Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-02T07:19:02.332Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

AESCHYLUS’, EURIPIDES’, CACOYANNIS'S—AND SHORTER-SPALDING'S IPHIGENIAS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2024

Get access

Extract

Like Euripides’ play, Iphigenia at Aulis, the Shorter-spalding opera is open-ended and unresolved—partly because, again like the Euripidean version, it is multi-authored and somewhat incomplete. Euripides’ play, in the form(s) in which we possess it, presents at least three different endings, none of which is likely to come from Euripides’ own pen; other authors certainly contributed to various sections of the final scene. Euripides himself also had a musical collaborator, Cephisophon, who presumably continued to work on finishing and rehearsing the play after Euripides himself died, up to its first production. The Shorter-spalding opera, …(Iphigenia), likewise is the result of collaboration—often at a distance, and over several years—between musicians, writers, and designers (as Morales describes in her Introduction to this issue). At least six different authors altogether are identified in the program notes as contributing to the libretto, including the three poets whose lyrics were sung in Act II: Ganavya Doraiswamy, Joy Harjo, and Safiya Sinclair, respectively South Asian, Native American, and Jamaican. As for the opera's ending—the most notoriously uncertain aspect of this myth ever since archaic Greek times—esperanza spalding states in her notes on the opera that the process of creating an ending has been one of constant adjustment, wholesale rewriting, and improvisation, and that even through the rehearsals the singers themselves onstage, as well as the instrumental jazz trio, were still trying out new things, right up to and including perhaps the performance that we saw. (I attended the Berkeley performance on February 12, 2022.) The opera is, we may say, unfinished.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Pompeii VI, 8, 5, peristylium (10); Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale inventory no. 9112. (Available on Wiki Commons.)

2. Papyrus Leiden inv. P. 510 (Eur. IA 784–94, 1500–9). See West (1992), 278, 286f. (Catalogue # 4, 5); Pöhlmann and West (2001) (#4), 18–21 (and Frontispiece). There is uncertainty as to whether this papyrus’ musical notation dates back to Euripides himself, or, more likely, reflects Hellenistic reperformances; for a thorough discussion, in favor of the latter position, see esp. Prauscello (2006), 160–82.

3. Eur. IA 1592–5 elaphos, and fr. i in Collard and Morwood (2017) (Aelian Nature of Animals 7.39 = Nauck Eur. fr. 857; not in Kannicht [2004] (TrGF V)). On the ancient debate whether female deer might sometimes have antlers, see Arist. Poet. 25.1462b32–5 with D.W. Lucas's note (1968), and further Haselswerdt, this issue. The deer pictured in the Pompeian wall-painting (above n.1) has antlers; cf. also the mythical Ceryneian Hind, sacred to Artemis.

4. Stovall (2021) and (2022).