h1

On Misunderstanding a Greek writer

February 22, 2008

For my Greco-Roman class, I had to write a paper refuting a very famous paper by E.R. Dodds pressing home as his general thesis that external elements to a play, such as actions that might have preceded action of the play, are not allowable, and we necessarily cannot appeal to assumptions or possibilities that lay outside the text.

Here is part of my response:

Other tragic plays, no less in detail, than in the very form of tragedy itself, are dependent on bringing in outside conceptions to the play. Dodds’ analysis has neglected one very important fact: the plays were intended primarily to be acted out to an audience, not read as an academic exercise. Necessarily then, the blending of the dramatic with the rhetorical was intended to bring forth concomitant passions in the audience itself. The evocation of these emotions could only have born sympathy within the hearts of Athenians as they compared the actions on stage with their own experiences, beliefs and knowledge. All of these aspects are external and equally essential to the playwright’s work if he is to successfully elicit a genuine response from a careful observer. Take for example Euripides’ Medea when Jason explains to Medea the practical implications of his decision to divorce her and marry another, “…my intention was to make you safe and to father princes who would be kindred to my own sons and so provide security for my family.” (Alcestis and other Plays p.63) Was not the response sought for by Euripides from the audience something regarding the relevance of their own beliefs and knowledge in responding? Such as whether they thought Jason shrewd or a lecher, by comparing him to themselves in a similar situation, weighing in the balance such things as Medea’s own sacrifices and the impiety of Jason’s false oaths of loyalty? If we are to arbitrate between Jason or Medea, we are imprisoned by Dodds’ criterion to appeal only to the words they used, blanketed (we may suppose) by Euripides built-in dissimulation and pretense written into the character themselves.

Edit : Edit

2 comments

  1. I agree with you on this. I never really understand this kind of postmodernism – it’s not “all about the text”, as they say. The text had an author and an audience whose culture was very different from ours. It seems to me far more sensible to try to understand that other culture than to shut it out and concentrate purely on the text. (And as we know, the texts themselves aren’t that pure anyway.)

    Nice to see another Classics blogger around the place. :-)


  2. Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog. :) Cheers! Sandra. R.



Leave a Comment