The Political Background of Aeschylean Tragedy

200 Pages·1966·3.159 MB·English

by  Anthony J. Podlecki

The Political Background of Aeachylean Tragedy

,. .
J.
ANTHONY PODLECKI
The Political Background
of
AeschyleanT ragedy
Ann Arbor
The University of Michigan Press
Copyright© by The University of Michigan 1966
All rights reserved
Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 66-11085
Published in the United States of America by
The University of Michigan Press and simultaneously
in Toronto, Canada, by Ambassador Books Limited
Manufactured in the United States of America by
The Haddon Craftsmen, Inc., Scranton, Pa.
TO MY PARENTS

Preface
The contemporary French theater provides many examples of
political drama, among which Anouilh's Antigone and Girau
doux's Tiger at the Gates are perhaps the best known in this
country. Dramatists writing in English have done less with
the genre, but Arthur Miller's The Crucible comes to mind as
a play with a political theme. These works have a contem
porary relevance and often a "message" whose meaning is
clear to us because we know the political context--occupied
France, Europe between the wars, or McCarthy's America
in which they were written.
It is otherwise with Greek drama. The subtleties of Greek
history are largely lost to us; only the most important names
and a few main trends survive. Because the contemporary
background is for the most part hidden, any relevance the
plays might have to that background generally eludes us. It
is only the more marked allusions in some of Euripides' plays
that have drawn the notice of scholars. Unless we are pre
pared to entertain the idea that less obvious reflections of the
contemporary scene are possible in Greek tragedy, we shall
not think of questioning the plays about their political back
ground.
The first step, then, is to recognize that dramas written
in a particular historical context may also reflect that context.
vii
viii BACKGROUND OF AESCHYLEAN TRAGEDY
The issues and personalities with which the dramatist is in
volved in his public life can impinge on his art in various
ways. Themes of political importance--matters, say, of legal
and civic justice--may be translated into dramatic terms.
Again, the dramatist may, by his choice of subject and by his
handling of it, show that he is vitally concerned with, indeed
even taking sides in, a current controversy. Or, more rarely,
he may place specific persons and historical events in a dra
matic setting.
When we have satisfied ourselves that these contempo
rary influences are possible, we must guard against the preju
dice that such works would be necessarily inferior as art.
Whatever may be said about the value of modem attempts
to write "committed" drama, on only very narrow aesthetic
canons about the purity of art can their success be predeter
mined. It would be fairer to examine them individually before
deciding whether they are good or bad. If a bad play is not
made better because of its message, neither is a good one
made worse. It might even be argued that our appreciation
of it is enhanced when we discover that the dramatist has not
sealed off his political interests in a separate compartment, but
has transformed and brought them to life on the stage. And
if any period in the history of the world was apt to provide
a setting conducive to such a transformation it was fifth
century Athens, where generals could be dramatic critics and
dramatists served as generals.
The last and greatest need is to ask the right questions.
What these are will necessarily differ with each play, but in
general they will be questions like the following: What is the
background of this play? What were the issues being dis
cussed when the playwright molded his idea and cast it into
final shape? Are these issues reflected-in a general or in
some specific way-in his work? ( It is easier to show what
a wrong question is: What historical persons do we see posing
as fictional characters in the drama?) Almost as important as
the kind of question is the tone in which we ask it. It must
be relaxed and unanxious: sometimes, although we can be
Preface
IX
fairly sure that there is a meaning deeper than meets the eye,
its exact nuance is irrecoverable. Often it refuses to expose
itself because of the very stridency and insistence of our de
mand for an answer.
In the study which follows I have examined the extant
plays of Aeschylus in a chronological order which is now,
for all practical purposes, secure. I have tried to ask the right
questions about them--often different questions of different
plays-and in what I hope is a suitably civil tone. I have kept
firmly before me the double truth that they are both works
of art and products of a historical context. If their artistic
qualities have often been taken for granted in what follows,
it is because these have received most critical attention else
where; if, to my historical questions, the plays remain largely
silent or the answers are thought unconvincing, I can only
hope that with additional discoveries and further refinement
of critical methods they can someday be coaxed into yielding
up their secrets.
There remains the pleasant duty of thanking those who have
made this study possible. Professors M. E. White of Trinity
College, Toronto, D. de Montmollin of Victoria College, and
the late W. P. Wallace of University College read most of the
chapters in their earliest and roughest form and made many
J.
helpful suggestions. Professor C. Herington, then of Uni
versity College, also read these chapters, and, in addition,
read and criticized a later draft of the chapter on the Pro
metheus and put at my disposal his deep knowledge of that
J.
play, as of the rest of the Aeschylean corpus. Professor D.
Conacher of Trinity College, who supervised my research,
deserves my deepest gratitude; his patient and kindly counsel
has improved every page of the manuscript.
The guiding force behind my work has been Mr. W. G.
Forrest of Wadham College, Oxford. He discussed the topic
with me in 1959, read Aeschylus with me in 196o-61, and
encouraged me in the early stages; many of my own theories
are merely the growth of ideas planted by him, verbally or
X BACJCCROUND OF AESCHYLEAN TRAGEDY
J.
in print. My thanks are also due Professor K. Dover of
St. Andrew's University, who read the typescript and sug
gested numerous improvements, and Professor E. R. Dodds,
whose seminar on the political background of Greek tragedy
at Oxford in Hilary term, 1g6o, exposed me to the wide litera
ture on the subject and to the exciting possibilities of further
research. Professor Dodds, in addition, read the typescript
and offered criticisms which were often salutary.
To all of these I am most grateful, as well as to my family
and friends for their tacit support. I reserve special thanks for
my wife, whose gentle encouragement was essential to the
work's completion, and for my parents, to whom, as a partial
and imperfect repayment of the large debt of pietas, this book
is respectfully dedicated.