Already by the Vth century BC it was considered a joke that only lingered in theater because it was traditional. That's like asking why we haven't kept ancient Greek drinking hall comedy routines.
One and a half, actually. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichneutae
Anon... one of the two sort-of preserved satyr plays is literally by Sophocles. It was a genre about as old as tragedy. In fact, every cycle of tragedies that would be written for the Dionysian festival would be accompanied by a satyr play, and so every tragedian of note used to write them.
You absolute dumb frick.
You're only really trying to come up with some contrarian interpretation of history, regardless of how little sense it makes, aren't you?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Okay homosexual, then why did only one satyr play survive?
2 years ago
Anonymous
If someone asks what's the circumference of the sun, I wouldn't know the answer, but if I heard someone answering "five feet", I'd immediately know that guy is wrong and probably stupid (unless he's Heraclitus).
2 years ago
Anonymous
>no answer >can't use geometry to get a rough estimation
brainlet cope lmao, don't bother replying.
my theory is most satyr plays were physical comedy/erotica and didn't have anything to write down. it was an interlude like those old racist cartoons they used to play between movies in the 30s.
Which 'one' are you referring to (The Clouds lol)?
A 'satyr play' took place during the interludes (in between-games; inter ludus) of every single play; so we don't even really need any scripts to survive to know that every serious narrative was having the piss mocked out of it by design every half an hour or so. We can use our imagination to figure out how each one would've gone; just take the serious script, invert the virtue of the characters to reveal their base ulterior underhanded or ridiculous motivations and presto.
I think that's a thing of beauty, myself.
I guess because they were less important literary products.
lies. It would provided an amazing depth of perspective of any piece of theater and primarily reminded the audience not to take what they were seeing in a linear-spoonfeeding fashion; to not presume the actor/character was a protagonist and learn not to copy them etc. just imagine any movie or show with this going on.
>The Clouds >a satyr play
wrong >during the interludes of every single play
wrong >every serious narrative was having the piss mocked out of it by design every half an hour or so
wrong >just take the serious script, invert the virtue of the characters
wrong
You are dumb as frick and pretty much everything in that post is false. Go read a book.
2 years ago
Anonymous
lol okay be sure not to back up anything you say, anon. That's sure to convince me that the authors from ancient rome and greece who say what I said were simply mistaken.
>The Clouds
obviously that was a joke, you autistic galley-slave.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the authors from ancient rome and greece who say what I said were simply mistaken.
which ancient greek author told you there was a satyr play in between each drama? that's nonsense, you made it up.
>just take the serious script, invert the virtue of the characters to reveal their base ulterior underhanded or ridiculous motivations and presto.
e.g.
Serious scene finishes. Harry Potter and Ron suddenly spring up bickering about who's going to frick Hermione first, then start bickering about which one of them is going to steal her underpants to smell, daring each other to go into her room and steal them.
Why do you think a 12th century scribe would give a shit about the format of a Dionysian festival?
>Why do you think a 12th century scribe would give a shit
You can kind of get an idea why the later religious folk didn't like this or "think it worth preserving", but there's a real shattering of the spoonfeeding narrative (passive audience getting one linear narrative) by the design of this. It could have been very clever; it gives that opportunity to cut through the false pretense of a set story and the pretended purity of the characters and personalities, primarily from comic inversion.
It would have been easier to brainwash an audience without this. Kind of makes me wonder how long this actually survived; the Romans claimed to have invented the genre of the Satyr and seemed to keep it going throughout the first century anyway. Probably someone figured out sooner or later that it was easier to brainwash an audience by removing this element in the theatre altogether BUT it would've been useful as propaganda in the same way; to portray the virtuous enemy of the state as being completely depraved and stupid.
Already by the Vth century BC it was considered a joke that only lingered in theater because it was traditional. That's like asking why we haven't kept ancient Greek drinking hall comedy routines.
>Already by the Vth century BC
it lasted that long?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>it lasted that long?
Yes, they watched some buffoonery and lighthearted rape jokes just after the big tragedies. It must have been a weird change of tone.
