Finally, it’s worth talking about one Greek language. It is very difficult to choose, on the one hand, but very simple on the other, because with the light hand of two people separated by a large time period, we know which Greek tragedy is the main one.
Aristotle's Poetics makes it clear that the best Greek tragedian of the three great tragedians is Sophocles, and the best Greek tragedy of all Greek tragedies is Oedipus Rex.
And this is one of the problems with the perception of Greek tragedy. The paradox is that Aristotle's opinion was apparently not shared by the Athenians of the 5th century BC, when Oedipus the King was produced. We know that Sophocles did not lose with this tragedy; the Athenian audience did not appreciate Oedipus the King the way Aristotle appreciated it.
Nevertheless, Aristotle, who says that Greek tragedy is a tragedy of two emotions, fear and compassion, writes about Oedipus the King that anyone who reads even a line from it will at the same time be afraid of what happened to the hero and have compassion for him.
Aristotle turned out to be right: almost all great thinkers paid attention to the question of the meaning of this tragedy, how we should perceive the main character, whether Oedipus is guilty or not guilty. About twenty years ago an article was published D. A. Hester. Oedipus and Jonah // Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society. Vol. 23. 1977. one American researcher, in which he scrupulously collected the opinions of everyone, starting with Hegel and Schelling, who said that Oedipus was guilty, who said that Oedipus was not guilty, who said that Oedipus, of course, was guilty, but involuntarily. As a result, he ended up with four main and three auxiliary groups of positions. And not so long ago, our compatriot, but in German, published a huge book called “The Search for Guilt” M. Lurje. Die Suche nach der Schuld. Sophokles' Oedipus Rex, Aristoteles' Poetik und das Tragödienverständnis der Neuzeit. Leipzig, 2004., which looks at how Oedipus Rex has been interpreted in the centuries since it was first staged.
The second person, of course, was Sigmund Freud, who, for obvious reasons, also devoted many pages to Oedipus the King (although not as many as it would seem he should have) and called this tragedy an exemplary example of psychoanalysis - with this only difference that the psychoanalyst and the patient coincide in it: Oedipus acts both as a doctor and as a patient, since he analyzes himself. Freud wrote that this tragedy is the beginning of everything - religion, art, morality, literature, history, that this is a tragedy for all times.
Nevertheless, this tragedy, like all other ancient Greek tragedies, was staged at a specific time and in a specific place. Eternal problems - art, morality, literature, history, religion and everything else - were correlated in it with specific times and specific events.
Oedipus the King was produced between 429 and 425 BC. This is a very important time in the life of Athens - the beginning of the Peloponnesian War, which will ultimately lead to the fall of the greatness of Athens and its defeat.
The tragedy opens, who comes to Oedipus, who rules in Thebes, and says that there is a pestilence in Thebes and the cause of this pestilence, according to the prophecy of Apollo, is the one who killed the former king of Thebes, Laius. In tragedy, it takes place in Thebes, but every tragedy is about Athens, since it is staged in Athens and for Athens. At that moment, a terrible plague had just passed through Athens, which wiped out many people, including absolutely outstanding ones - and this, of course, is an allusion to it. Also during this plague, Pericles, the political leader with whom the greatness and prosperity of Athens is associated, died.
One of the problems that preoccupies interpreters of the tragedy is whether Oedipus is associated with Pericles, if so, how, and what is Sophocles’ attitude to Oedipus, and therefore to Pericles. It seems that Oedipus is a terrible criminal, but at the same time he is the savior of the city both before and at the end of the tragedy. Volumes have also been written on this topic.
In Greek, the tragedy is literally called "Oedipus the Tyrant." The Greek word (), from which the Russian word “tyrant” comes, is deceptive: it cannot be translated as “tyrant” (it is never translated, as can be seen from all Russian - and not only Russian - versions of the tragedy), because initially it the word did not have the negative connotations that it has in modern Russian. But, apparently, in Athens of the 5th century it had these connotations - because Athens in the 5th century was proud of its, that there is no power of one, that all citizens equally decide who is the best tragedian and what is best for the state. In Athenian myth, the expulsion of tyrants from Athens, which occurred at the end of the 6th century BC, is one of the most important ideologies. And therefore the name “Oedipus the Tyrant” is rather negative.
