Saturday, 28 December 2024

Ancient Greek Drama and the Evolution of Rhetoric

Origins of Rhetoric Homer

Homer's works, especially the Iliad and the Odyssey, hold an essential place in the study of rhetoric, even though they predate the formalisation of rhetorical theory by the ancient Greeks. The narratives and speeches within these epics demonstrate early examples of persuasive language, character-driven dialogue, and the power of storytelling—all of which became central concerns of rhetorical study.

Key Aspects of Rhetoric in Homer's Works:

  1. Speeches as Persuasive Tools:

    • Homer's characters frequently use speeches to persuade, motivate, or confront others. For example, in the Iliad, Achilles, Agamemnon, and Odysseus deliver emotionally charged and logically structured speeches, reflecting the use of ethos (credibility), pathos (emotion), and logos (reason), concepts later formalised by Aristotle.

  2. Ethos and Leadership:

    • Homer's heroes often establish their ethos through their words and deeds. Odysseus, in particular, is known for his cunning and rhetorical skill, demonstrating how eloquence can influence others and shape outcomes.

  3. Pathos in Emotional Appeals:

    • Many of Homer's characters appeal to emotions, such as grief, anger, or loyalty. For example, Priam’s plea to Achilles for Hector’s body in the Iliad is deeply emotional, illustrating the rhetorical power of pathos in achieving an outcome.

  4. Storytelling as a Rhetorical Act:

    • The Odyssey is rich in examples of storytelling used as persuasion. Odysseus narrates his adventures not only to entertain but also to build trust, evoke sympathy, and persuade others to assist him.

  5. Audience Awareness:

    • The epics showcase keen awareness of audience dynamics. Characters tailor their arguments depending on whether they address a king, a crowd, or an individual, reflecting early rhetorical principles of adapting to the audience.

  6. Memory and Oral Tradition:

    • Homer’s epics, rooted in oral tradition, emphasize memory and repetition—skills that are vital to classical rhetoric. The use of epithets, recurring phrases, and formulaic expressions aids the speaker in delivering and the audience in retaining the message.

Influence on Later Rhetoric:

Homer’s texts were foundational for later Greek education and rhetorical training. They were studied not only for their literary merit but also for their exemplification of effective communication and argumentation. Figures like Plato, Aristotle, and the sophists frequently referenced Homer to discuss rhetorical techniques and moral dilemmas.

In sum, while Homer himself was not a rhetorician in the formal sense, his works are imbued with rhetorical principles that have profoundly influenced the development of persuasive discourse in Western thought.

Hesiod Extract from Hesiod's Rhetorical Art by Jenny Strauss Clay in Chapter 29 of A Companion to Greek Rhetoric edited by Ian Worthington (pp.447-457) - Wiley Online Library "The handbooks tell us that rhetoric was discovered in Greece during the fifth or even fourth century and required both developed democratic and legal institutions and a literate culture to flourish, social conditions Hesiod, a near contemporary of Homer, from a small village in Boeotia could not have known. Moreover, we usually consider rhetoric to refer to speech making in prose, not Hesiod's traditional hexameter verse. Nevertheless, the Hesiodic poems share an important characteristic of oratory in its usual meaning: both are conceived as spoken performances in front of an audience. All early Greek poetry was performed orally before an audience rather than read, and the occasion of performance determined its character and genre. If we define rhetoric generally as the 'means by which a writer makes known his vision to the reader and persuades him of its validity', then the term would indeed apply to the Hesiodic poems, but it would also promiscuously embrace just about any form of literary expression. If, on the other hand, we define rhetoric as the formal study or codification of the means and rules of persuasive speech, then to speak of Hesiod's rhetoric might leave us open to the charge of gross anachronism. Yet if rhetoric means reflecting self-consciously and systematically about the power and efficacy of speech, then to speak of Hesiod's rhetoric might leave us open to the charge of gross anachronism. Yet if rhetoric means reflecting self-consciously and systematically about the power and efficacy of speech, Hesiod, I will argue, not only practised that art, but also thought about and formulated his views, not, to be sure, in a treatise, but nevertheless in a coherent manner. In fact, I would maintain ─with only a little tongue in cheek─ that Hesiod might well be considered the father of rhetoric." Ancient Greek Drama and Rhetoric The relationship between Ancient Greek Drama and Rhetoric is a complex one, with scholars offering various perspectives. Some argue that they were intertwined from the beginning, whilst others argue that they evolved independently but influenced each other over time. Although Greek Drama may not have originated from Rhetoric there was a concurrence in their joint timing in history.
One viewpoint suggests that early Greek drama, particularly tragedy, emerged from ritualistic performances and religious ceremonies, which often involved elements of persuasion and oratory. As these performances evolved, they incorporated more elaborate speeches and dialogues, potentially influenced by the emerging art of rhetoric. Conversely, some scholars argue that Rhetoric, as a formal discipline, developed independently in the context of the law courts and political assemblies, especially in Athens. They suggest that the use of persuasive techniques in drama came later, influenced by a growing sophistication in rhetorical practices.
The evolution of Rhetoric in the late 6th century BC may have significantly influenced the development of Greek tragic drama, intertwining philosophical, political, and artistic elements to shape its structure and themes. This period, particularly in Athens, saw the rise of democratic institutions, which fostered a culture of public debate and the need to persuade people in collective situations, and the exploration of human thought and emotion.

Regardless of their origins, both Greek Drama and Rhetoric clearly coexisted and clearly influenced each other during the Classical period. The dramatic works of playwrights like Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides show a masterful use of rhetorical devices, such as powerful speeches, emotional appeals, and logical arguments. These dramatic techniques, in turn, may have further popularised and a refinement in the art of Rhetoric.