>by design every half an hour or so.
I thought it came at the end of a trilogy.
>lies
I never said it wasn't of enormous artistic worth, just compared to the tragedies it's obvious which one you would preserve.
We also don't know how widely varying the form was. We know some satyr plays were not about any of the characters seen in the tragedies, like the Oresteia's satyr play being about Menelaus trying to get home with Helen. It's only tangently related and we don't know how it would have related to the themes of the trilogy if at all. We just don't know what was done with the form.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I thought it came at the end of a trilogy.
I'd think the word "interlude" would imply it was far more frequent, at least anyway in the Roman theatre. It would have to depend how long a play was supposed to be, then apply a reasonable assumption for how many segments it might be broken up into.
I'm not sure myself, to be honest, and it probably would've differed greatly from place to place and time to time.
>It's only tangently related and we don't know how it would have related to the themes
We can discern that from the concept of the Satyr; the inversion of normal serious things, as the Romans had it. So the inversion of a highly virtuous character into a petty money-grasper would be funny; Alexander steps down from making a heroic speech and goes into a tirade about how rich his conquest of Persia will make him.
>We just don't know what was done with the form.
def. propaganda. I remember Tiberius shut it down for a while because he was tired of being made fun of.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>It would have to depend how long a play was supposed to be, then apply a reasonable assumption for how many segments it might be broken up into.
Satyr plays didn't come in the middle of tragedies, they come before or after them hence the satyr play making a fourth drama to Aeschylus' trilogy. Tragedies aren't long enough for satyr breaks to be beneficial, but trilogies are.
>We can discern that from the concept of the Satyr; the inversion of normal serious things, as the Romans had it. So the inversion of a highly virtuous character into a petty money-grasper would be funny; Alexander steps down from making a heroic speech and goes into a tirade about how rich his conquest of Persia will make him.
This is completely unfounded and overeager to define half of the entirety of all Greek drama. All one has to do is look at the major variations within tragedy and see it is not so simple.
>I remember Tiberius shut it down for a while because he was tired of being made fun of.
That was different. Roman tragedy/comedy is completely different from the classical Greek equivalents. Plus iirc the comedy he shut down was particularly crass and getting more and more vulgar every day. Basically IQfy humour which in a good society is damaging to its morals.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the comedy (Tiberius) shut down was particularly crass and getting more and more vulgar every day.
Sure, that's what he said to justify trying to shut it down during the period when he was suspecting of having Germanicus killed.
>Roman tragedy/comedy is completely different from the classical Greek equivalents >This is completely unfounded and overeager to define half of the entirety of all Greek drama.
Well, you're drawing a line in-between the two and are ignoring the evidence which expounds quite fully upon the format of the Satyr of which there's no evidence to suggest was completely different from Rome to Greece.
I don't mind admitting that I don't really care about Greece though, but I see no reason to draw a line between one and the other.
>Satyr plays didn't come in the middle of tragedies, >All one has to do is look at the major variations within tragedy and see it is not so simple.
well exactly. A great deal changes even on perspective; I mean, it's a fairy modern idea that the word 'tragedy' even implied 'sad story to be sad at' when the stock character of the hysterical woman being sad and angry was always considered as being the main clown on the stage.
>to define half of the entirety of all Greek drama
The Clouds 'is' a comedy, isn't it?
re: tiberius,
also:
here's a good subject to study the concept and form of the Satyr,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menippean_satire >The genre of Menippean satire is a form of satire, usually in prose, that is characterized by attacking mental attitudes rather than specific individuals or entities.[1] It has been broadly described as a mixture of allegory, picaresque narrative, and satirical commentary.[2] Other features found in Menippean satire are different forms of parody and mythological burlesque,[3] a critique of the myths inherited from traditional culture,[3] a rhapsodic nature, a fragmented narrative, the combination of many different targets, and the rapid moving between styles and points of view.[4]
I guess none of you guys know what a satyr play is baka. Isnt this supposed to be a cultured board? Sigh...
