of as "mock tragedy", but is not tragedy.

In the same vein, we know of one case in which the fourth place play did not have a satyr chorus: Alcestis, by Euripides, was produced fourth in 438. Modern scholars have called this a prosatyric play ("in place of a satyr play") but the audience saw it at a time it was expecting a satyr play. So not every satyr play (=4th place play in a tragic tetralogy) had a satyr chorus, though it seems most did. Similarly, not every play with a satyr chorus was a satyr play: several comedies are known to have had satyr choruses, e.g. Cratinus' Dionysalexandros. Tophocles (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Aeschylus is known to have written a satyr play, Dictyulci, in which the baby Perseus is allowed to masturbate a satyr's penis, as that fragment survives.. This is, in fact, quite contentious. There is indeed one restoration of a highly fragmentary section of the Dictyoulkoi that makes this reading; there are, however, other, more probable readings, and the restoration is tendentious.JESL2 (talk) 09:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Merger of Editing The satyr play and Euripides' Cyclops#Origins of the satyr play

The subject of the Origins of the satyr play section of the The satyr play and Euripides is specifically on the topic of this article and doesn't belong in an article on a play of this style. Bongomatic 08:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the Cyclops play is the only surviving satyr play, yes it should merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.145.29 (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

AgreeOn this note, I think it is undeniable that it belongs at satyr play, and we may actually want to take the entire article into the two related articles and have it deleted. Tealwisp (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

re: "gang rape Helen"

The play mentioned in the reference is not a satyr but a comedy, so possibly a bad example? 198.142.44.250 (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes -- reference removed. There is no such play (known); the comment derives from a brief passage in Euripides' Cyclops (lines 177-82). Tophocles (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

utter nonsense

The idea that tragedy evolved out of religious ritual is an old one, and is not believed by modern historians. See Michael Grant for a rejoinder. I recommend deleting that sentence since it is not supported by any citation. 140.161.30.43 (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Gibberish

Much of this is barely written in the English language. It is hard to edit it without deleting it, since it is impossible to find out what the author meant to say.

A criticism from one of the sources

Scholar, Mark Griffith, is used as a source in this article, his book, Greek Satyr Play; Five Studies (2015), quotes verbatim the first two sentences of this article (“Satyr plays were an ancient greek form of…” etc.), which happen to be unsourced. But Griffith quotes them as an example of how the satyr play has been misrepresented. GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I edited the lead section, adding sources. GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Sex and the maenad

I request that someone (e.g. the person who wrote the caption) cite a passage in ancient literature that supports the assertion found in the caption that maenads were male as well as female, and I suggest that in the absence of such citation the reference to male maenads be deleted.

I removed the unsourced "male and female" phrase. The original image file on Wikimedia (created by MatthiasKabel (talk · contribs)) has the phrase, it should be corrected as well. - Åüñîçńøł (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Åüñîçńøł: The previous caption did not assert that the "maenads were male as well as female", rather what it was trying to say was that the satyr and the maenad depicted were respectively male and female. Paul August ☎ 17:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems ridiculous to point out gender or sex in this particular image. The artist, if he could speak, might ask “What more do I have to do to be more explicit?” The satyr, for his part, has his sex on full display and fully fluffed like an exclamation point. The other figure similarly deserves more respect than having anyone pretend her femaleness needs to be pointed out. Contrasting the gender of these two characters in a sentence fragment without context, as if they can be lumped into the same zoological order seems a bit frat-boy rude. If a woman tells you she owns a dog, you don’t ask her “Are you and your dog both female?” It’s at least clumsy writing. If anyone doesn’t know what a satyr or a maenad is, the words are linked in the article. Åüñîçńøł (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Åüñîçńøł: Yes, I agree there is no need to specify gender. Nor was I saying that we should specify the sex. Nor was I the one who wrote that caption. (So no need to lecture me about how "ridiculous" you found it). Rather, I was merely trying to point out that the IP had misinterpreted the old caption, which may or (may not) have do to with your comment about the "original image file on Wikimedia" needing to "be corrected". Paul August ☎ 14:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn’t mean my comment to be a direct response to any other editor's comment. It was a general statement, for whatever it might be worth, and for anyone who might bother to read it. You could say it was in response to the topic, or Herr Kabel, or to the editor who rightly started this section–which he began with an excellent point that everyone seems to agree with. If anyone doesn’t actually read my comment, it may seem to be a response to the previous comment, if only because it comes immediately after. But I’d be glad to respond to Paul August, who says, "The previous caption did not assert…" etc. That’s fine. I don’t think anyone has taken the opposite position, so everyone's in agreement, no prob. Then he says: "rather what it was trying to say…" etc. Again, that’s fine. That’s a fair interpretation. No one’s arguing it, I certain won’t. It appears this was a minor misunderstanding, made in good faith I assume. All is well, I hope. Åüñîçńøł (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

All's well. Paul August ☎ 03:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)