The exact nature and extent of the relationship between Greek Drama and Rhetoric remain subjects of an ongoing debate between scholars. However, it is undeniable that they were both significant cultural forces in Ancient Greece, contributing to the development of literature, philosophy, and political thought.
The evolution of rhetoric in the late 6th century BC significantly influenced the development of Greek tragic drama, intertwining philosophical, political, and artistic elements to shape its structure and themes. This period, particularly in Athens, saw the rise of democratic institutions, which fostered a culture of public debate, persuasion, and the exploration of human thought and emotion.

Choral Commentary and Public Discourse

The Chorus in Greek tragedy served a rhetorical function, often mediating the action with reflective commentary that mirrored the collective voice of the community. This role was akin to the deliberative aspect of rhetoric, providing insights and judgements on the unfolding drama.

Impact of Sophists and Early Rhetoricians
The Sophists, who emerged in this period, were instrumental in formalising Rhetoric as an art of persuasion. Their emphasis on the relativity of truth and the power of language influenced tragedians to explore themes of ambiguity and conflicting perspectives. In Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex, for instance, the protagonist’s search for truth is complicated by the multiplicity of interpretations and the limits of human understanding.

The evolution of rhetoric enriched Greek tragic drama by introducing sophisticated techniques of argumentation, deepening character development, and embedding ethical and political inquiry within the narrative. Tragedy became a forum for public reflection, mirroring the intellectual and civic dynamics of its time and offering audiences a profound engagement with the complexities of human existence.

Key aspects of the influence of Rhetoric on Drama include:

Focus on Persuasion and Dialogue

Emergence of Logos (Reasoning):
The rise of rhetoric emphasised the power of logos, or reasoned speech, as a means of persuasion. This is reflected in Greek tragedies, where characters often engage in intense verbal debates, attempting to sway others or justify their actions. For example, in 'Sophocles’ Antigone, the conflicting arguments between Antigone and Creon highlight themes of individual morality versus state law.

Structure of Agon:
The rhetorical device of the agon, a structured debate between characters, became a hallmark of tragic drama. These debates demonstrated conflicting worldviews and ethical dilemmas, mirroring the intellectual rigour that was prized in Athenian democracy.

Exploration of Human Nature and Ethical Questions

Rhetoric encouraged the exploration of complex human motivations and the nature of moral choices. Tragic playwrights, influenced by rhetorical techniques, dramatised these complexities through characters torn between competing duties, desires, and social pressures. Euripides, in particular, delved deeply into the psychological dimensions of his characters, as seen in Medea and The Bacchae.

Integration of Civic and Political Themes

The rhetorical tradition was closely tied to the democratic processes of Athens, where citizens were expected to articulate their views in public assemblies and courts. Tragedies often reflected this civic engagement, using mythological narratives to comment on contemporary political and social issues. Aeschylus’ The Oresteia, for example, examines themes of justice and governance, culminating in the establishment of the court of the Areopagus.

References

(Chapter 6 Tragedy, Rhetoric, and Performance Culture by Christopher Pelling) Use of Rhetoric by the Ancient Greek Playwrights
=============== Aristotle on Rhetoric Rhetoric (Aristotle) - Wikipedia Enthymeme - Wikipedia

Enthymeme.

Aristotle's Rhetoric is one of the foundational texts of Western argumentation theory, and his treatment of both the Sophists and the enthymeme reveals a lot about what he thought rhetoric actually is — and why it deserves serious philosophical attention rather than dismissal.

Aristotle and the Sophists

Aristotle opens the Rhetoric by distancing his project from the Sophistic tradition, though the relationship is more complicated than simple rejection.

The core criticism: The Sophists (and rhetoricians in the tradition of Isocrates and others) had reduced rhetoric to a bag of tricks for winning cases — appeals to emotion, character attacks, verbal cleverness — divorced from any concern with truth. Aristotle complains that earlier writers on rhetoric had focused almost entirely on "non-essentials," particularly the arousal of prejudice, pity, and anger in the audience, treating these emotional manipulations as if they were the substance of the art rather than incidental to it. His famous line is that this is like a person who, before using a straightedge, warps it to make it usable — they distort the judge instead of proving their case.

The redefinition: Rather than rejecting rhetoric wholesale (as Plato seems to in the Gorgias), Aristotle tries to rescue it by giving it a proper philosophical foundation. He defines rhetoric as "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion" — a neutral, analytical capacity, akin to a counterpart of dialectic. This move is central: he's arguing that rhetoric, properly understood, is a legitimate discipline concerned with modes of proof (logical, ethical, emotional — logos, ethos, pathos), not merely a Sophistic knack for deception.

Why this matters against the Sophists: For Aristotle, the Sophists' error was treating rhetoric as fundamentally about winning through any means, including exploiting the weaknesses of the audience or the legal system. He argues instead that rhetoric is useful precisely because truth and justice are naturally stronger than their opposites — if verdicts go wrong, it's the fault of the speakers, not the art itself. He also insists that rhetoric can be abused to do harm, but that this is true of nearly every good thing (strength, wealth, generalship) except virtue itself — so the fault lies with the user, not the discipline. This is a direct rebuttal to critics (following Plato) who saw rhetoric as inherently sophistic and corrupting.

The Enthymeme

The enthymeme is arguably Aristotle's most original and important contribution in the Rhetoric, and he calls it "the body of proof" — the substance of rhetorical demonstration.

Definition and structure: An enthymeme is essentially a rhetorical syllogism. It follows the logical form of a syllogism but operates in the realm of probability and generally accepted premises (endoxa) rather than certain, scientific premises. Because rhetorical audiences are dealing with contingent matters — human affairs, ethics, politics — rather than necessary truths, the enthymeme draws conclusions that are probable, not demonstratively certain.