Indeed, Oedipus in the tragedy behaves like a tyrant: he reproaches his brother-in-law Creon for a conspiracy that does not exist, and calls the soothsayer Tiresias bribed, who speaks of the terrible fate awaiting Oedipus.
By the way, when Oedipus and his wife and, as it later turns out, mother Jocasta talk about the imaginary nature of prophecies and their political engagement, this is also connected with the realities of Athens in the 5th century, where there was an element of political technology. Each political leader almost had his own soothsayers, who interpreted or even composed prophecies specifically for his tasks. So even such seemingly timeless problems as the relationship of people with gods through prophecies have a very specific political meaning.
One way or another, all this indicates that a tyrant is bad. On the other hand, we know from other sources, such as the history of Thucydides, that in the mid-5th century the allies called Athens a “tyranny” - meaning a powerful state that was governed in part by democratic processes and united around itself allies. That is, behind the concept of “tyranny” is the idea of power and organization.
It turns out that Oedipus is a symbol of the danger that powerful power brings and which lies in any political system. Thus, this is a political tragedy.
On the other hand, Oedipus the King is, of course, a tragedy the most important topics. And the main one among them is the theme of knowledge and ignorance.
Oedipus is a sage who at one time saved Thebes from the terrible one (because the sphinx is a woman) by solving its riddle. It is as a sage that a chorus of Theban citizens, elders and youth, comes to him with a request to save the city. And like the sage, Oedipus declares the need to solve the mystery of the murder of the former king and solves it throughout the entire tragedy.
But at the same time he is also blind, not knowing the most important thing: who he is, who his father and mother are. In his quest to find out the truth, he ignores everything that others warn him about. Thus it turns out that he is a sage who is not wise.
The opposition of knowledge and ignorance is at the same time the opposition of vision and blindness. The blind prophet Tiresias, who at the beginning speaks with the seeing Oedipus, keeps telling him: “You are blind.” Oedipus at this moment sees, but does not know - unlike Tiresias, who knows, but does not see.
It is remarkable, by the way, that in Greek vision and knowledge are the same word. In Greek, to know and see is οἶδα (). This is the same root that, from the Greek point of view, is contained in the name of Oedipus, and this is played out many times.
In the end, having learned that it was he who killed his father and married his mother, Oedipus blinds himself - and thereby, having finally become a true sage, loses his sight. Before this, he says that the blind man, that is, Tiresias, was too sighted.
The tragedy is built on an extremely subtle play (including verbal play surrounding the name of Oedipus himself) of these two themes - knowledge and vision. Inside the tragedy they form a kind of counterpoint, constantly changing places. Thanks to this, Oedipus the King, being a tragedy of knowledge, becomes a tragedy for all times.
The meaning of the tragedy also turns out to be dual. On the one hand, Oedipus is the most unfortunate person, and the choir sings about this. He found himself plunged from complete happiness into misery. He will be expelled from his own city. He lost his own wife and mother, who committed suicide. His children are the product of incest. Everything is terrible.
On the other hand, paradoxically, Oedipus triumphs at the end of the tragedy. He wanted to know who his father was and who his mother was, and he found out. He wanted to find out who killed Lai, and he found out. He wanted to save the city from plague, from pestilence - and he did. The city was saved, Oedipus gained the most important thing for him - knowledge, albeit at the cost of incredible suffering, at the cost of losing his own vision.
By the way, Sophocles made changes to the well-known plot: Oedipus had not blinded himself before, and within Sophocles’ drama blindness is a natural ending, an expression of both defeat and victory.
This duality is the literary and political meaning of the tragedy, since it demonstrates the two-sidedness of power, the connection between power and knowledge. This is the key to the integrity and amazing structure of this tragedy at all levels, from plot to verbal. This is also the guarantee of its greatness, which has been preserved over the centuries.
