Introduction Sophocles and his Critics

Brill’s Companion to
Sophocles
Edited by
Andreas Markantonatos
LEIDEN • BOSTON
2012
© 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978 90 04 18492 3
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
List of Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
List of Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
Introduction: Sophocles and His Critics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Andreas Markantonatos
1
PART I
THE POET AND HIS WORK
Biography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
William Blake Tyrrell
Text and Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Guido Avezzù
Ajax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
P.J. Finglass
Electra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
E.M. Griffiths
Oedipus Tyrannus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Josh Beer
Antigone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
David Carter
Trachiniae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Bruce Heiden
Philoctetes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Poulcheria Kyriakou
Oedipus at Colonus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Jon Hesk
© 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978 90 04 18492 3
vi
contents
Fragments and Lost Tragedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Alan H. Sommerstein
The Satyr Plays of Sophocles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Bernd Seidensticker
PART II
SOPHOCLEAN INTERTEXTUALITY
The Homer of Tragedy: Epic Sources and Models in Sophocles. . . . . . . . . 245
John Davidson
Dynamic Allusion in Sophocles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
Francis M. Dunn
PART III
SOPHOCLES THE INNOVATOR: MUSIC, LANGUAGE, NARRATIVE
Sophocles and Music . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
Timothy Power
The Language of Sophocles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
Luigi Battezzato
Oedipus, Odysseus, and the Failure of Rhetoric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
Nancy Worman
Narratology of Drama: Sophocles the Storyteller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
Andreas Markantonatos
PART IV
IMAGE AND PERFORMANCE
(Mis)Representations of Sophocles’ Plays? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
Jocelyn Penny Small
Sophoclean Choruses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385
Rachel Kitzinger
© 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978 90 04 18492 3
contents
vii
PART V
RELIGION, HISTORY, AND POLITICS
Ritual in Sophocles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411
Rush Rehm
Gods and Heroes in Sophocles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
Jon D. Mikalson
Political Tragedy: Sophocles and Athenian History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447
Sarah Ferrario
Sophocles and Political Thought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471
Kurt A. Raaflaub
PART VI
SOPHOCLEAN ANTHROPOLOGY: STATUS AND GENDER
Women’s Voices in Sophocles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491
Judith Mossman
Minor Characters in Sophocles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507
Bernhard Zimmermann
PART VII
INSTRUCTING THE POLIS: EDUCATION, PHILOSOPHY, IRONY
Sophocles and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515
Justina Gregory
Sophocles and Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537
Emily Wilson
Sophocles the Ironist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563
Michael Lloyd
PART VIII
ANCIENTS AND MODERNS: THE RECEPTION OF SOPHOCLES
The Reception of Sophocles in Antiquity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581
Matthew Wright
© 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978 90 04 18492 3
viii
contents
The Influence of Sophocles on Modern Literature and the Arts . . . . . . . . 601
Michael J. Anderson
‘Men as They Ought to Be’: Sophocles in Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619
J. Michael Walton
Sophocles Made New: Modern Performances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 641
Marianne McDonald
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661
Index of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715
Index of Principal Sophoclean Passages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726
© 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978 90 04 18492 3
introduction
SOPHOCLES AND HIS CRITICS
Andreas Markantonatos
When writing about an ancient author and his work, we cannot escape
the feeling that we are faced with a nearly impossible task: more often
than not textual evidence is in short supply, while the enormous distance
separating ancient author from modern critic adds a further complication
to any attempt at making sense of important issues of historical and social
relevance. Writing about Sophocles is no exception. The more we study
his work, the more we realize that any conclusions regarding dramaturgy
and style, as well as textual criticism and interpretation, must be treated as
tentative and contingent. The sceptic may argue that theories purporting
to unravel the intricacy of ancient plays have no solid basis in hard fact,
and what is more, numerous tantalizing snippets of ancient biographical
information are either overblown or fabricated. There is a growing feeling
among students of Sophocles that specialists of different theoretical hues
and backgrounds have talked too much and too confidently about the
poet and his work without paying heed to the considerable difficulties in
appraising the veracity of the biographical stories, as well as the fiendish
complexity of the textual evidence.
This is partly true. Sophoclean drama has constantly drawn the viewing
and reading public, as well as academic experts from all over the world, with
its remarkable leading characters of fiery passion and immovable bravery,
determined valour and iron firmness. To this we should add Sophocles’
complete mastery of dramatic technique which is unforgettably displayed
in the structural arrangement of the plots and the innovative expansion
of popular mythical stories. It therefore comes as no surprise that since
antiquity people have tried to unlock some of the secrets of his stagecraft
by either dissecting his plays or situating his work in its historical and social
context. The playtexts of Sophocles have had a magnetic effect on lovers
of theatre: the survival of even a tiny portion of his dramatic output over
more than two millennia speaks volumes for his popularity. Considering
the technological inefficiencies of manuscript transmission, as well as the
gradual decline of the oral diffusion of texts, it is nothing less than a miracle
© 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978 90 04 18492 3
2
andreas markantonatos
that seven extant plays survived the Middle Ages during which the bulk of
ancient Greek literature vanished without trace.