Compression: A key structural feature is that enthymemes are typically compressed syllogisms — one premise (often the major premise, if it's something the audience already believes) is left unstated because it's assumed to be shared common knowledge. For example: "Since he's a politician, he's probably not to be trusted" suppresses the premise "politicians are generally untrustworthy" because it's an assumption the audience already holds. This omission isn't a flaw — it's rhetorically effective, because the audience participates by mentally supplying the missing premise, which makes the argument feel more like their own conclusion than an imposed one.

Enthymemes vs. syllogisms: Aristotle distinguishes enthymemes from strict logical syllogisms in that they work from premises that are merely probable or generally accepted (endoxa) and from signs (semeia) rather than from premises that are necessarily true. He also identifies "fallacious enthymemes" — arguments that have the form of a proper enthymeme but rest on faulty or merely apparent probabilities, which connects back to his critique of the Sophists, since much sophistic argument relies on this kind of specious reasoning.

Sources of enthymemes — the topoi: Aristotle catalogs "topics" (topoi), which are general lines of argument or strategies from which enthymemes can be constructed — such as arguments from opposites, from degree (more/less), from cause and effect, from correlative relations, and so on. These function as a kind of toolkit for inventing persuasive arguments in any subject matter, which is part of why he thinks rhetoric is a genuine art (technē) — it has teachable, systematic content rather than being pure natural talent or trickery, as the Sophists' practice sometimes implied.

Connection to the anti-Sophist argument: The enthymeme is doing real philosophical work for Aristotle: by grounding rhetoric in a form of reasoning (however probabilistic), he's showing that persuasion can be rational and even quasi-scientific, rather than the manipulative, emotion-driven performance the Sophists were accused of peddling. This is his answer to Plato's charge that rhetoric is a mere "knack" (empeiria) rather than a proper art (technē) — because it has a logical backbone in the enthymeme, rhetoric qualifies as a discipline with real cognitive content.


Ethos, Pathos, and Logos in Relation to the Enthymeme

Aristotle identifies three modes of persuasion (pisteis), and the enthymeme is specifically the vehicle for logos, though it doesn't operate in isolation from the other two.

Logos (the argument itself): The enthymeme is the primary instrument of logical proof. Aristotle ranks it as the most important of the three modes because it appeals to the audience's reasoning rather than their emotions or their opinion of the speaker's character. He treats a well-constructed enthymeme as capable of persuading almost independently of who delivers it — a claim that reflects his more "scientific" ambitions for rhetoric.

Ethos (character): Interestingly, Aristotle says the speaker's perceived character — practical wisdom, virtue, and goodwill toward the audience — is often the most effective means of persuasion, sometimes more so than the argument itself. But this isn't disconnected from the enthymeme: a speaker can construct enthymemes that indirectly display good character (choices of examples, the values assumed in suppressed premises) so that ethos is partly generated through the reasoning process, not just through reputation or delivery.

Pathos (emotion): Aristotle devotes substantial space (in Book II) to a systematic analysis of emotions — anger, calm, love, fear, shame, pity, indignation, envy — because he thinks a speaker needs precise understanding of what causes these states, toward whom, and under what circumstances, in order to construct enthymemes that naturally evoke the appropriate emotional disposition in the audience as part of the argument, rather than as a manipulative add-on. This is his rehabilitation of pathos against the Sophistic version: emotional appeal, done properly, is knowledge-based — it depends on understanding human psychology accurately, not just pulling levers.

The enthymeme, then, is the connective tissue: a well-built enthymeme can simultaneously carry logical force, reflect well on the speaker's character, and be calibrated to the audience's emotional state — which is why Aristotle treats it as "the body" of rhetorical proof rather than just one tool among several.

The Topoi (Topics)

Aristotle's topoi are patterns or "places" (literally, "places" one goes to find arguments) from which enthymemes can be generated. He divides these into:

Common topics (koinoi topoi) — usable across all three genres of rhetoric (deliberative, forensic, epideictic):

From opposites: if the opposite of a predicate holds a certain relation, argue the predicate does too (e.g., "if temperance is beneficial, then excess is harmful")

From degree (more and less): if something isn't true of a stronger/more likely case, it isn't true of a weaker one, and vice versa

From correlative terms: if one relational term applies, examine whether its correlate does too (e.g., if it was just for X to act, was it just for Y to suffer it?)

From cause to effect and effect to cause

From consideration of time: what is consistent or inconsistent with earlier statements/actions

From definition: unpacking what something essentially is to draw conclusions

Special topics (idia): These are subject-specific — arguments proper to ethics, politics, or particular subject matters, rather than general logical strategies.

Fallacious/spurious topics: Aristotle also catalogs "apparent enthymemes" that mimic legitimate topics but rest on faulty reasoning — such as arguing from mere verbal similarity, treating a sign as necessarily conclusive when it's only probable, or confusing sequence with causation. This section functions as a direct rebuke to Sophistic technique, since he's essentially cataloging the tricks used by unscrupulous speakers so that both speakers and audiences can recognize when persuasion has slipped from legitimate probability-based reasoning into deceptive form.

The overall architecture is elegant: the topoi are the generative machinery, the enthymeme is the resulting product, and ethos/pathos/logos describe the different dimensions along which that product does its persuasive work. It's Aristotle's attempt to turn what the Sophists treated as an improvisational, opportunistic skill into a systematic art with teachable structure — logic applied to the contingent world of human affairs rather than to necessary truths.