Why did the Athenian public not appreciate Oedipus the King? Perhaps it was precisely the intellectualism of the tragedy, the very complex packaging of various themes within it that turned out to be too complex for the Athenian public of the 5th century. And it was precisely for this intellectualism that Aristotle probably valued Oedipus the King primarily.
One way or another, “Oedipus the King” embodied the main meaning and main message of the Greek tragedy. This is, first of all, intellectual experience, which is correlated with experience of a very different nature, from religious and literary to political. And the more closely these different meanings interact with each other, the more successful and important its meaning and the stronger its effect.
Greek tragedy developed several centuries later than the finished Greek epic. At this time, the slave-owning polis system achieved significant development, and at the same time, that personality, which only in polis times emerged more or less independently, also developed. True, it is impossible to say that the death of mythology and epic has already begun here. The slave-owning polis was still powerless to part with mythology, both in its pure form and in its epic modification. What this gave for philosophy, we will say further in its place. But what resulted from this for the tragedy, we can already say now.
With all the enormous mythological and epic traditions, the polis individual nevertheless gradually strengthened and ceased to lose his famous epic calm. In what follows we will make use of very valuable observations about the representation of time in Greek tragedy in the work of Jacqueline Romilly.
Epic elements in Greek tragedy. First, let us give some examples of a clear epic tradition in tragedy, which still do little to illustrate its cultural and social novelty.
First of all, in Greek tragedy, time is also inseparable from events. For Sophocles Philoctetes, who suffered from loneliness and illness on his island, time, unfilled with events, moved slowly, and he literally says: “This is how time after time passed for me.” This passage can hardly be translated from the Greek literally, because “time”, chronos, in this context means “event time”, “filled time”, or simply “a piece of life”, a time inseparable from life. In "The Petitioners" of Aeschylus
Winged ships
They fly, and time also flies, flies
(Art. 734 - 735, lane S. Apta)
In other words, it turns out that “there is no duration in the middle of time,” i.e. time moves as quickly as the action. Time must be filled with action, if not filled with it. In Aeschylus's "Persians", time drags on along with the expectation of news from the army ("Persians" 64). Time ages along with the world (Prometheus 980). Historical “time” can be more or less “dignified,” “honorable,” “glorious” (Eumenides 853).
According to Romilly, “this semi-personification helps us understand how complete personification occurs: the unstable rhythm of events, the hopes and fears in our hearts, all of this is transferred to a living but indefinite being who causes events or who inspires certain feelings. And this being is animated by the life of that of which it is the cause."
Time was felt in Greek tragedy, according to Romilly, “as something internal, participating in our intimate life.” And yet, compared with the modern sense of time, although “the forces of time have indeed approached man and merged with his inner life, they have not penetrated into him and have not become a true part of his inner life. Time lives side by side with us; it maintains its own existence , which invades our existence and takes our place - as if the subject and personality had not yet acquired full rights" [ibid.].
We would say here, complementing Romilly, that time in Greek tragedy, being identified with our life process, is identified with any other actually occurring objective process, and then, of course, receives an existence independent of us. Time “invades” our lives when our life itself becomes something external to us. This is exactly how we interpret the following passages cited by Romilly.
In Agamemnon, Aeschylus Clytemnestra saw more experiences in her dreams “than the time that slept together” (toy xyneydontos chronoy, 893). In Euripides’ “The Petitioners,” the chorus lives not “for a long time,” but “with a long time” (polloy chronoy meta). In Aeschylus in Agamemnon, the power of speech is bestowed upon the elders by a “grown age” (symphytos aiAn, 106). “Time has grown old” since the army went to Ilion (985 - 986). However, as Romilly notes, all these expressions do not contain anything particularly mysterious and are quite possible not only in the epic, but also in ours. modern literature[ibid., p. 48].
New features. However, one has only to raise the question whether in Greek tragedy it was still possible, at least in some form, to separate time from the events that take place in it, as we already become witnesses to the emergence of much more intense moments when depicting the passage of time in tragedy.