Sophoclean scholarship has a very long history with striking modifications in emphasis and, in certain cases, bewildering changes in viewpoint.1
When we survey the ancients’ take on Sophocles, starting from the original audience of the plays and moving on to Aristotle and the Alexandrian
scholars, we become conscious of the fact that the critical idiom shifted
from a purely interpretative perspective to a distinctly editorial approach
which put a high priority on the reconstitution of the original Sophoclean
texts.2 In the first phase of Sophoclean criticism, Aristotle’s Poetics marked
the impressive culmination of centuries of theoretical reflection on Greek
tragedy: a wide assortment of interpretations was finally woven into a compelling argument which was to exert an unprecedented influence on modern criticism.3
Ironically, it was Aristotle’s flair for creating complicated taxonomies
which encouraged the Hellenistic scholars in their focus on the reconstruction of ancient playscripts and the classification of textual evidence.
Much as Aristotle formulated a highly convincing proposal which was wide
enough to include important aspects of tragic experience, brilliantly enriching a functionalist account of Greek tragedy with crucial elements of aesthetic naturalism and moral realism, Alexandrian critics felt it their duty
to establish authoritative texts of the plays which were meticulously catalogued in the Library of Alexandria, as well as producing commentaries
(some of them quite voluminous) on selected works. Awed by the sheer
force of Aristotle’s general theoretical formulation, they chose to direct
their energies to editing Sophocles rather than grappling with interpretation. Their choice proved a wise one, for it is to their intellectual vigour that
we owe not only the survival of a large part of Sophocles’ dramas well into
the second century bc, but also a gigantic body of scholia and brief critical
judgements on the plays. Of especial significance is the editorial attention
of Aristophanes of Byzantium, who defended manuscript tradition against
extensive revisions made by actors and directors.4
1 See recently Lloyd-Jones (1994a) 15–24; Easterling (2006a); Goldhill/Hall (2009). Although rather dated, both Kirkwood (1957) and Friis Johansen (1962) remain notable for their
penetration and insight. There are various online bibliographical guides to publications on
the ancient world in general and Sophocles in particular, but L’Année Philologique, Gnomon
Online, and TOCS-IN are beyond compare.
2 See principally Lada (1993) and (1996); cf. recently Lada-Richards (2008).
3 See (e.g.) Halliwell (1987), (19982) and (2002) esp. 177–233.
4 See Pfeiffer (1968) 87–104; Reynolds/Wilson (19913) 5–18; Garland (2004) 39–48;
© 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978 90 04 18492 3
sophocles and his critics
3
The prevalent feeling that Aristotelian logic is incontestable, as well as an
increasing alertness to the intricacies of the textual transmission of Greek
tragedy, turned the attention of critics away from theoretical speculation
towards more practical purposes. This stream of scholarship on purely textual problems continued to flow uninterruptedly until the middle of the 19th
century, when there appeared a faint gleam of what was later to develop into
a complex network of competing critical theories. It is indicative of Aristotle’s colossal impact on classical scholarship that academic specialists began
to question in earnest basic premises of the Poetics as late as the twentieth
century: this concerted attempt to surpass Aristotelian methods spawned
new theoretical propositions which provided a wider perspective on Greek
tragedy. In fact, the emergence of some radical but thought-provoking theories (Deconstruction being a case in point) initiated discussion on many
fronts in which numerous aspects of Attic drama look different in dialogue
with each other.
It is to be regretted that Roman and Byzantine scholarship failed to
meet the challenge of producing important works on Sophocles, with the
exception of Demetrius Triclinius, a native of Thessalonica, who created
his own recension of the extant plays out of several important manuscripts
in fourteenth century. Although Greek tragedy exerted an enormous influence on Latin-speaking elites, and Byzantine men of letters often bolstered
their arguments with copious quotations from tragic plays, classical philology, unsystematically practised for centuries until the dawn of Renaissance
Humanism, was well below par compared with the illustrious achievements
of the Hellenistic period. To be fair, Byzantine scholars should be credited
with preserving a large number of important manuscripts, as well as furnishing them with helpful exegetical scholia; moreover, the massive exodus
of Greek scholars from a failing Byzantine Empire was a major infusion of
new talent into Western intellectual life.5
The Renaissance ushered in fresh ideas about the interpretation of Attic
drama, but again it was the urgent need for the preservation of the ancient
works which occupied centre stage in contemporary scholarly circles.