Want me to look at how this framework gets applied in Book II's discussion of specific emotions, or how later rhetorical tradition (Cicero, Quintilian) responded to Aristotle's enthymeme concept? Origin of Rhetoric

Rhetoric may be defined as the art of persuasion, and it has historically existed in a state of tension with the pursuit of truth. For Aristotle, the principal currencies of rhetoric were probability and value judgments, while its primary instrument was argumentation.

Rhetoric subsequently became an established subject of pedagogical instruction. Its applications have been manifold: it contributed to the formation of modern English prose style (as exemplified by Shakespeare), it was mobilized to galvanize national resolve against external threats (as in the oratory of Winston Churchill), and it continues to serve the more modest function of enabling more effective interpersonal communication. For those seeking to understand the subtle mechanisms by which hearts and minds are won—and, by extension, how influence within the public sphere is acquired and exercised—the study of rhetoric offers considerable insight.

The origins of rhetoric may be traced to Ancient Greece, and specifically to the highly litigious civic life of the polis. Within this context, the preeminent form of leadership was that of the political orator, and the discipline governing this practice was designated rhetorikē technē. This art was first systematically advanced by Gorgias of Leontini, a Sicilian sophist renowned for his Encomium of Helen, a speech composed in defence of Helen of Troy against the charge of her having precipitated the Trojan War. In this work, Gorgias considers several possible explanations for Helen's departure with Paris, ultimately concluding that she acted under compulsion and was therefore undeserving of the opprobrium subsequently directed at her. Although the Encomium did not succeed in rehabilitating Helen's reputation, it has endured as a paradigmatic demonstration of rhetoric's persuasive power.

This illustrates how speech, when skillfully composed, may act upon the mind in a manner analogous to the action that a drug has upon the body.

The recognition of rhetoric's capacity to alter cognition and belief prompted Plato (c. 428–347 BC) — the student of Socrates and teacher of Aristotle — to mount a sustained polemic against the discipline. His dialogue Gorgias inaugurated this campaign. There Plato disputed the Sophists' claim that rhetoric constitutes a genuine art (techne), contending that it is not a form of knowledge at all, but rather a kind of facility or practical skill with language acquired through mere experience (empeiria), lacking any grounding in rational principle. This argument was directed specifically at Gorgias' historical position that effective statesmanship required no specialized knowledge beyond rhetorical competence. In a further, self-consciously rhetorical manoeuver, Plato likens rhetoric to cosmetics and cookery, characterising all three as forms of flattery (kolakeia) oriented toward the gratification of an uninformed audience rather than toward its genuine benefit. Only Philosophy — realised through the Socratic dialectic — is capable of offering sound counsel regarding the good of the Polis, and is therefore, on Plato's account, the only legitimate political art.
His dialogue (Gorgias) inaugurated the long-standing quarrel between philosophy has had with Rhetoric, in which the latter has ever since been compelled to bear the stigma of Sophistry (fallacious or misleading argumentation).
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, 10 August 2024

Core Mythemes in Classical Drama - Structuralism

Mythemes, as fundamental narrative units, are deeply embedded in the fabric of Classical drama. These archetypal patterns, often rooted in myth and folklore, provide the underlying structures for the complex plots and character arcs we encounter in the works of playwrights like Sophocles, Euripides, and Aeschylus.

Core Mythemes in Classical Drama

While the specific manifestations vary widely, certain mythemes recur with notable frequency:

The Hero's Journey or Epic: This is perhaps the most recognisable mytheme, present in countless stories across cultures. In Classical drama, it often involves a protagonist who undergoes a series of trials and adventures, facing both internal and external challenges. Oedipus Rex, for example, is a quintessential example of this mytheme.

Hubris and Nemesis: This mytheme explores the downfall of a character due to excessive pride. Figures like Creon in Antigone and Agamemnon in Agamemnon exemplify this tragic flaw leading to their ultimate destruction.

The Oracle and Fate: The concept of destiny, often revealed through prophecies or oracles, is a central element in many Classical dramas. Characters grapple with the inevitability of their fate, leading to complex moral and ethical dilemmas.

The Family Curse: This mytheme often involves a dynasty or family lineage plagued by misfortune or tragedy. The House of Atreus, as depicted in the Oresteia trilogy, is a prime example of a family cursed by violence and retribution.

The Outsider: Characters who are marginalised or excluded from society often play significant roles in Classical drama. Their perspectives challenge the status quo and expose societal flaws. Medea, for example, is an outsider who seeks revenge against a patriarchal society.
Mythemes and Dramatic Structure

Mythemes not only shape the plot but also contribute to the dramatic structure. They can create suspense, tension, and catharsis. The interplay between characters and their roles within the mythemes drives the action and emotional impact of the play.
The Evolution of Mythemes

It's important to note that mythemes are not static entities. They evolve and adapt over time, reflecting the changing values and concerns of different cultures and periods. In Classical drama, these mythemes were often intertwined with religious and philosophical beliefs, creating a rich and complex tapestry of meaning.

Mytheme Analysis of Some Plays 

Mythemes in Euripides' The Bacchae

Euripides' The Bacchae is a rich tapestry of mythological themes and archetypes. These themes, or "mythemes," provide a deeper understanding of the play's central conflicts and explore universal human experiences.

Here are some of the prominent mythemes found in The Bacchae:

1. The Power of the Divine

Dionysos as a Force of Nature: The god Dionysos is depicted as a powerful, uncontrollable force of nature. His ability to inspire madness, ecstasy, and violence highlights the overwhelming power of the divine and its potential to disrupt human order.

Human Hubris: The play explores the theme of human hubris, as King Pentheus defies the power of Dionysos and ultimately faces tragic consequences.

2. The Inevitability of Fate

The Oracle's Prophecy: The oracle's prophecy foreshadows the tragic events that will unfold, emphasizing the inevitability of fate and the limits of human agency.

