Damon and Pithias

In essence, Damon and Pithias represents a classic of early modern English theatre. It was first performed at Elizabeth’s court during the Christmas festivities of 1564, representing the pinnacle of the career of an author who, three decades later, was still regarded as one of the most accomplished comedy writers of the time, worthy to be mentioned in the same category as Shakespeare:

So the best for Comedy amongst us bee, Edward Earle of Oxford, Doctor Gager of Oxforde, Maister Rowley once a rare Scholler of learned Pembroke Hall in Cambridge, Maister Edwardes one of her Maiesties Chappell, eloquent and wittie Iohn Lilly, Lodge, Gascoygne, Greene, Shakespeare, Thomas Nash, Thomas Heywood, Anthony Mundye our best plotter, Chapman, Porter, Wilson, Hathaway, and Henry Chettle. (Meres 1598, 283; emphasis mine)

And yet, in spite of this considerable reputation, the play is also the sole surviving work by Edwards, not to mention one of the few titles that can be securely attributed to him. Indeed, there is a paucity of information available regarding Richard Edwards’ life and work prior to his appointment in 1561 as Master of the Children of the Royal Chapel. Notwithstanding these challenges, Ros King (2001) has proposed a reconstruction of Edwards’ life that, in my view, is highly plausible.

Richard Edwards was born in 1524 and entered Corpus Christi College, Oxford in 1539, spending his undergraduate years there until graduation in 1544. During those years, he had the opportunity to frequent an environment characterised by a great interest in theatre, due to the presence of many student theatre companies. Furthermore, he was able to meet important academic and theatrical personalities, some of whom became his colleagues when, in 1546, he obtained the chair of Logic at the newly founded Christ College. It is worth mentioning George Etherege, Royal Professor of Greek at Christ Church (1547-1550, 1554-1559), and Nicholas Grimald, who secured a fellowship at the same college by presenting the Latin tragedy Archipropheta (printed 1548), one of the earliest tragedies crafted by an English author. The precise date of Edwards’ transition to the court is uncertain, but it is likely to have been after 1550, as he is still mentioned in the list of members of Christ Church from that year. There is no detailed information on his career at court, as the first document in which his name can be traced is dated 13 July 1558 (a grant of a lease to him and John Shepard of a house in Deane and the lands of Hengrove, in reward for their services to the Crown: cf. King 2001, 23). It is plausible that by that date, Edwards had already been in service for a considerable period of time, assuming various roles. With regard to his poetic output, a manuscript in the British Library contains a poem (likely to date from early 1555: cf. King 2001, 231-2) that pays tribute to various ladies of the court during the Marian period. This suggests that Edwards had already gained access to influential circles within the court by that time. It is regrettable that no evidence of Edwards’ theatrical feats from those years has survived, not even in account books such as the Revels Accounts or those of the Royal Chapel (which, indeed, from 1549 to 1566, show a curious absence of any records of theatrical activities). Some scholars, including King (2001, 14), have attempted to attribute authorship of the interlude Jack Jugeler (a partial adaptation of Plautus’ Amphitruo) to Edwards, but the question remains unresolved. In any case, a few years after the ascension of Elizabeth to the throne (1558), Edwards was appointed Master of the Children of the Royal Chapel, a title he would hold until his death, and that may be a signal that his work enjoyed some degree of popularity. During this period as Master, Edwards consolidated his reputation as a dramatist, receiving praise from notable academics and poets such as Barnabe Googe and becoming an honorary member of Lincoln’s Inn, as part of an association between the Inn and the Chapel, which aimed to secure one new play a year in both contexts by splitting the price. The only other known work of his by that time is another comedy, Palamon and Arcyte (an adaptation of Chaucer’s Knight’s Tale), performed at Oxford in 1566 during Elizabeth's visit to the University (and unfortunately lost). This marked the end of both his career and his life, as he died a few months later on 31 October 1566.

From this reconstruction, Richard Edwards emerges as an exemplar of a moment in the history of early modern English theatre (the 1560s), which has recently experienced a resurgence in critical interest. It was during this period, thanks to the work of dramatists like Edwards, that commenced the transition from medieval religious theatre or humanistic didactic theatre to more elaborate forms of play, which subsequently evolved into Elizabethan tragedy and comedy. These transitional works combine elements of previous theatrical tradition with new features reprised by renowned ancient authors such as Seneca and Terence, combined in a new type of theatre designed to appeal to a larger audience. This was also due to the ever-growing market for the printing of plays, which, as Greg Walker (1998, 29-32) has noted, in the 1560s started to be directed to an audience interested in reading plays for the literary experience of reading a play. This readership was comprised of individuals who had received a good education, which did not necessarily have to be at the university level; they could read and appreciate plays that adapted and repurposed stories from renowned educational or classic texts in a way that resonated with the ancient model, while also being embedded in the more local form of drama. From this perspective, Damon and Pithias is of significant value, as it represents one of the few surviving examples of how this transition took place in regard to comedy.