Apparently Renaissance critics were too concerned with the protection
of their classical legacy and the establishment of reliable texts to expend
Markantonatos (2013). It must be remembered throughout that ‘it is to Alexandria that we
owe our existing texts, and almost the whole of the information that can be recovered concerning the lost plays’ (Pearson 1917, I. xxxv).
5 See principally Reynolds/Wilson (19913) 44–78 and esp. 75–77; Garland (2004) 69–87
and esp. 85–87 on the Palaeologan Renaissance. Cf. also Wilson (1983a) and (1992).
© 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978 90 04 18492 3
4
andreas markantonatos
valuable time on close readings of Greek plays. Not unlike the Alexandrian
scholars, humanists resisted the lure of grand theory, choosing instead to
master the Greek language in all its dialectal sophistication and search far
and wide for lost manuscripts. Once more the students of Greek literature
selected the wisest course of action. The following centuries saw the publication of numerous editiones principes—the Aldine edition of Sophocles
was published in 1502.6 Moreover, the revival of interest in Greek tragedy
provided the main impetus for a string of impressive performances of select
plays—in 1585 an Italian version of Oedipus Tyrannus was staged at the
Teatro Olimpico in Vicenza to popular acclaim.7
Although it took more than three centuries for the performance tradition
of Greek drama to gather momentum, the critical study of the Sophoclean
text instantly became a magnet for the best minds in classical scholarship:
German, French, and British experts devoted their energy to collating Greek
manuscripts and producing authoritative editions of the plays. Not only did
they make determined attempts to integrate a large part of the ancient scholia into learned commentaries, but they also offered lucid interpretations of
the plays, thereby shedding light on a wide range of difficult problems concerning political, social, and philosophical aspects of Sophocles’ dramatic
art. Especially, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, R.F.P. Brunck,
Gottfried Hermann, and Wilhelm Dindorf, together with August Nauck and
F.H.M. Blaydes, brought out many critical editions of Sophocles, never shying away from the most thorny textual questions, and not always avoiding
controversy.
The last years of the nineteenth century saw a remarkable resurgence
of interest in Sophoclean tragedy, mainly because the generality of leading
scholars were averse to unrestrictive emendation, choosing instead to resituate the plays within their original context, as well as discussing the primary
traits of the Sophoclean hero. There is no doubt that Lewis Campbell and
Richard Jebb were the forerunners of a sea change in Sophoclean scholarship, giving measure and shape to the experience of viewing Greek tragedy
through the lens of the ancient audience by combining a profound insight
into Hellenic culture with an unrivalled knowledge of the Greek language.8
Especially the latter, despite Hugh Lloyd-Jones’ feeble attempt to diminish
6 On the Aldine Press, see (e.g.) Garland (2004) 105–110; see also Borza (2003) and (2007)
on the reception of Sophocles in the 16th century.
7 See also Vidal-Naquet (1990c); Wiles (2000) 179–183.
8 See (e.g.) Lloyd-Jones (1994a) 18–20.
© 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978 90 04 18492 3
sophocles and his critics
5
his learning by extolling instead his phenomenally well-read German contemporaries,9 remains the most brilliant author of modern Sophoclean studies, having produced excellent commentaries on (together with admirable
translations of) the seven extant plays of Sophocles, as well as having laid
the foundations of a comprehensive edition of the Sophoclean fragments.
His criticism is unrivalled in its intensity, breadth, and impact, while at the
same time his fine feeling for Greek allows him to open unimagined vistas into ancient sensibilities. In the ensuing decades every serious scholar
drew inspiration from Jebb’s editions, relishing his interpretations and voraciously perusing his enlightening comments.10
Despite Jebb’s and Campbell’s occasional tendency to place undue emphasis on the subtlety and delicacy of tragic portraiture, to say nothing
of their receptiveness to the once widespread idea that characters’ monologues are introspective self-communings revealing many different whims
and foibles, it is to their seminal work that a new generation of gifted scholars active in the early part of the twentieth century owes its creative outlook
on Sophocles and, more generally, the ancient world. To be fair, a German
academic, Tycho von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, son of the most erudite
classical scholar of modern times, Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff,
and grandson of Theodor Mommsen, the renowned historian and jurist,
should also be given credit for turning the focus of scholarly criticism away
from fanciful psychologizing readings and far-fetched conjectural emendations, towards a more conscious understanding of Sophocles’ technical
proficiency.11
Both schools of thought, one focusing on elegant explications of the plays’
characters and subject matter (while retaining an awareness of textual difficulties), the other favouring a detailed analysis of dramatic structures
(readily falling back on dependable Aristotelian propositions), constitute a
remarkable outpouring of critical energy, knowledge, and intelligence. But
in the course of time the latter school would fall behind, as the initial enthusiasm for uncovering the hidden details of composition gradually faded.