The Cycle of Violence: The Bacchae suggests that violence and suffering are cyclical, repeating themselves throughout history.

3. The Conflict Between Civilisation and Nature

The City vs. the Wilderness: The play contrasts the ordered, civilised world of Thebes with the wild, untamed nature associated with Dionysos. This conflict reflects the tension between human control and the forces of nature.

The Loss of Control: Pentheus' attempt to control the Bacchic revelry ultimately leads to his downfall, suggesting that humans cannot fully control the natural world or their own passions.

4. The Power of Female Sexuality and Madness

The Maenads: The female followers of Dionysos, the Maenads, are depicted as frenzied, ecstatic figures who embody the power of female sexuality and madness. Their behaviour challenges traditional notions of femininity and social order.

The Threat to Patriarchy: The Maenads' power and their ability to inspire violence pose a threat to the patriarchal order established by Pentheus.

5. The Role of the Outsider

Dionysos as a Stranger: Dionysos is initially seen as an outsider to Theban society, a foreigner who brings with him a different way of life. His presence challenges the established social norms and values.

The Outsider's Perspective: The play offers a perspective on Theban society from the outside, allowing the audience to critically examine its values and assumptions.

Mythemes in Aeschylus' Seven Against Thebes

Aeschylus' "Seven Against Thebes" is a tragedy that explores several key themes:

1. Fate and Free Will: The play delves into the conflict between fate and individual choices. The characters are driven by their destinies, often leading to tragic outcomes. However, their actions and decisions also play a role in shaping their fates.

2. The Curse of Oedipus: The play is deeply rooted in the curse of Oedipus, which continues to plague his family and Thebes. This curse highlights the destructive power of family feuds and the consequences of past actions.

3. Civil War and Fratricide: The central conflict of the play is the civil war between the two brothers, Eteocles and Polyneices, who are fighting for control of Thebes. This theme explores the destructive nature of internal conflict and the tragic consequences of family disputes.

4. The Role of the Gods: The gods play a significant role in the play, both influencing the events and commenting on human actions. This theme raises questions about the nature of divine power and the relationship between gods and mortals.

5. The Nature of Leadership: The play examines the qualities of effective leadership and the dangers of hubris. The characters' actions and decisions reveal the complexities of leadership and the potential consequences of misguided ambition

References

Barthes, R., & Duisit, L. (1975). An Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narrative. New Literary History, 6(2), 237–272. https://doi.org/10.2307/468419 https://www.jstor.org/stable/468419

Prince, G. (1982). Narrative Analysis and Narratology. New Literary History, 13(2), 179–188. https://doi.org/10.2307/468908 https://www.jstor.org/stable/468908

Todorov, T., & Weinstein, A. (1969). Structural Analysis of Narrative. NOVEL: A Forum on Fiction, 3(1), 70–76. https://doi.org/10.2307/1345003 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1345003

Dundes, A. (1997). Binary Opposition in Myth: The Propp/Lévi-Strauss Debate in Retrospect. Western Folklore, 56(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/1500385  https://www.jstor.org/stable/1500385

THE EVOLUTION OF MYTHS on JSTOR

The Raw and the Cooked : Claude Levi-Strauss - Internet Archive

Structuralism | Definition, Characteristics, & Facts | Britannica



Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, 8 August 2024

Structuralism and Ancient Greek Drama

Structuralism is a theoretical approach that analyses cultural phenomena in terms of their relationship to a larger system. It offers a lens through which to examine the intricate web of meaning in Ancient Greek drama.  By focusing on the underlying structures and patterns rather than individual elements, structuralists can analyse and reveal the deep-seated cultural and symbolic codes that are embedded within these texts.

The father of Structuralism was Claude Levi-Strauss.  Levi-Strauss took ideas from Linguistics. Linguistics is the study of human language.  Levi-Strauss argued that human culture works like a language: human myths, rituals, and customs form a system of meaning. Thus this method of analysing Ancient Greek Drama is therefore very much related to study of the origin of Greek drama as a ritual [see Cambridge Anthropological School on Ritual Origin of Drama in this Blog].

Key Structuralist Concepts as applied to Ancient Greek Drama
 
Binary Oppositions: Structuralists often highlight the use of contrasting pairs (e.g., good vs. evil, order vs. chaos, male vs. female) as fundamental organising principles. In Greek tragedy, these oppositions are frequently explored through character foils, plot developments, and thematic conflicts.
 
Myth and Ritual: Structuralists argue that myths and rituals are interconnected and serve as foundational structures of a culture.

Ancient Greek Drama is deeply rooted in mythological narratives and often reenacts or explores the underlying patterns and tensions present in these myths.

Narrative Structure: By analysing the sequence of events, characters, and conflicts, structuralists can identify recurring patterns and archetypes in Greek Drama. Thus this approach helps to uncover the underlying logic and meaning of the narrative.
 
Language and Symbolism: Structuralists pay close attention to the language used in texts, examining the connotations and symbolic significance of words and images. In Greek drama, the playwrights used language and imagery very carefully and this enabled them to contribute to the overall meaning and power of their plays.

Key Structuralist Concepts As Applied to Greek Drama

Binary Oppositions: Structuralists often focus on the interplay of contrasting elements within a text. In Greek drama, this can be seen in the opposition of:

Order vs. chaos
Human vs. divine
Fate vs. free will
Reason vs. passion

Myth and Ritual: Structuralists argue that myths and rituals are fundamentally linked. Greek drama, deeply rooted in mythological narratives, can be seen as a form of ritualised performance, exploring collective anxieties and desires.