The subject of the play is one of the most celebrated narratives of friendship in Renaissance literature. Damon and Pithias are two Pythagorean philosophers who lived in Syracuse in 4th century BC, during the period of tyranny either of Dionysius the Elder or Dionysius the Younger (the two figures were often conflated in the Renaissance literary tradition). One of the two protagonists (in Edwards’ comedy, Damon; the sources never specify which one), is sentenced to death by the tyrant (the sources do not specify the exact circumstances of the accusation nor the exact charge). He requests permission to return home to settle his affairs, but this request is denied. His friend then (Pithias in Edwards’ comedy) then suggests that the tyrant should take him as a hostage and have him killed in the other one’s place if the latter does not return in time. The tyrant consents. As time progresses, the appointed hour for Pithias’ demise draws near, but Damon unexpectedly reappears at the eleventh hour, asserting that it is his destiny to perish. This demonstration of camaraderie profoundly affects Dionysius, who grants them both clemency and requests to become their friend. This narrative reappears in the second book (out of three) of a seminal text of Renaissance England, Sir Thomas Elyot’s educational treatise, The Governor (first printed in 1530), as part of a triptych of classical examples concerning the value of friendship as the foundation of social connections (the other two examples are Orestes and Pylades, from classical mythology, and the novella of Titus and Gisippus from Boccaccio’s Decameron). Elyot’s version has been identified as Edwards’ source on numerous occasions, including by King (2001, p. 109), and it is indeed likely that Edwards selected this subject due to its recurrence in the text and its status as a well-known exemplum. It is, however, not implausible that Edwards was aware of the Latin sources of this narrative, including Cicero (who recounts the tale in two of his works, De Officiis 3.10.45 and Tusculanae Disputationes 5.22) and Valerius Maximus (Mem. 4.7.ext.1). The considerable number of quotations from Cicero’s works in Latin that are present in the text of the comedy (see infra) make it a highly probable hypothesis.

It seems highly improbable that Edwards was aware of the sole extant Greek version of the narrative, as presented in the 4th-century philosophical treatise De vita pythagorica by Iamblichus (which in turn draws upon an even earlier source, the now-lost 4th-century BC treatise of the same name by Aristoxenus of Taranto). It is then noteworthy that the play and this version of the story have some significant point of similarity. Not only Iamblichus’ text is the sole ancient source to specify which of the two is charged by Dionysius (albeit inverting the roles as present in Edwards: in Iamblichus, Pythias is accused and Damon offers his life), but it is also the only source to situate the narrative within a socio-political and historical context. In Iamblichus’ version, Dionysius accuses Pithias of treason and accepts Damon’s offer to die for his friend in order to demonstrate to his subjects the hypocrisy of the Pythagorean philosophers, thereby discrediting two notable exponents of the local aristocracy in front of everyone. The background to this narrative presents a political contrast between the tyrannical power of the two Dionysii and the local aristocracy, educated in accordance with the principles of Pythagorean philosophy, and always notably hostile to the tyrants. It is therefore notable that this is the only version of the story in which Damon and Pithias refuse Dionysius's offer of friendship.

Similarly to Iamblichus, Edwards’ play incorporates the narrative of the two friends into a social context, delineating it in exhaustive detail and incorporating notable allusions to contemporary political thought. The initial section of the play, up until Scene 8, is devoted to establishing the atmosphere of the city of Syracuse during the rule of Dionysius; only after this introductory phase does Edwards commence the actual narrative of the exemplum. Edwards achieves this through a meticulously orchestrated succession of couples, comprising either true or false friends, whose relationship is portrayed in a manner that either mirrors or contrasts with that of the two protagonists. Of particular note is the contrast between Damon and Pithias (here portrayed as two foreign travellers, come to Syracuse as part of a journey to acquire knowledge) and the couple formed by the parasite Carisophus and Aristippus, the philosopher currently residing at Dionysius’ court. The play commences with the two men pledging friendship to one another out of mere interest: on the one hand, Aristippus is currently a favourite of Dionysius, and on the other, Carisophus, an “olde courtier” (70, B.i^v; here I quote the text from the diplomatic edition of this archive), has long been in the service of the tyrant, denouncing his supposed enemies. Their feigned amity serves not only to illustrate the stark contrast between the genuine bond of Damon and Pithias, but also to portray the moral bankruptcy that pervades the court of Dionysius. This also has implications for the portrayal of Syracuse, which Stephano (Damon and Pithias’ servant) depicts as a place characterised by fear. This enables Damon to rapidly establish a correlation between this situation and the character of the tyrant, thereby articulating the underlying political message of the comedy: “where Tirantes raigne, ſuche caſes are not new, / Whiche fearynge their owne ſtate for great crueltie, / To ſit faſt as they thinke, doo execute ſpéedely, / All ſuche as any light ſuſpition haue tainted” (341-5, C.i^r). Given that the following scene will see Damon apprehended on the grounds of being a spy, as a result of Carisophus’ false testimony, it can be argued that these words serve to provide a commentary on and a moral dimension to the entire action of the play.

