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