In this monograph J. focuses on a phenomenon that many of us recognise in the study of Greek drama, but all too often pass over: paracomedy, the way that tragedy engages with comic drama. According to J., paracomedy is on the face of it the obverse of paratragedy – where paratragedy refers to the way that Greek comedy actively engages with tragedy. J.'s definition of paracomedy draws on E. Scharffenberger (Text and Presentation 17 [1996]) in seeing paracomedy function as an alter ego to paratragedy. J.'s work provides a broader study of paracomedy that ‘contributes to our understanding of generic interactions in Greek drama and literature more broadly’ (p. 4). The interest is not in looking for comic humour in tragedy, but rather for the way in which tragedy appropriates various aspects of comic drama (a distinction drawn by B. Seidensticker [1978]).
Paratragedy has been much studied by scholars: from P. Rau, Paratragodia (1967), to M. Silk, ‘Aristophanic Paratragedy’, in: Tragedy, Comedy and the Polis (1993), expanded by M. Farmer, Tragedy on the Comic Stage (2017), and numerous other publications. Paratragedy has earned its place in A.H. Sommerstein's Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Greek Comedy (S. Miles, ‘Paratragedy’ [2019]), but paracomedy receives no direct mention there or, more tellingly, in H.M. Roisman's The Encyclopedia of Greek Tragedy (2013). In short, paratragedy is an established and recurrent part of scholarship, but the same cannot be said for paracomedy. J.'s work is a significant step forward because it provides the first wider treatment of how tragedy can engage with comedy. As such it is a welcome and overdue addition to scholarship on intergeneric play within Greek drama. H. Foley (‘Generic Boundaries in Late Fifth-Century Athens’, in: Performance, Iconography, Reception [2008]) had already drawn attention to the cross-fertilisation between dramatic genres, but J. emphasises rivalry as opposed to a merging of genres by focusing on his interpretation of the relationship between Euripidean tragedy and Aristophanic comedy.
Chapter 1 presents J.'s methodology for ‘establishing and interpreting paracomedy’ (p. 10), noting paracomedy is lacking in Sophocles, present in Aeschylus, and prevalent between Euripides and Aristophanes. J. emphasises the idea of rivalry between these two dramatists, calling on the well-used Cratinus fr. 342 K.-A. with its hybrid: εὐριπιδαριστοφανίζων in support. Indeed, the core of the monograph, Chapters 3–5, is taken up with the interactions of Euripides and Aristophanes. These chapters discuss a mixture of paratragedy and paracomedy (presumably the collective term should be paradrama, but this is not deployed). J.'s focus on Euripides and Aristophanes means that the emphasis is mainly on Euripidean paracomedy rather than paracomedy in general.
For J. there are ‘three criteria in developing an argument for paracomedy: (1) detecting distinctive correspondences between tragic and comic elements, (2) establishing the priority of the comic element, and (3) ascertaining the motivation for adopting features from outside the genre and the effects such adoptions produce in the audience’ (pp. 10, 17, where it is repeated nearly verbatim). The last of the three is the most subjective, both in terms of identifying the motivation of an author and in assuming the effects on an audience, as if it were a homogeneous unit.
Chapter 2 presents a chronological exploration of paracomedy, focusing on Oresteia, Alcestis and Heracles. The chapter makes ready use of comic fragments, which is encouraging for broadening the interpretative frame for Greek drama. Aeschylean paracomedy is identified as distinct from Euripidean, because Aeschylus calls on generalised tropes of comedy, rather than any specific comic models. In the case of Euripides, the level of engagement with comedy is higher and directed at Aristophanes. This is unsurprising as Euripides and Aristophanes were contemporaries, whereas in the case of Aeschylus we have only remnants of his comic contemporaries. On these grounds, it is odd to conclude that Aeschylus ‘fails to engage deeply with any specific comedy’ (p. 80) when compared to Euripides; we do not have the evidence to judge this.