Narrative Structure: By analysing the plot structure of plays, structuralists can identify recurring patterns and archetypal characters. The three unities of time, place, and action, commonly observed in Greek drama, are also subjects of structuralist inquiry.

Language and Symbolism: Structuralists pay close attention to the language and symbolism employed in a text. In Greek drama, the use of metaphors, imagery, and character names can reveal deeper layers of meaning.

Examples of Structuralist Analysis in Greek Drama
 
Oedipus Rex:

This classic tragedy can be analysed through the lens of a system of binary opposites as well as an  exploration of the Oedipus myth and its ritualistic implications

The central opposition is between knowledge and ignorance. Oedipus' pursuit of the knowledge of his origin which ultimately leads to his downfall.

The play's structure is cyclical, mirroring the tragic fate of Oedipus.

Oedipus Rex is often interpreted as having a cyclical structure due to several key elements:Fate and Free Will: 

The play explores the tension between fate and free will, with Oedipus' actions seemingly determined by prophecy yet also driven by his own choices. This creates a sense of a repeating pattern, where actions and consequences intertwine cyclically.

Tragic Hero's Downfall: Oedipus' journey from a revered king to a self-blinded outcast mirrors the cyclical nature of human experience, rising and falling.

Thematic Repetition: The play often repeats motifs and themes, such as sight and blindness, knowledge and ignorance, which contribute to a cyclical sense of the narrative.

Circular Plot Structure: Some critics argue that the play's plot, beginning and ending with Thebes in crisis, creates a circular narrative structure, suggesting a perpetual cycle of suffering and redemption.

The character of Tiresias, the blind prophet, contrasts with Oedipus, the seeing but blind king.

Antigone:

The play explores the conflict between divine law and human law, as represented by Antigone and Creon, respectively.   

The Chorus in Antigone acts as a mediator, representing the voice of reason and the societal norms of Ancient Greece. The play's structure is based on a series of reversals and recognitions all of which lead to the tragic outcome of the play.

Medea:

Medea: Euripides' play can be examined in terms of gender roles, power dynamics, and the clash between human emotions and societal expectations.

The central opposition is between love and hate, passion and reason.

Medea's character can be seen as an archetype of the wronged woman.

The play's structure involves a gradual escalation of violence and revenge.

Mythemes in Classical Drama: A Complex Tapestry

Mythemes, as fundamental narrative units in Myth, are deeply embedded in the fabric of Classical drama. These archetypal patterns, often rooted in myth and folklore, provide the underlying structures for the complex plots and character arcs [the transformation or inner journey of a character over the course of a story/plot] like those which we encounter in the works of playwrights like Sophocles, Euripides, and Aeschylus.

Core Mythemes in Classical Drama

While the specific manifestations vary widely, certain mythemes recur with notable frequency:

The Hero's Journey: This is perhaps the most recognisable mytheme, present in countless stories across cultures. In Classical drama, it often involves a protagonist who undergoes a series of trials, facing both internal and external challenges. Oedipus Rex, for example, is a quintessential example of this mytheme.

Hubris and Nemesis: This mytheme explores the downfall of a character due to excessive pride. Figures like Creon in Antigone and Agamemnon in Agamemnon exemplify this tragic flaw leading to their ultimate destruction.

The Oracle and Fate: The concept of destiny, often revealed through prophecies or oracles, is a central element in many Classical dramas. Characters grapple with the inevitability of their fate, leading to complex moral and ethical dilemmas.

The Family Curse: This mytheme often involves a lineage plagued by misfortune or tragedy. The House of Atreus, as depicted in the Oresteia trilogy, is a prime example of a family cursed by violence and retribution.

The Outsider: Characters who are marginalised or excluded from society often play significant roles in Classical drama. Their perspectives challenge the status quo and expose societal flaws. Medea, for example, is an outsider who seeks revenge against a patriarchal society.
Mythemes and Dramatic Structure

Mythemes not only shape the plot but also contribute to the dramatic structure. They can create suspense, tension, and catharsis. The interplay between characters and their roles within the mythemes drives the action and emotional impact of the play.

The Evolution of Mythemes

It's important to note that mythemes are not static entities. They evolve and adapt over time, reflecting the changing values and concerns of different cultures and periods. In Classical drama, these mythemes were often intertwined with religious and philosophical beliefs, creating a rich and complex tapestry of meaning.

Levi-Strauss and the Oedipus Myth: A Structuralist Perspective

Claude Lévi-Strauss, a prominent figure in structural anthropology, famously applied his theories to the analysis of myths. One of his most well-known examples is the Oedipus myth. Key Points of Lévi-Strauss' Analysis:

  • Myth as Language: Lévi-Strauss viewed myth as a language, operating on a high level of abstraction.

  • Structural Analysis: Instead of focusing on the narrative or symbolic meaning of a myth, he broke it down into its constituent elements, which he called mythemes.

  • Binary Oppositions: Lévi-Strauss believed that myths often revolve around binary oppositions (e.g., culture vs. nature, life vs. death).

  • Mediation: The role of the myth is to mediate these oppositions, to create a logical relationship between them.

Application to the Oedipus Myth:

Lévi-Strauss analyzed the Oedipus myth by breaking it down into its basic components and identifying patterns. He found that the myth revolves around oppositions such as:

  • Overcoming vs. being overcome by fate

  • Incest vs. exogamy

  • Autochthony (originating from the earth) vs. generation

By examining the relationships between these oppositions, Lévi-Strauss argued that the Oedipus myth provides a logical resolution to fundamental human concerns about identity, kinship, and the origin of life.