The time of Greek tragedy, in the order of abstraction, can indeed be thought of separately from events. In this case, those new features arise that almost reach the personification of time, not to mention its independent existence in an abstract form. So, time seems to stand above events. Time, which sees and hears everything, will ultimately reveal everything (Sophocles, Fr. 280 Nauck - Snell), time “reveals” everything (Fr. 832). “Time is a witness,” says Romilly, “and time is the highest power; when these two properties are combined, it becomes a judge, and the most terrible of judges” [ibid., p. 55]. Time has caught up and is judging Oedipus.
Now the all-seeing time has caught up with you
And condemned a marriage that should not be called marriage
("Oedipus the King", art. 1213, trans. S. Shervinsky)
All-seeing time has a “sharp gaze”; it always sees.
However, if we think of time separately from events in this way, we will also have to attribute to it various functions of influencing events, coloring them. Time “gives birth to thousands of disasters,” time “erases,” wears out, mixes, soothes.
Fulfill all your wishes
Doesn't think. The day comes, and its burden
("Hercules", art. 506 - 507, trans. I. Annensky)
In any case, this is not our mechanical or mathematical time, which would flow completely independently of events. Time here, in any case, becomes some kind of personified being, which can hardly be understood only metaphorically. Let us not impose any necessarily mythological functions on this time in Greek tragedy. But in any case, this is not just a metaphor. Metaphor in this case would produce some kind of artistic reassurance and would allow us to move away from tragedy in its integral essence. This is a kind of underdeveloped myth, just as the polis individual is also far from being the entire human individual in general, but only one of his, albeit essential, details. But neither the tragic individual of the Greek classical period nor the concept of time in that era can in any way be reduced to mere poetic metaphor.
Let's look in a little more detail at what materials can be found on the issue that interests us from each of the three great tragedians.
Aeschylus. The fact that time and events are inseparable from each other is also clear from Aeschylus, for whom the mythological sequence of the results of the curse is also a temporal sequence, although interrupted by deviations to the side. J. Romilly recalls that the gradual rise of Athens in the era of Aeschylus should have taught the latter to believe in the meaningful passage of time. Even the proud statement of Aeschylus that he “dedicates his work to time” has been preserved.
The fact that time is inseparable from the things and events that fill it, and that time itself is understood by Aeschylus as a closed and meaningful whole, we must conclude from his use of the words pan or panta (all). The concept of “all”, “whole” is used by Aeschylus in a religious meaning and corresponds to “faith in an all-encompassing deity”. This deity for Aeschylus is Zeus, omnipotent, all-producing, all-perfect and all-seeing. “Truth” - Dike is thought of as inseparable from Zeus. In fact, Zeus and Dike have the same attributes in Aeschylus. Zeus “shines everything,” “enlightens everything.”
Zeus's will, it is always
Elusive, incomprehensible,
But even in the darkness of the night
Black fate before the eyes of mortals
She burns like a bright light!
("Petitioners", art. 89 - 90, trans. S. Apta)
The truth shines.
Truth shines in homes too,
Where the walls smoke black smoke
("Agamemnon", art. 773 - 774, trans. S. Apta)
According to V. Kifner, Aeschylus conceives of Dike as a mediator between the gods, Zeus and people [ibid., p. 136].
How long does the omnipotence of Zeus and the dominance of his “truth” among people extend? Aeschylus has the expression "all the time", embracing the "age" of the gods hapant" ap?mAn ton di" aiAnos chronon. Athena says in the Eumenides that she will establish a court (thesmon th?sA) for “all time” (eis hapant... chronon), that is, apparently, for all the time that can be in history Orestes also swears allegiance to Athens “for all time.” In Aeschylus, “everything” (pan) related to time or simply “everything” (pan) can mean eternity in the expression es to pan (forever), or in the expression dia pantos. According to V. Kiefner, what is meant here is “duration, which is limited not only by the future, but embraces all times together (die ganze Zeitlichkeit), past, present and future” [ibid., p. 79].
