ἅπαξ δρώμενα. Un criterio per la relazione tra testi teatrali e iconografia vascolare (V-IV sec. a.C.). Quattro casi: l’‘atto delfico’ di Eumenidi; il volo sul carro del Sole di Medea; la scena del matricidio in Coefore; l’assassinio di Neottolemo a Delfi in Andromaca

This article aims to reconsider the so-called ‘ἅπαξ δρώμενον criterion’, first introduced in Seminario Pots&Plays 2015; this principle refers to instances of mythological vase-painting whose content reflects innovative variations from extant V century BCE tragic texts. From a genealogical viewpoint, this coincidence parallels the philological principle of the ‘concordance in error’. We argue that this is the only relatively safe principle to ascertain any whatsoever connection between a drama whose text is known to us and a visual representation of its plot. The limits of this principle are first explored: sources pointing out to a unique dramatic version of a myth (as in Aeschylus’ Eumenides) may refer only to the works of the three great tragic playwrights, not to the Attic tragic corpus in its entirety; in other cases, that a mythical variation depends on an authorial choice is only possible, or supported by problematic evidence. Through close examination of four examples (Orestes’ Delphic act in Aeschylus’ Eumenides; Medea’s flight on the chariot of the Sun; Clytemnestra’s unveiling of her breast as an extreme plea for life; Orestes’ role in Neoptolemus’ Delphic assassination) we try to evaluate the soundness of this criterion as a means to better understand the relation between V-IV century BCE vase-painting and Attic tragedy. A comparative analysis of these examples shows that in spite of the relatively sure connection, there are no means to root the images in the visual dimension of the theatrical experience. Although some details suggest a possibly faithful correspondence between image and text, we contend that no theatrical experience was necessary to shape visual forms from dramatic myth: loose textual knowledge, or, more probably, informal discourse may well have conveyed what was essential to the painter’s own interpretation of a narrative content.