Posted by at No comments:

Monday, 8 January 2024

Costing the Dramatic Festivals

Plutarch • On the theatre of the Athenians (from Plutarch's Moralia) University of Chicago

For, if we reckon up the cost of each tragedy, the Athenian people will be seen to have spent more on productions of Bacchae, Phoenissae, Oedipuses, and Antigones, and the woes of Medea and Electra, than they spent in fighting for their supremacy and for their liberty against the barbarians. For the generals often ordered their men to bring along uncooked rations when they led them forth to battle; and the commanders, I can swear, after providing barley-meal and a relish of onions and cheese for the rowers, would embark them on the triremes. But the men who paid for the choruses gave the choristers eels and tender lettuces, roast-beef and marrow, and pampered them for a long time while they were training their voices and living in luxury. The result for the defeated choregoi​ was to be held in contumely and ridicule; but to the victors belonged a tripod,​ which was, as Demetrius says, not a votive offering to commemorate their victory, but a last oblation of their wasted livelihood, an empty memorial of their vanished estates. Such are the returns paid by the poetic art and nothing more splendid ever comes from it.

Costs of the Theatre of Dionysos

Despite not being formally considered part of the sanctuary of the Temple of Dionysos, itself, it was still viewed as an extension of it due to its location by being adjacent to it and its connection with the worship of that god. The responsibility for its upkeep and infrastructure fell to the Polis, the Athenian citizen body; in consequence this was funded by Athens' public purse.

Ticket Prices: Charging for the Theatre in Ancient Athens

Athenians were charged a daily admission fee to attend their theatre at a rate of 2 obols per day per person. This was a radical concept for a religious festival. Financial concerns and the need to fund the events helped the theatre's eventual evolution into a form of mass entertainment. Eric Csapo's research highlights the importance of ticket sales in helping to manage the costs of putting on the festival.

Before permanent stones structures were used, wooden theatres were erected annually by private contractors called theatropolai. This meant that the audience had to be charged entrance fees to help recoup the costs of putting up these wooden theatres, and to make a profit.

Estimated daily attendance and fees for the Great Dionysia in 415 BC suggest earnings that year from ticket sales would have exceeded 1.5 talents. The need to finance the costs of the construction of these temporary theatres supports the theory that there was an early introduction of admission charges that the attendees of the dramatic performances had to pay.

In ancient Athens, the city's theatrical expenses also included having to maintain the stage-building and the furnishing of it with special equipment (all public property): crane(mechane), the ekkyklema and providing financial support to poorer citizens to be able to attend the festivals (theoric handouts). These expenses likely further reduced the city's net profit from the theatre's ticket sales.

The Theatre of Dionysos' Golden Age Under Lycurgus

The reign of Lycurgus, the Athenian statesman and its financial overseer from 338 to 326 BC, marked a pivotal chapter in the history of the Theatre of Dionysos. Prior to his tenure, the theatre was a modest affair, its audience being accommodated on temporary wooden benches nestled against the hillside of the Acropolis. Lycurgus, recognising the cultural significance of theatre, spearheaded a monumental transformation.

His vision yielded a theatre sculpted from stone, replacing the ephemeral with the enduring. Tiered seating carved into the slope significantly increased the capacity, allowing up to 25,000 Athenians to immerse themselves in the spectacle. This grander stage became a focal point for civic life, serving not only as a platform for entertainment but also as a space for fostering community and shared cultural experiences.

With the erection the stone theatre under Lycurgus the need for annual rebuilds and leasing from the private sector was eliminated. This created a more stable source of income for the city from the entrance fees charged for attending the dramatic festivals. Whilst the initial cost was high, it was quickly recouped. With the increased capacity of a stone theatre and the elimination of maintenance expenses, this new model generated significantly more revenue compared to the old wooden theatres, and potentially doubled the city's income from the festivals within a decade and in any case some income drew upon the generosity of private benefactors.

The new stone theatre, with at least twice the seating capacity of its predecessor, became a major source of revenue for the city. Whilst precise figures are unavailable, a rough estimate suggests annual takings of around 20,000 drachmas, based on assumptions about attendance and ticket prices. [A very rough ans approximate calculation might place annual takings in the region of nearly three and a half talents (or 20,000 drachmas, presuming two obols per day attendance for five days for around 12,000 spectators = 3 talents, 20 minims)] This translates to roughly 3.5 talents, a significant sum that highlights the theatre's economic impact. but from this must be deducted the cost of the Theoric handouts, given to the poorer citizens to attend the festivals: these were a major festival expense.

Athenians found much solace in their theatrical heritage (both financial and cultural) during the late classical and early Hellenistic periods.

Demosthenes mentions that the paraskenia was public property, suggesting that all stage equipment was owned by the polis. The archon in charge of the festival likely managed them, hiring carpenters, painters, and others for their upkeep and operation during the contests. Additionally an arkhitekton [master or chief builder] would probably have been employed by the polis and who would had some kind of budget to maintain the structure and the publicly owned parts of the stone theatre.

[Paraskēnion: (παρασκήνιον) – The Ancient Theatre Archive]

Funding of the Great Dionysian Hecatomb or Feast 

A significant part of the extraordinary costs for the Athenian City Dionysia was for the feast held in celebration after the competitions, on account of the massive number of people who were required to be fed (around 15,000). Athenians were renowned especially for their lavish public sacrifices. The fact of this is reflected in the records kept of the huge number of animal hides sold after the major festivals. The scale of this particular feast, alongside that of the Panathenaia, was unmatched elsewhere in Greece. A major part of the funding for this feast in all likelihood must have come from central polis funds, as the festival appeared in the dermatikon accounts (the records of the sale of the hides of the animals which had been slaughtered) unlike that for most other sacrifices which were funded from cult-owned resources. Funding for the great Dionysian Hecatomb perhaps involved alternative funding methods such as individual civic benefaction or a liturgy (hestiatores) which were also used for the other feasts held during the City Dionysian festival.


