Greek and Roman Mime

This chapter on the manuscript tradition of the moral maxims (sententiae) associated with the mimographer Publilius has already appeared in the volume "Aliento. La traversée européenne des Proverbia Senecae: de Publilius Syrus à Érasme et au-delà", No. 5, coordonné par Marta López Izquierdo (Éditions Universitaires de Lorraine, 2013), 15-50. I publish here the final version of the paper before it went to proofs.

The purpose of my paper is to illustrate the different female typologies which feature in the theatre of the mime of the Late Roman Republic, and especially in the plays of the famous mimographer Decimus Laberius, as these are exemplified in his extant fragments. I discuss important aspects and stereotypical features of this realistic comic form and I demonstrate the artistic sophistication of this sub-theatrical genre, the literary force of which, often irreverent and unkind towards women, enables the audience to think, through the medium of laughter, about topical and socially relevant issues.

This article aims to examine both the mimic specialisation of kinaidoi and the correlated literary productions of the kinaidologoi and ionikologoi. Within this framework relative sub-genres, such as hilarōdia, magōdia, simōdia and lysiōdia, some of which date at least back to the 4th century B.C., will be discussed. In the present, first part of the article, an important mould-made relief bowl (a so-called “Megarian bowl”) is examined, which possibly belongs to the 1st century B.C. and is extant in two copies (Νat. Arch. Μus., Athens, 11797, and Louvre, CA 936). The interpretation proposed suggests that the bowl’s relief depicts a man being punished for having committed adultery with the mill owner’s wife; the punishment, assisted by the kinaidoi, consists of the rape of the adulterer by a donkey. The relief was probably not directly inspired by a kinaidoi performance, but rather by a literary text written by kinaidologoi. Should the view claiming that the relief bowl’s theme was linked particularly to Macedonia be correct, then the relationship of certain poets such as Alexander Aitolos and Timon of Phlius with the king Antigonus Gonatas perhaps explains the interest in the kinaidoi that we detect in this type of pottery. Whatever the case, the specific bowl provides interesting information about the mimic sub-genre of kinaidoi.

This is a meticulous survey of the reception of some lyric subgenres
in Hellenistic poetry and it is meant to be the first of a series of contributions
on the subject. Leaving aside lyric in a religious context, the paper is divided
into two main sections, namely lyric poetry composed for rulers and lyric poetry
written for everyday people. In the new social context lyric poetry was intended
for presentation in the royal symposia. The Alexandrians wrote all types of occasional
lyric poetry (enkomia, epinikia, epithalamia, threnoi and epikedeia), a fact
that is reflected both in the work of distinguished poets, such as Callimachus,
Posidippus and Theocritus as well as in the epigrammatic tradition and in poetic
fragments found on papyri. Special attention is given to stichic lyric poetry and
to the new genre of the mime, whereas the oral tradition of the carmina popularia
and the making of lyric anthologies for symposiastic use complete the picture.

This chapter gives an overview of the pitfalls associated with understanding theatrical literary genres that have been transmitted to us only in fragments. My case study is the theatre of the Roman mime; my argument is that neither the extant fragments from the Latin mime-scripts nor the ‘testimonia’ associated with mime-drama, when studied on their own, give us an accurate picture about mime as popular entertainment or about the elusive position of mime in the artificial literary and fluid social hierarchy of the Roman world. I consider select examples of the ancient reception of the language and style of the mimographer Laberius, I demonstrate how epigraphical evidence and cemetery visual culture may challenge the misleading stereotypes which operated in relation to mime theatre, and I finish with an example of how new discoveries in art and archaeology can open up new perspectives in our study of ancient mime as spectacle.

S. Tsitsiridis, "Mime, Kinaidoi and Kinaedologoi": This article aims to examine both the mimic specialisation of kinaidoi and the correlated literary productions of the kinaidologoi and ionikologoi. Within this framework relative sub-genres, such as hilarōdia, magōdia, simōdia and lysiōdia, some of which date at least back to the 4th century B.C., will be discussed. In the present, first part of the article, an important mould-made relief bowl (a so-called “Megarian bowl”) is examined, which possibly belongs to the 1st century B.C. and is extant in two copies (Νat. Arch. Μus., Athens, 11797, and Louvre, CA 936). The interpretation proposed suggests that the bowl’s relief depicts a man being punished for having committed adultery with the mill owner’s wife; the punishment, assisted by the kinaidoi, consists of the rape of the adulterer by a donkey. The relief was probably not directly inspired by a kinaidoi performance, but rather by a literary text written by kinaidologoi. Should the view claiming that the relief bowl’s theme was linked particularly to Macedonia be correct, then the relationship of certain poets such as Alexander Aitolos and Timon of Phlius with the king Antigonus Gonatas perhaps explains the interest in the kinaidoi that we detect in this type of pottery. Whatever the case, the specific bowl provides interesting information about the mimic sub-genre of kinaidoi.

Herodas was Hellenistic poet, who wrote mimiambs, according to the ancient commentators. The term mimiamb shows that Herodas made generic amalgam from mime and iambus. Both poetic genres include the erotic discourse as generic marker, although the intention is quite different: in iambic poetry the erotic discourse is part of the invective, which originates from the fertility cult, while in the mimic tradition from the earlier period, the erotic discourse excites the senses of the spectators, not entering the field of the invective. Anyhow this only one type of mimic spectacles, which bears the name erotic paignion and was performed only in sympotic context. The wide and not yet defined mimic sphere contains other spectacles as well, which include scenes from everyday life, and didn’t have sympotic context. But, we are not sure if they contained erotic themes, and how were they presented. The mimiambs of Herodas have transmitted the both traditions in unique way; the erotic discourse has important role and pleases the senses of the spectators, probably in sympotic context, although that subtle erotic is in fact subtle or indirect invective, as part of the iambic or scoptic tradition.

This chapter gives an overview of the pitfalls associated with understanding theatrical literary genres that have been transmitted to us only in fragments. My case study is the theatre of the Roman mime; my argument is that neither the extant fragments from the Latin mime-scripts nor the ‘testimonia’ associated with mime-drama, when studied on their own, give us an accurate picture about mime as popular entertainment or about the elusive position of mime in the artificial literary and fluid social hierarchy of the Roman world. I consider select examples of the ancient reception of the language and style of the mimographer Laberius, I demonstrate how epigraphical evidence and cemetery visual culture may challenge the misleading stereotypes which operated in relation to mime theatre, and I finish with an example of how new discoveries in art and archaeology can open up new perspectives in our study of ancient mime as spectacle.