This result appears to have been due, not so much to any inherent insufficiency in the theory per se, as to the slowly dawning realization that this kind
9
(1994a) 20.
Cf. Stray (2007). Jebb’s full editions of all seven plays of Sophocles have been recently
reissued under the guidance of P.E. Easterling, who furnishes each volume in this series with
a general introduction to the man and his work.
11 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1917). Cf. also Kamerbeek (1934); Lloyd-Jones (1972).
10
© 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978 90 04 18492 3
6
andreas markantonatos
of formalist abstraction disregards the vital principles binding together the
parts of the play in a continuous chain of cause and effect and, what is
worse, excludes contextual matters in favour of pedantic exaggeration. At
the same time, it certainly did not help that most of the interpreters who
followed in Tycho von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff’s footsteps failed to rise to
the challenge of developing and refining his theory. Karl Reinhardt apart,
not one of the critics working on the assumption that the delineation of
character is by no means the dominant feature of the plays suggested larger
conclusions about Sophocles’ dramatic technique; in fact, Tycho’s most
loyal acolytes showed no special penetration or insight in their view of the
plots, as they were blinded by the illustrious achievement of their famous
predecessor.12
If German formalist criticism was a spent force, critics in the following
decades pursued the explication of the layered context and content of tragic
texts, producing notable results. More specifically, in the mid-twentieth
century a host of brilliant scholars offered engaging discussions and interpretations of the Sophoclean corpus, helping readers unravel the complex
web of literary, social, political, and religious allusions often found in dramas, as well as considering the process by which Sophocles throws the
central characters of his plays into startling relief. Although it is extremely
difficult to choose the most eminent of these scholars, who not only cast
fresh light on important aspects of Sophocles’ poetry, but also provided a
reliable and highly accessible point of entry to the subject, one is tempted
to acknowledge the significant contribution of two exceptional individuals:
C.M. Bowra and B.M.W. Knox.13 As different as they were in temperament
and style, both made a profound impact on the modern study of Greek
tragedy by producing superb close readings of Sophocles’ masterworks.14
In disentangling Sophocles’ ideas from a variety of naïve viewpoints and
ahistorical methodologies, they brought out the intellectual subtlety and
the emotional power that characterize these ancient plays. More importantly, while keenly aware of the difficulties involved in discovering thematic patterns on the basis of meagre textual evidence, they attempted to
discover what the plays meant to Sophocles’ contemporaries by integrating
12 Reinhardt (1979) with an introduction to the English edition by Hugh Lloyd-Jones, who
justly argues that ‘Reinhardt’s book … accepted and developed what was best in Tycho’s work
and provided an ideal corrective to what was wanting’ (p. xx).
13 Bowra (1944); Knox (1957).
14 On Bowra, see recently Mitchell (2009); Knox offers a touching self-portrait in Knox
(1989) xi–xxxv.
© 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978 90 04 18492 3
sophocles and his critics
7
the insights and talents of the literary theorist and the cultural anthropologist with an unrivalled knowledge of classical scholarship.
One of the most fortunate results of this theory-explosion in the 1940s
and 1950s is that classicists who had sought to establish the continuity of
Greek literature not only had the pleasure, at long last, of recognizing the
fifth-century transformation of the epic hero in Sophocles’ commanding
characters; they also became conscious of tragedy’s constant and fruitful
tension between myth and reality, the legendary stories of Greek heroes
and the Athenian democratic polis. Although the ‘hero-worshipping’ theory of the forties and fifties (emphasizing the fierce antagonism between
the Sophoclean hero’s unbending will and the irrational wickedness of gods
and men) has been much reviled for its lack of sophistication,15 the basic idea
that ‘the miseries of life may call out greatness in him who resists them’16
allows us not only to appreciate the core values of Greek civilization but
also to grasp more clearly the central paradox stemming from the interlocking homologies of human and divine spheres, upper and lower worlds, life
and death—namely, that the hero fulfils himself in self-sacrifice. Through
their prolific writings Bowra and Knox, together with other capable scholars
such as T.B.L. Webster, H.D.F. Kitto, C. Whitman, F.J.H. Letters, S.M. Adams,
G.M. Kirkwood, and D.W. Lucas, raised the debate over the tragic agent’s will
to a new level, thereby refining Jebb’s insights into the Greek conception of
act and motive, while simultaneously giving special focus to the problems
and the passionate disputes of the Athenian democracy between considerations of personal honour and loyalty to the state.17
Despite treating religious determinism and free will as totally incompatible, these critics placed strong emphasis on the idea (so emblematic
of Sophocles’ work) that there is behind the individual action a universal situation which provides a wider perspective on the characters’ inner
contortions, never allowing their doubts to eliminate more affirmative and
joyous values. It is no wonder, then, that Oedipus’ indomitable will and
intransigence, as well as his reckless passion, have attracted modern interpreters who seek to show that the human interest of Sophocles’ plays is by
15 See the sobering comments by Scodel (2005) 235; cf. also Winnington-Ingram (1980)
8–10 and 13.