References

Comprehensive Analysis of the Costs of the Dramatic Festivals in Ancient Athens

Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener. 2 Bände, Böckh, August - Realschulbuchhandlung, Berlin 1817
https://archive.org/details/diestaatshaushal01boec/page/i/mode/1up?ref=ol&view=theater
https://archive.org/details/diestaatshaushal02boec/page/n4/mode/1up?ref=ol&view=theater

Französische Übersetzung von A. Laligant, Paris 1828

Economie politique des athéniens, ouvrage traduit de l'allemand de M. Auguste Boeckh, par A. Laligant. Tome premier - Internet Archive

Economie politique des athéniens, ouvrage traduit de l'allemand de M. Auguste Boeckh, par A. Laligant. Tome second - Internet Archive

Fontaine, Michael, and Adele C. Scafuro (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, Oxford Handbooks (2014; online edn, Oxford Academic, 16 Dec. 2013), https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199743544.001.0001, accessed 20 Aug. 2024.
Chapter 3: Dionysiac Festivals in Athens and the Financing of Comic Performances by Andronike Makres pp 70-94

Reproduction 
ISBN 9781012679149
Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener Dritter Band : Böckh, August - Internet Archive

Zweite Ausgabe.

Keywords for Search: Choregie, Chorege, Liturgie, Theater, Dionysische

Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener Erster Band: Boeckh August - Internet Archive

Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener Zweiter Band: Boeckh, August - Internet Archive

Englische Übersetzung von George Cornewall Lewis

The Public Economy of Athens ... Translated by George Cornewall Lewis ... Second edition,
by August Boeckh (Author), George Cornewall Lewis (Author)

Chapter List The public economy of Athens : to which is added, A dissertation on the silver mines of Laurion : Boeckh, August - Internet Archive

The Public Economy Of Athens Vol 1: Boeckh, Augustus - Internet Archive

The Public Economy Of Athens Vol.2: Boeckh, Augustus - Internet Archive

BOOK III. Chapter XXII. The Choregia, or furnishing of a Chorus pp.454-61 The Public Economy of Athens Boeckh, August - Internet Archive
Boeckh's German Original Band 1 Buch 22 pp. 600-609 Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener : Boeckh, August - Internet Archive


First published in 1818 The following is a reissue of the German 1886 edition
August Böckh; Max Fränkel: Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener.
by August Böckh and edited by Max Fränkel

ISBN 9780511710650
Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener, Erster Band I (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

ISBN 9780511710667
Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener Zweiter Band II: Boeckh, August - Internet Archive

RHODES, P. J. (2013). THE ORGANIZATION OF ATHENIAN PUBLIC FINANCE. Greece & Rome, 60(2), 203–231. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43297472


P. Wilson (2008), “Costing the Dionysia,” in M. Revermann and P. Wilson (eds.), Performance , Iconography , Reception : Studies in Honour of Oliver Taplin (Oxford) pp. 88–127

Pritchard, D. M. (2012). COSTING FESTIVALS AND WAR: SPENDING PRIORITIES OF THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY. Historia: Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte, 61(1), 18–65. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41342867

Liturgy (ancient Greece) - Wikipedia

Davies, J. K. (1967). Demosthenes on Liturgies: A Note. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 87, 33–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/627805 https://www.jstor.org/stable/627805

What was the law of Leptines’ really about? Reflections on Athenian public economy and legislation in the fourth century BCE | Constitutional Political Economy

Blamire, A. (2001). Athenian Finance, 454-404 B.C. Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 70(1), 99–126. https://doi.org/10.2307/2668488 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2668488

Csapo, Eric and Wilson, Peter. "The Finance and Organisation of the Athenian Theatre in the Time of Eubulus and Lycurgus". Greek Theatre in the Fourth Century BC, edited by Eric Csapo, Hans Rupprecht Goette, J. Richard Green and Peter Wilson, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2014, pp. 393-424. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110337556.393

The Greek tragic theatre : Baldry, H. C - Internet Archive

The Athenian Institution of the Khoregia by Peter Wilson - Google Books

The context of ancient drama : Csapo, Eric - Internet Archive
The context of ancient drama pp. 119-121 & 141 : Csapo, Eric - Internet Archive

Wilson, P. (2008). Performance, Iconography, Reception: Studies in Honour of Oliver Taplin. Oxford

RHODES, P. J. (2013). THE ORGANIZATION OF ATHENIAN PUBLIC FINANCE. Greece & Rome, 60(2), 203–231. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43297472

The Athenian Empire: Using Coins as Sources - Lisa Kallet, John H. Kroll - Google Books

KALLET, L. (2013). THE ORIGINS OF THE ATHENIAN ECONOMIC “ARCHE.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 133, 43–60. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43285479

The Greek theater and its drama by Flickinger, Roy C. (1918) pp. 259-
https://archive.org/details/greektheateritsd00flic/page/n7/mode/2up?view=theater

Athenian Naval Finance in the Classical Period

Ancient Athenian & Attic Festivals - Greek News Agenda

RHODES, P. J. (2013). THE ORGANIZATION OF ATHENIAN PUBLIC FINANCE. Greece & Rome, 60(2), 203–231. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43297472

Public Spending and Democracy in Classical Athens - Google Books

Fiscal Regimes and the Political Economy of Premodern States - Google Books
Chapter 16: Classical Athens by Josiah Ober

Ritual, Finance, Politics - Robin Osborne, Simon Hornblower - Oxford University Press

=========

Comparative Costs

Athenian Naval Finance in the Classical Period
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)