I want to RAPE
What's up with the tip of his penis?
akroposthion
Already by the Vth century BC it was considered a joke that only lingered in theater because it was traditional. That's like asking why we haven't kept ancient Greek drinking hall comedy routines.
You can almost see her pubic hair
If you knew how many ways historical artifacts can and have been lost or destroyed, you'd shit yourself.
It's sad; we lost so much. I am not surprised by it though.
>oh man a new style of writing came out should I spend months making copies of Sophocles OR this play about a giant man fricking?
One and a half, actually. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichneutae
Anon... one of the two sort-of preserved satyr plays is literally by Sophocles. It was a genre about as old as tragedy. In fact, every cycle of tragedies that would be written for the Dionysian festival would be accompanied by a satyr play, and so every tragedian of note used to write them.
You absolute dumb frick.
Why do you think a 12th century scribe would give a shit about the format of a Dionysian festival?
You're only really trying to come up with some contrarian interpretation of history, regardless of how little sense it makes, aren't you?
Okay homosexual, then why did only one satyr play survive?
If someone asks what's the circumference of the sun, I wouldn't know the answer, but if I heard someone answering "five feet", I'd immediately know that guy is wrong and probably stupid (unless he's Heraclitus).
>no answer
>can't use geometry to get a rough estimation
brainlet cope lmao, don't bother replying.
my theory is most satyr plays were physical comedy/erotica and didn't have anything to write down. it was an interlude like those old racist cartoons they used to play between movies in the 30s.
I guess because they were less important literary products.
This, and the hard truth is they probably weren't very good.
Which 'one' are you referring to (The Clouds lol)?
A 'satyr play' took place during the interludes (in between-games; inter ludus) of every single play; so we don't even really need any scripts to survive to know that every serious narrative was having the piss mocked out of it by design every half an hour or so. We can use our imagination to figure out how each one would've gone; just take the serious script, invert the virtue of the characters to reveal their base ulterior underhanded or ridiculous motivations and presto.
I think that's a thing of beauty, myself.
lies. It would provided an amazing depth of perspective of any piece of theater and primarily reminded the audience not to take what they were seeing in a linear-spoonfeeding fashion; to not presume the actor/character was a protagonist and learn not to copy them etc. just imagine any movie or show with this going on.
>The Clouds
>a satyr play
wrong
>during the interludes of every single play
wrong
>every serious narrative was having the piss mocked out of it by design every half an hour or so
wrong
>just take the serious script, invert the virtue of the characters
wrong
You are dumb as frick and pretty much everything in that post is false. Go read a book.
lol okay be sure not to back up anything you say, anon. That's sure to convince me that the authors from ancient rome and greece who say what I said were simply mistaken.
>The Clouds
obviously that was a joke, you autistic galley-slave.
>the authors from ancient rome and greece who say what I said were simply mistaken.
which ancient greek author told you there was a satyr play in between each drama? that's nonsense, you made it up.
>just take the serious script, invert the virtue of the characters to reveal their base ulterior underhanded or ridiculous motivations and presto.
e.g.
Serious scene finishes. Harry Potter and Ron suddenly spring up bickering about who's going to frick Hermione first, then start bickering about which one of them is going to steal her underpants to smell, daring each other to go into her room and steal them.
>Why do you think a 12th century scribe would give a shit
You can kind of get an idea why the later religious folk didn't like this or "think it worth preserving", but there's a real shattering of the spoonfeeding narrative (passive audience getting one linear narrative) by the design of this. It could have been very clever; it gives that opportunity to cut through the false pretense of a set story and the pretended purity of the characters and personalities, primarily from comic inversion.
It would have been easier to brainwash an audience without this. Kind of makes me wonder how long this actually survived; the Romans claimed to have invented the genre of the Satyr and seemed to keep it going throughout the first century anyway. Probably someone figured out sooner or later that it was easier to brainwash an audience by removing this element in the theatre altogether BUT it would've been useful as propaganda in the same way; to portray the virtuous enemy of the state as being completely depraved and stupid.
>Already by the Vth century BC
it lasted that long?
>it lasted that long?