J. interprets the use of paracomedy in Oresteia and Heracles as drawing out the female threat of the Erinyes (50) and deep emotion of Heracles (60), which is intriguing. I would add that, when pushing towards portrayals of fear and madness, comedy is a natural place to go for transgressing boundaries from the perspective of dramatists and audiences. It would have been interesting to revisit this when tackling Bacchae, which holds potential as the most macabre horror movie never made (S. Miles, ‘Euripidean Stagecraft’, in: Brill's Companion to Euripides [2020]). Foley's merging of generic boundaries feels particularly evident and relevant in this chapter.
Chapters 3–5 focus on Euripides and paracomedy with reference to Aristophanes for the period 415–405 bce. J. traces a dialogue between Acharnians, Helen, Thesmophoriazusae and Bacchae, with a particularly engaging analysis of how controlling costume in these plays reflects intergeneric tussles. At the chapter's close J. remarks that ‘Aristophanes and Euripides spent some twenty years of their lives staging a rivalry that only ended when Euripides died’ (p. 118). Surprisingly, J. makes no mention here of Frogs, or the way in which Aristophanes continues to persecute, elevate and emulate Euripidean tragedy even after the tragedian's death. Euripides – finally – has no ‘right of reply’, and he is immortalised by none other than Aristophanes.
Chapter 6 explores difficult cases in the chronology of tragedies and comedies, evaluating possibilities about whether a particular comedy predates a tragedy or the reverse. This chapter is openly more subjective in its approach, for example it includes an argument against S. Beta (1999) that Wasps comes before Heracles (pp. 225–7). I would have liked to hear J.'s response to Scharffenberger (RhM 138 [1995]) with its proposal that Lysistrata predates Phoenissae, particularly as this argument relies on chronology. Given that both Strattis and Aristophanes went on to compose a comic Phoenissae in response to Euripides, this would seem another opportunity to explore paradramatic games. J.'s book provides superb groundwork for this, and I hope a next step will be to incorporate more fragments in expanding intergeneric explorations.
Chapter 7 looks at paracomedy beyond the fifth century bce, opening up possibilities for further exploration, and it raises many possibilities for expansion beyond those proposed by J. into Hellenistic poetry, for example the Mimiambs of Herodas, the work of Theocritus or Apollonius for the way that they receive and respond to comic and tragic drama. The monograph's conclusion briefly situates paracomedy within other theatrical and literary theories, drawing on intertheatricality as well as intertextuality, noting scholarship on early modern drama. I would have welcomed this from the start, particularly given J.'s focus on costume in the latter stages of the monograph. I found convincing J.'s point that by acknowledging paracomedy in our understanding of tragedy we can ‘cast Athenian drama as a dynamic world filled with mutual literary influence’ (p. 14). I would only wish to amend this to ‘literary and performative’ influence.
J.'s book provides the most detailed and wide-ranging analysis of the relationship between Aristophanes and Euripides, who were contemporary dramatists, colleagues and co-competitors in the performative art of drama. Therefore, the question becomes to what extent are we looking at paracomedy, or rather, as Cratinus put it so ably 2,500 years ago: εὐριπιδαριστοφανίζων? The lack of paracomedy in Sophocles should give pause for thought as to whether this was ‘a productive historical phenomena in Greek tragedy’ (p. 3) or rather a creative, stylistic choice of certain dramatists. When considering the lack of paracomedy in Sophocles, it is worthwhile to bring in comic fragments alongside Aristophanes. For here the same pattern is observed where Sophocles is rarely named as a comic target and never brought onstage as one, unlike Aeschylus and Euripides, both of whom feature in J.'s book as paracomedians.
I found J.'s work stimulating to think with, providing refreshed perspectives on familiar plays and much room for debate. Given my work on paratragedy, the latter is hardly surprising, and this monograph is a real step forward for exploring intergeneric interactions and the ongoing process of stimulus and response that shaped the development of both comic and tragic drama.