16 Bowra (1944) 354.
17 See (e.g.) Webster (1936/19692); Kitto (1939/19613); Whitman (1951); Letters (1953);
Adams (1957); Kirkwood (1958/19942); Lucas (19592) esp. 120–172. Cf. also Perrotta (1935);
Untersteiner (1935); Waldock (1951), whose explication of Sophoclean drama is seriously
marred by excessive pedantry and adherence to hazy literary principles; Maddalena (1959/
19632); Musurillo (1967).
© 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978 90 04 18492 3
8
andreas markantonatos
no means subordinated to terrible, stark insights into divine law, but rather
emphasized with such persistency as to give a different moral to the mythical stories, fixing our attention on the virtues of the protagonists, while at
the same time clarifying the complexities of ancient religious thinking.
Although the centrality of Oedipus as exemplar of the tragic hero in modern discussions of Attic drama has recently come under scrutiny, critics
have concurred in the view that the delineation of Oedipus’ courage and
moral stamina, especially in such masterpieces as Oedipus Tyrannus and
Oedipus at Colonus, gives significance to Sophocles’ own personal feelings
and speculations about the nature of the universe and the shifting currents
of human fortune. It is true that some scholars, not least Bowra and Knox,
have overstated the popular idea that in the dramatization of the Oedipus
story Sophocles has depicted the supreme crisis of human destiny; nonetheless, there are strong grounds for thinking that Oedipus is indeed the symbolic condensation of great principles, the beneficent operation of which
becomes increasingly manifest as humanity strives against an impersonal
and inscrutable determination which merely allows an element of ethical reflection to enter into events of far-reaching consequences, although
tardily and frustratingly.18 It is on the Sophoclean hero that wave after wave
of the action bursts, until hope gives way to despair, not for himself only,
but for his close family and friends; nevertheless, it is no less true that he is
eventually judged by the degree of choice and decision which he gives to his
struggle with a remote and violent past.
This is sufficiently proved by the spectacular heroization of Oedipus in
Oedipus at Colonus, which secures the grace of heroic spirit in adversity to
the Sophoclean drama, albeit slowly and with extreme effort. It is a play
within the play, an action rising from Oedipus’ first moment of clarity and
insight in the prologue where he states calmly and confidently that his
sufferings, his nobility, and the time that has long been his companion, have
taught him to be content with his fate (7–8, στέργειν γὰρ αἱ πάθαι µε χὠ
χρόνος ξυνὼν/µακρὸς διδάσκει καὶ τὸ γενναῖον τρίτον), until the culmination
is reached after a continuous oscillation between sorrow and joy, and the
majestic finale comes at long last.19 One is tempted to suggest that this
impressive statement is the final result of Sophocles’ long and profound
meditation on human destiny, encapsulating the very soul of his tragedy:
18 See the seminal discussion in Knox (1989) 45–60, where it is convincingly argued that
‘Oedipus did have one freedom: he was free to find out or not find out the truth’ (p. 60).
19 See recently Markantonatos (2002) 115–160 and (2007) 113–119.
© 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978 90 04 18492 3
sophocles and his critics
9
namely, that suffering is ennobled by the value of higher motives, while
time, our only lifelong companion, puts everything into illuminating perspective, provided of course our spirit is suffused with this almost untranslatable γενναῖον which appears to be the only barrier against the capricious
course of human affairs.20 Without wishing to overstretch the point, it is
not too bold to argue that twentieth-century critics, especially those writing about Attic drama after the horrors of the Second World War, have
treated Greek tragedy in general and Sophocles in particular as a powerful
consolatory mechanism, putting it to audiences that justice might be done
upon offenders, as the atrocity of their crimes deserved, while simultaneously expressing sympathy for guiltless victims, urging upon its spectators
the principle that who you are is not what you were made to suffer.