Yes, they watched some buffoonery and lighthearted rape jokes just after the big tragedies. It must have been a weird change of tone.
>by design every half an hour or so.
I thought it came at the end of a trilogy.
>lies
I never said it wasn't of enormous artistic worth, just compared to the tragedies it's obvious which one you would preserve.
We also don't know how widely varying the form was. We know some satyr plays were not about any of the characters seen in the tragedies, like the Oresteia's satyr play being about Menelaus trying to get home with Helen. It's only tangently related and we don't know how it would have related to the themes of the trilogy if at all. We just don't know what was done with the form.
>I thought it came at the end of a trilogy.
I'd think the word "interlude" would imply it was far more frequent, at least anyway in the Roman theatre. It would have to depend how long a play was supposed to be, then apply a reasonable assumption for how many segments it might be broken up into.
I'm not sure myself, to be honest, and it probably would've differed greatly from place to place and time to time.
>It's only tangently related and we don't know how it would have related to the themes
We can discern that from the concept of the Satyr; the inversion of normal serious things, as the Romans had it. So the inversion of a highly virtuous character into a petty money-grasper would be funny; Alexander steps down from making a heroic speech and goes into a tirade about how rich his conquest of Persia will make him.
>We just don't know what was done with the form.
def. propaganda. I remember Tiberius shut it down for a while because he was tired of being made fun of.
>It would have to depend how long a play was supposed to be, then apply a reasonable assumption for how many segments it might be broken up into.
Satyr plays didn't come in the middle of tragedies, they come before or after them hence the satyr play making a fourth drama to Aeschylus' trilogy. Tragedies aren't long enough for satyr breaks to be beneficial, but trilogies are.
>We can discern that from the concept of the Satyr; the inversion of normal serious things, as the Romans had it. So the inversion of a highly virtuous character into a petty money-grasper would be funny; Alexander steps down from making a heroic speech and goes into a tirade about how rich his conquest of Persia will make him.
This is completely unfounded and overeager to define half of the entirety of all Greek drama. All one has to do is look at the major variations within tragedy and see it is not so simple.
>I remember Tiberius shut it down for a while because he was tired of being made fun of.
That was different. Roman tragedy/comedy is completely different from the classical Greek equivalents. Plus iirc the comedy he shut down was particularly crass and getting more and more vulgar every day. Basically IQfy humour which in a good society is damaging to its morals.
>the comedy (Tiberius) shut down was particularly crass and getting more and more vulgar every day.
Sure, that's what he said to justify trying to shut it down during the period when he was suspecting of having Germanicus killed.
>Roman tragedy/comedy is completely different from the classical Greek equivalents
>This is completely unfounded and overeager to define half of the entirety of all Greek drama.
Well, you're drawing a line in-between the two and are ignoring the evidence which expounds quite fully upon the format of the Satyr of which there's no evidence to suggest was completely different from Rome to Greece.
I don't mind admitting that I don't really care about Greece though, but I see no reason to draw a line between one and the other.
>Satyr plays didn't come in the middle of tragedies,
>All one has to do is look at the major variations within tragedy and see it is not so simple.
well exactly. A great deal changes even on perspective; I mean, it's a fairy modern idea that the word 'tragedy' even implied 'sad story to be sad at' when the stock character of the hysterical woman being sad and angry was always considered as being the main clown on the stage.
>to define half of the entirety of all Greek drama
The Clouds 'is' a comedy, isn't it?
re: tiberius,
also:
here's a good subject to study the concept and form of the Satyr,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menippean_satire
>The genre of Menippean satire is a form of satire, usually in prose, that is characterized by attacking mental attitudes rather than specific individuals or entities.[1] It has been broadly described as a mixture of allegory, picaresque narrative, and satirical commentary.[2] Other features found in Menippean satire are different forms of parody and mythological burlesque,[3] a critique of the myths inherited from traditional culture,[3] a rhapsodic nature, a fragmented narrative, the combination of many different targets, and the rapid moving between styles and points of view.[4]
>fairy
*fairly
sorry freudian slip