The main feature of human time for Aeschylus is that it brings with it the fulfillment of the divine will. Time is necessary for belief in the inevitability of divine judgment to be possible, because only time can explain why justice is not carried out immediately after a crime. How vividly Aeschylus felt the need for later punishment is shown only by the word hysteropoinos (later punished), which indicates punishment postponed indefinitely.
A crime is usually not isolated, but gives rise to new crimes that form a connected chain.
Ancient wine will give birth
Human new guilt.
One day the time comes
And a terrible sin, an invincible demon,
Coming from the mother's womb
("Agamemnon", art. 763 et seq.)
In the end, what happens is that the distant descendants of the criminal are punished. Aeschylus therefore requires a multi-generational view of history. In Prometheus, the action of fate extends even across 13 generations. Darius in The Persians was always sure that the punishment would be accomplished, although perhaps not soon.
To describe the inevitability of future punishment, Aeschylus often uses the expression “goal” (telos). Thus, he says that crime “gives birth” to a new crime (“Choephors”, 865), that it sows seeds that will grow in a harvest of grief.
Ears of wine are the fruits of arrogance,
Blooming magnificently. The harvest is so bitter
("Persians", art. 821, trans. S. Apta)
Thus, says Romilly, “time, by allowing justice to be done, becomes a kind of positive and creative force: it brings in due order the punishment caused by ancient misdeeds. And it truly gives meaning - their only meaning - to the various disasters that make up human history" .
The concept of “goal” (telos) in Aeschylus, in addition to various everyday, technical and phraseological uses, expresses, according to W. Fischer, faith in fate, and in the highest sense - in divine power and perfection.
Events in Aeschylus have a natural “outcome”, telos. Such an “outcome” is, for example, the defeat of the Persian army (“Persians”). Orestes prays for the “fulfillment”, “fulfillment of the dream” (“Choephori”). Prometheus speaks of a “fulfillment” in which both his prediction and his desire will be fulfilled.
The “goal” also refers to the fulfillment of a curse that takes place after several generations. This “accomplishment” is associated with the final liberation of a person from the fate that weighs on him (“Choephora”). Above the “goal” of fate, the oracle, the Erinyes or the Eumenides in Aeschylus rises the “divine goal” realized by Zeus. The fulfillment of the “goal” is attributed to all the gods (“Seven Against Thebes”) or to Zeus (“The Petitioners”), but never to any of the other gods individually. In "Agamemnon" (973) Zeus the finisher, Zeus the beginning, Zeus the middle are called upon, from Zeus "everything is accomplished" (panta teleitai). In this capacity of “accomplisher”, according to W. Fischer, all moments of the power of Zeus are combined - “all-ruler”, “omnipotent”, “all-empowering”. Power and right are combined in Zeus the Accomplisher, and thus he becomes, according to Fischer, an “Omni-God,” which can no longer be imagined in images. Zeus “rises to spiritual heights, into which Plato will later settle his ideas” [ibid., p. 136].
So, according to Fischer, time for Aeschylus is nothing more than Zeus fulfilling his will, i.e. time here, too, is in no way separated from the events taking place. However, in one more respect, time is deprived of its own specific substance in Aeschylus.
It is time in Aeschylus that gives a person moral lesson. From Aeschylus, a person “learns in grief,” he learns to respect power and obey. People can become wiser over time. Even the gods become more tolerant over time; the entire Oresteia is built on this idea. Time accomplishes the religious purification of Orestes. “It turns out, therefore,” says Romilly, “that the whole teaching is unusually strong and systematic and that it is central to the thought of Aeschylus.” In the very construction of Aeschylus' dramas, the idea of the interconnection of events is expressed by the characteristic detail that many of them are interrupted by huge digressions into the past and predictions about the future. Of the 1673 lines of "Agamemnon", according to Romilly's calculations, only about 300 are directly related to the action taking place, the rest are descriptions of the past, memories, predictions. These digressions are not a simple ornament, but a consistent implementation of the main idea of Aeschylus’s teaching about time, that past crimes determine modern and future troubles [ibid., p. 82].