Much as the tortured figure of Oedipus is an important intellectual tool
with which to consider central issues in Sophocles and Greek tragedy, the
modern preoccupation with his superhuman qualities has misled several
critics into believing that the Sophoclean hero, engrossed as he is in a
never-ending conflict with divine law, finds himself in a timeless void,
striving in vain against the calm and predetermining foresight of shadowy
supreme powers. The following theoretical formulation is a symptom of this
widespread tendency to play down historical and political considerations
in deference to the uniqueness of one great central figure: ‘The Sophoclean
hero acts in a terrifying vacuum, a present which has no future to comfort
and no past to guide, an isolation in time and space which imposes on
the hero the full responsibility for his own action and its consequences’.21
Knox may be right to think that Oedipus serves as the archetypal hero who
finds his own way to the truth at a terrible price, making the most intimate
decisions free from external compulsion, but the enormous pressure for
‘hero-worshipping’ interpretations without sufficient reflection on context
has atrophied the creative impulse of many a modern scholar. That was until
the groundbreaking theories of French thinkers such as Jean-Pierre Vernant
and Pierre Vidal-Naquet took root in Europe and America in the 1970s
and 1980s.22 Tragedy was now seen as a glorifying projection of democratic
power and duty, and the engagement in dramatic festivals as a focal point
20
Cf. Mills (2012).
Knox (1964) 5.
22 On the Paris school of classical scholarship, see principally the brief but illuminating
sketch by Zeitlin (1991), which focuses on the shaping influence of Jean-Pierre Vernant on
the modern study of Greek literature and mythology.
21
© 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978 90 04 18492 3
10
andreas markantonatos
of civic experience for the Athenian audiences. Regarded from this wider
point of view, Oedipus, as well as inspiring audiences with sympathetic
terror in his craving for knowledge concerning his real identity, although
utterly blind as to the doom which hangs over him, also becomes a symbol
of the unresolved conflict between political thought and mythical tradition. In Sophocles the gradual emergence of his horrible actions works to
uncover the tensions and ambiguities within the obligations of social order,
skilfully wedding the Oedipus story with a dark historical vision which is
conveniently transposed to a Theban anti-Athens; in epic poetry, by contrast, neither the violation of blood bonds nor the patricidal slaughter are
sufficient reasons to remove him from power.23
The idea of Greek tragedy as an important medium of social inquiry and
thought, an analogy of the Athenian Assembly and law-court, has opened
new avenues of understanding as to how the plays might have functioned
in their contemporary setting. This approach, refined by such British and
American classicists as Froma Zeitlin, Charles Segal, and Simon Goldhill,
has brought valuable insights to the tragic texts, challenged the validity
of long-standing critical problems, and resolved many difficulties in their
interpretation.24 But the influence of these theories on Sophoclean studies should not be overstated, mainly because Aeschylus and Euripides have
enjoyed the lion’s share of scholarly attention in the last few decades.
Although in the latter part of the twentieth century an extensive body of
critical opinion grew up around the tragic plays, making the political environment of Attic drama much clearer, many experts clung tenaciously to
the misconception that Sophocles observes human life from a lofty empyrean—a public figure possessing and exercising a remarkable social charm
with no particular thought of wider political issues and concerns.
To their immense credit, William Blake Tyrrell and Larry J. Bennett have
attempted to disengage Sophocles from the offshoots and overgrowths of
this long-standing simplistic supposition; instead, they have resituated
Sophocles’ work within the historical context of audience reception by
showing the close constitutional resemblance of a highly complex play
such as the Antigone to the Athenian democratic city.25 Their wide-ranging
23
See Markantonatos (2007) 43–60.
See (e.g.) Zeitlin (1996); Segal (1981a), (1986) and (1995); Goldhill (1986). On the political
dimension of Greek tragedy, see recently Markantonatos/Zimmermann (2012) with extensive bibliography.
25 Bennett/Tyrrell (1990) and Tyrrell/Bennett (1998).
24
© 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978 90 04 18492 3
sophocles and his critics
11
historicizing analysis is, without doubt, one of the most important scholarly contributions to Sophoclean studies in recent years, grinding, chipping,
and sanding large parts of Antigone to remove the dross of misinterpretation. If we stand back from the intense emotions of the play—and Tyrrell
and Bennett do just that with remarkable sangfroid—it becomes apparent
that ‘in attempting to bury Polyneices, Antigone is reprising a wondrous
deed claimed for Athenians by their orators at public funerals since at least
the 460s’.26 This approach, which generally follows Zeitlin’s controversial,
although helpful, concept of legendary Thebes as the negative model of
fifth-century Athens, sees Attic drama as a model of theatre which predicates the material of the Greek mythical stories in a changed, politically
charged context and thus most importantly solicits the entry of the spectators into a relation with the stories.27
None of this would have been possible without the gradual infiltration
of innovative critical propositions into the traditional discipline of Classics in the last few decades; especially Old and New Historicism, together
with audience reception theories, have paved the way not only for a profound reassessment of tragedy’s political texture but also for an integrated
explication of drama’s role in the Athenian polis, with central premises
of democratic ideology forming the core of this interpretation, as well as
basic mythical patterns and systematic social relations neatly dissected for
unravelling further layers of meaning. This novel perspective is ineluctably
connected with modern critical endeavours to address the question of the
relationship between fiction and reality by bringing philosophical logic and
aesthetics, together with social anthropology, to bear on the interpretation
of literary works. More specifically, in the concluding section of his thoughtful monograph on what he flamboyantly, though appositely, called literary
anthropology, Wolfgang Iser, a world-renowned literary theorist and one of
the founders of the Constance School of reception aesthetics, placed strong
emphasis on the social function of performance as an important means of
human self-definition; as he succinctly put it, ‘staging is the indefatigable
attempt to confront ourselves with ourselves, which can be done only by
playing ourselves’.28 One cannot but concur with Iser’s opinion that theatre caters to our endless fascination with our own species by offering an
26
Tyrrell/Bennett (1998) 1.