The majority of the characters introduced by Edwards into the play represent archetypal stock characters, either of classical comedy (the parasite Carisophus), or of other types of Humanist literature (the good counsellor Eubulus), except for one, on which it is necessary to provide further commentary: Aristippus. Like Dionysius himself, Aristippus is an historical figure, specifically a disciple of Socrates who lived in the 4th century BC. His life was documented in Book 2 of Diogenes Laertius’ Vitae philosophorum, a renowned collection of biographies of ancient philosophers that was widely referenced throughout the Renaissance. Diogenes’ text describes Aristippus as a singular type of philosopher, one who enjoyed earthly pleasures like wine, women and money, but never in an excessive manner. Indeed, he is often presented as keen to emphasise that he is free from any servitude, whether to Dionysius or to his own passions. This distinctive approach to philosophy positioned him in direct opposition to Plato, who was traditionally regarded as the philosopher who devoted his attention to metaphysics, maintaining a detached perspective from the material world in order to observe life from a higher vantage point. This contrast between the two philosophers had become a common trope in Renaissance philosophical literature; it had also been used thirty years earlier in English literature by Sir Thomas Elyot in his dialogue Of the Knowlage Which Maketh a Wise Man (1533), which anticipated many themes of Edwards' own comedy. It is noteworthy that the dialogue saw Plato and Aristippus reflect on the failure of Plato's attempt at advising Dionysius, leading them to discuss the nature of knowledge, as well as tyranny and good kingship (cf. Walker 2005, 202-7).  

It is far from unlikely that Edwards was aware of this precedent, particularly given that he, like Elyot, also presents Aristippus as a philosopher and a scholar capable of operating within the court environment. His speeches are replete with quotations from Cicero in the original Latin, as well as anecdotes about the life of Dionysius' court derived directly from Diogenes. The author has assigned him the role of delineating the atmosphere of the court and the fluctuations in his emotional state in response to the events of the narrative, through a series of soliloquies in which he directly addresses the audience. In contrast to Elyot and Diogenes’ Aristippus, however, Edwards’ character ultimately emerges as a negative figure, as he declines to assist Pythias when he seeks his help in rescuing Damon, citing the risk to his position as the reason for his refusal: “To helpe an other and hurte my ſelfe, it is an euyll point of courtesie” (811). In doing so, Aristippus refuses to perform what an entire literary tradition, whose roots can be identified in Baldassarre Castiglione’s Il Cortegiano (first printed in 1532, and translated into English by Thomas Hoby in 1561), has identified as the supreme duty of the courtier: to advise the sovereign and act for the best interest of the kingdom. Despite his extensive learning and oratory skills, he is ultimately revealed to be a mere parasite, not that much different from Carisophus (whom he despises for his lack of education). Ros King proposed that this characterisation made Aristippus an alter ego of Edwards (King 2001, 87); personally, I think that Aristippus should be regarded as another caricature, representing a type of person who was probably a frequent visitor to court and already appeared in some notable works of Humanist literature: the intellectual who is subservient to power and attempts to hide his servitude under the cloak of wisdom.

From another point of view, the character of Aristippus is a good example of the principal features of comedic theatre Damon and Pithias exemplify, based on the conflation between elements from classical models such as Plautus and Terence (the aforementioned reprisal of typical characters from they plays) and the final vestiges of early Renaissance theatre. This decision can already be seen in the Prologue to the play, where the authority of Horace’s Ars Poetica (ll. 105-6) is invoked to justify and defend the author's decision to have the characters speak and behave in accordance with the demands of their roles.