Zeitlin (1990) esp. 144–150.
28 Iser (1993) 303; see also Iser (1989). On reader-response criticism, see (e.g.) Freund
(1987).
27
© 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978 90 04 18492 3
12
andreas markantonatos
artistic representation of emblematic slices of humanity. Or to put it another
way, as we hope will become apparent in some of the chapters contained in
this volume, we would be deluding ourselves if we thought that the staging
of imaginary stories is completely and utterly divorced from the ever flowing stream of real-life events. We should be in no doubt (and Iser again is
adamant about his stance on performance as, among other things, a refined
exploration of current issues and concerns through the re-enactment of alltoo-human situations) that the plays’ tensions and resolutions are relevant
in very tangible ways to contemporary ones and in this manner are capable
of directing the members of the audience to interpret the staged stories from
a conscious understanding of the close relation between fiction and history.
Although contextualizing the plays in terms of their reception by the original audience is an extremely complicated task, and for some sceptical critics
even a leap in the dark on account of insufficient evidence, the spectators
could hardly fail to appreciate the parallels between the fabricated tale and
the present moment.29
We would not be far off the mark if we argued that this could not be
otherwise because all fictitious worlds are constructed out of real-life components. Regardless of how much these components are warped, in the
course of the play, to serve the further purposes of the plotline, distorted
through contact with unreal circumstances, or simply turned on their heads
for the sake of suspense, at a deeper level theatrical performances have the
admirable ability to engage contemporary responses: more often than not
the spectators experience an instantaneous connection to the numerous
real-life elements of the drama. It is as if the fire of the theatre needs oxygen
from the air of the real world in order to burn. In this respect, every imaginary person and event owes its intelligibility to our very real world: fiction
presupposes the existence of history, life onstage always follows from contact with life on earth.
Along the lines of these modern theoretical formulations, which profess to relate the events onstage with the real lives of audience members,
and once more especially associated with so political a play as Sophocles’ Antigone, comes another important breakthrough in our assessment of
tragedy’s remarkable ability to reweave the seamless web of mythological
signification in accordance with the Athenian community’s special protocols and official ideologies, while at the same time highlighting the role of
29
See Markantonatos (2002) 19–25 with further bibliography.
© 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978 90 04 18492 3
sophocles and his critics
13
the theatre as a meeting point of rival voices and standpoints. Greek tragedy
in general and Sophoclean tragedy in particular explore, in their own register, central issues regarding ritualized events such as weddings and funerals,
as well as sacrificial rites and initiatory ceremonies, which were real-life
concerns for both the Athenian and non-Athenian audiences. In particular, Richard Seaford and Rush Rehm, following the seminal work of Froma
Zeitlin and Charles Segal, have discussed the ways in which Sophocles integrates wedding and funeral motifs in his plots, laying special emphasis on
corrupted rituals—that is, rituals which are distorted or warped by the
events of the plays.30 The perversion of ceremonials in Greek tragedy realizes
the modern conception of what Mikhail Bakhtin, the Russian philosopher,
literary critic, and semiotician, has famously called ‘the dialogic’, whereby
tragedy has the remarkable ability to internalize the presence of otherness
and become marked by shocking elements of inversion inherent in any
aspect of social, not least religious activity.31 By describing Antigone’s death
in terms of sacrifice Sophocles not only retraces a mythical story, offering
another and much less evident kind of origin, but also points out a failure of coherence in Creon’s harsh proclamation to forfeit Polyneices’ burial
rights, a refusal of the ordinary ritual to achieve the kinds of significance
that the Athenians expected from religious experience. It is characteristic
of Sophocles’ extraordinary energy in raising unsettling questions about the
Athenian polis’ venerable principles and axioms that it brings into relation
different actions, combines them through perceived similarities, and appropriates them to a common plot. Indeed, we have come a long way since the
days when critics chose to direct all their energy into reconstituting Sophocles’ text, while relegating questions of interpretation to the margins.