A Royſter ought not preache, that were to ſtraunge to heare,
But as from vertue he doth ſwerue, ſo ought his woordes appeare:
The olde man is ſober, the yonge man raſhe, the Louer triumphyng in ioyes.
The Matron graue, the Harlat wilde and full of wanton toyes.
Whiche all in one courſe they no wiſe doo agree: ſo correspondent to their kinde their ſpeeches ought to bee.
Which ſpeeches well pronounce, with action liuely framed,
If this offende the lookers on, let Horace then be blamed (Prol. 18-25)

This rule is then meticulously observed in the play, where Edwards demonstrates a remarkable aptitude for adapting his style in accordance with the character in question. The educated characters (Aristippus, the two protagonists, Dionysius and Eubulus) employ a more refined linguistic register, whereas the popular characters frequently utilise proverbs as a means of expression. Furthermore, Edwards eschews the use of allegorical characters, a device still employed in contemporary theatre; instead, he presents the audience with a dramatic landscape comprising solely human characters, albeit highly stylised. Conversely, the didactic tone of the interludes, with their ethical message, and the traditional alternation between serious scenes and the gags that would formerly have been attributed to the Vice, persist beneath this ‘classic’ surface. The latter are distributed between different characters, primarily Carisophus and the servants. It could even be argued that Edwards is dividing the role of the Vice into two distinct characters: Aristippus, who like him engages in dialogue with the audience and offers commentary on the unfolding events, and Carisophus, who assumes the traditional role of the Vice as the instigator of the plot and source of evil in the world of the play. Furthermore, the interludes feature three songs, two serious by Pithias and by Eubulus of lamentation, and one comic by Grim the Collier, Jack and Will: an other traditional component of the interlude theatre.

With regard to the message conveyed by the play, it has also a very distinct political, other than ethical, undertone. The loyalty demonstrated by Damon and Pithias evokes a profound emotional response from Dionysus who, in addition to forgiving and releasing them, requests that they consider him as a friend. They accept, but also issue a caveat, namely that in order to do so, he “must forget you ar a king, for frindſhip ſtands in tru equalitie” (2149). Dionysius accepts to do just that: “ Unequall though I be in great poſſeſſions, / Yet full equall ſhall you finde me in my changed conditions: / Tirranie, flatterie, oppreſſion, loe, hear I cast away” (2150-2). Previously, the tyrant has been depicted as a figure afflicted with a pronounced paranoia, perceiving shadows at every turn and perpetually apprehensive about potential threats to his authority. His change of heart involves a metaphorical renouncement of this power in the name of equality with his friends. This moral stance resonates with the political theory of the era, exemplified by seminal treatises such as Thomas Smith's De Republica Anglorum (printed 1583, but written 1562-1565). These works postulated a view of the monarch as a guardian of a set of laws, whose authority derived from the popular will, and which he had to respect in order to prove himself a good ruler. Conversely, a monarch who proclaimed himself an absolute ruler and started asserting his will without soliciting counsel was depicted and characterised as a tyrant. This message represents the fundamental premise of Edwards’ comedy, and it is conveyed in a manner that affords the theatre a distinctive prominence as a medium for conveying his message. In contrast to Eubulus’ failure to persuade, Damon and Pithias succeed in influencing Dionysius’ behaviour through the medium of their “Tragidie” (as Dionysius refers to it, 2128). This suggests that the impact of theatre is more significant than the overt moral guidance typically associated with traditional educational theatre. This constitutes a “defence of theatre” (King 2001, 40) and its moral and political utility, which will subsequently be articulated in analogous terms in Philip Sidney’s Defence of Poesy (printed 1585), thus introducing a further dimension to what has already demonstrated itself to be an absorbing piece of theatre.

It is therefore surprising that, despite the author’s reputation and the quality of the text, this is the only printed edition of Damon and Pithias from the Renaissance period. No reprintings of this text are known to us, and it appears that the work gradually receded from scholarly and public attention until the 20th century. Modern editions of the text have then been published in 1926 (edited by John S. Farmer), 1957 (Arthur Brown and F. P. Wilson), 1980 (D. Jerry White) and most recently in 2001; the latter is the aforementioned Ros King’s edition, which remains the most comprehensive study of Damon and Pithias to date. In addition to the text, the volume includes a biography of the author, a commentary, and information regarding recent performances of the work in the latter part of the 20th century.

The text presented here is based on the sole extant copy of the text known to exist in the United Kingdom, which is held at the British Library. While the text is largely legible, it is nevertheless somewhat damaged, particularly at the margins of the left page, where the initial letters of the lines are frequently obliterated. The text is a Quarto edition, written predominantly in black letter, with the exception of the names of the characters, which are presented in capital block letters. The total number of pages is approximately 60. Given the status of the text, when necessary I used Ros King’s edition of the text to fill in the gaps.