Although there is no need for us to track down all the recent propositions
with a direct bearing on the interpretation of Sophocles’ oeuvre, it would
certainly come as a surprise to readers well versed in literary theory if we fail
to mention four important critical positions which, although furnished with
complex and contentious theoretical concepts and tools, have encouraged
readers to be more adventurous in their reading of Greek literature. Not
unlike prevalent historicized readings, these equally accepted approaches
insist that all instances of tragic discourse have to be considered in a social
context, arguing that every word that is launched into social space, not least
30
31
See Seaford (1986), (1989) and (1994a); Rehm (1994). Cf. also Zeitlin (1965); Segal (1982).
On Bakhtin’s concept of ‘dialogism’, see (e.g.) Holquist (1990).
© 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978 90 04 18492 3
14
andreas markantonatos
into the politically charged space of fifth-century Athens, invites interconnections between the literature and the general culture of a period. Deconstruction, psychoanalytic criticism, feminist theory, and narratology have
all revitalized our engagement with tragic texts, as well as charting how
meaning is produced either by the actual denial of language’s referential
function, or by the transfiguration of neurotic fantasy into powerful motivation, or by the breaking down of conventional masculine stereotypes of
sexual difference, or even by the identification of particular narrative patterns which are superimposed on wider narrative patterns, thereby making
tragedies out of intricate webs of narratives.32 Last but not least, a new significant trend has begun to gain strength in the ever growing field of Sophoclean studies: the performance history of the plays. Inextricably linked to
the broader research trend of classical reception, the study of both the commercial and non-commercial productions of Sophocles’ dramas has refined
our understanding of the remarkable ways in which playtexts are capable
of forming chains and cross-currents of meaning with other historical contexts, often far removed in time and space from classical Greece.33
All in all, the lesson that one might take from this tour d’horizon of the
numerous theoretical debates of the past two millennia about Sophocles
is that, although interpretative theories and techniques are often tied to
particular plays or to particular periods, each and every critical position,
in its most accomplished form, provides important answers to the wider
questions surrounding Sophocles’ life and work. This introduction does not
claim to have discussed all the diverse inflections of a particularly long critical tradition; it merely aims to offer a map of the most challenging and
prominent trends, while at the same time painting in broad strokes how
a shift has occurred in scholarly emphasis on Sophocles’ dramas from a
purely philological approach to a multi-disciplinary, at times even totalizing, interpretative methodology.34 Besides, developments in critical theory
32 On modern (and postmodern) critical approaches to Greek literature, see de Jong/
Sullivan (1994); Heath (2003); Schmitz (2007). On the application to Greek tragedy of recent
theories of literary criticism, see Goldhill (1997b); Storey/Allan (2005) 230–240. It should
be noted that both Gregory (2005) and Bushnell (2005) are essential resources for anyone
interested in exploring the various methodologies of contemporary critical discourse on
Greek tragedy. Furthermore, for general introductions to tragedy with a strong theoretical
orientation, see recently Wallace (2007), Bushnell (2008), and Rabinowitz (2008).
33 See Hardwick (2003). Cf. also Hall/Macintosh (2005) passim; Markantonatos (2007)
231–255; Rodighiero (2007); Macintosh (2009).
34 The bibliography on Sophocles is growing ever larger. See recently Avezzù (2003);
Venuti (2003); Sommerstein (2003a); Beer (2004); Garvie (2005); Storey/Allan (2005) esp. 111–
© 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978 90 04 18492 3
sophocles and his critics
15
and practice have proliferated especially in the last decade or so, making it
impossible to keep up with everything. As regards this companion to Sophocles, however, the editor nurtures higher ambitions of completeness and
thoroughness. Written by an international team of distinguished scholars,
this volume covers all the major themes and issues concerning Sophocles
and his plays in an encompassing yet easily accessible way. Individual chapters introduce readers to the current state of research on particular aspects
of Sophocles’ drama, as well as affording them vivid insights into the field’s
complexities and into future possibilities for the work essential to the pursuit of Sophoclean studies. As no less than thirty-two academic experts offer
the most comprehensive and authoritative treatments of the subject and of
the key debates ever attempted, it is hoped that this volume will prove an
up-to-date guide to Sophocles’ life and work, as well as providing an essential starting point for those who want to pursue particular topics in more
depth.
131; Scodel (2005) and (2011) passim; de Jong/Rijksbaron (2006); Jouanna (2007); Cuny (2007);
Orsi (2007); Vickers (2008); Morwood (2008); Kitzinger (2008); Ahrensdorf (2009); Goldhill/Hall (2009); Hall (2010) esp. 299–327; Apfel (2011) esp. 208–348; Kyriakou (2011); Goldhill
(2012); Nooter (2012).
© 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978 90 04 18492 3