Although this teaching of Aeschylus is dominated by pure mythology, it can still be compared, as Romilly does, with the philosophy of history of Thucydides [ibid., p. 82 - 84]. The only difference between them is that Aeschylus views everything on a divine plane, while Thucydides sees the same chain of historical causality in the actions of people. There is even a formal similarity between them in that just as Aeschylus interrupts his dramas with historical digressions, so Thucydides in the 1st book of his History makes a long digression about the Peloponnesian War and even briefly reviews early history Greece.
Here we would like to linger a little to explain the presented materials showing the understanding of time in tragedy, in particular in Aeschylus. In Romiya, not everything is clear here and much requires special interpretation.
Firstly, it is clear that in tragedy there is, among other things, a complete lack of distinction between time and the things that fill it. But we must also formulate more clearly than in Romilly those points in which time in tragedy differs both from the things that fill it and from the eternity expressed with its help, in particular, the world of the gods and fate. The individual who entered the historical arena with the emergence of the slave-owning polis, although he did not have complete freedom of individual thinking (we will not find this freedom in any of the socio-economic formations known to us), nevertheless he turned out to be strong enough to distinguish the originality of the time flow from mythological time. If he switched to the position of theoretical thinking, as we already find in pre-Socratic philosophy, then this thinking, no matter how naive, still turned out to be sufficient for the interpretation of the special sphere of time, and precisely in contrast to mythological and epic time. Therefore, when in Aeschylus we find the idea of time as a certain independent element, this is fully consistent with the position of theoretical thinking that arose along with the slave-holding polis. Let us emphasize that Aeschylus already has enough materials about the independent role of time in existence and, consequently, about its organic vitality and direction.
However, secondly, could a polis person maintain such an understanding of the independent role of time? It turns out that the polis individual could not hold on to this position for a fairly long period of its existence. It turns out that the polis individual, having recognized the slave-holding polis as the absolute authority instead of the former clan community, thereby still far from abandoning mythological ways of thinking and had, contrary to his own basic philosophical orientation, one way or another to use mythology in those cases when the question was posed about the absolute foundations of the existence of the polis. In surprising images, it turns out that the absolutization of the slave-owning polis also required its own mythology; and the polis individual was powerless to reject this kind of mythology. True, this mythology could no longer appear in its primitive and untouched form. She performed here already in a reflective, full of reflections, internal concentration, form.
But even as a matter of reflection, it was necessary, one way or another, to move from this independent role of time to its connections with the absolute mythology of ancient times. Pallas Athena, for example, was no longer recognized in her simple and naive, original folk form. But when Aeschylus wanted to exalt his Athenian polis with its new, previously unprecedented state, civil and democratic tendencies, he still had to put at the head of Athens none other than Pallas Athena; and Aeschylus should have attributed the establishment of the Areopagus as the most just court to Pallas Athena, whom he even made its first chairman. And we will not be so frivolous as to reduce the concept of Aeschylus's Eumenides to just one poetic and completely arbitrary metaphor. Here the real Pallas Athena was thought of, and not a metaphor based on her. But this Aeschylus Pallas Athena was already the result of reflection on the past and centuries-old Pallas Athena, and a reflection of a classically polis ideological nature.
As we see, the slave-owning polis individual, who managed, by way of reflection, to separate the time flow both from the eternal immobility of all things, and from the things themselves in their chaotic fluidity and scatteredness, was powerless to part with the former mythology, although, we repeat again and again, this mythology was polis-reflected.
Thirdly, the enormous progress in the understanding of time and history, which marked the era of Greek tragedy, already led to both the complete need to understand time in its independent fluidity with all the chaos of things that were in this time, but also to the need to go back to mythological explanations . Here we should highlight the fact that if time acquired one or another independent role, then it thereby acquired the independent organicity required for the development of things in time, i.e. the ability to explain things through themselves, without necessarily going back to a mythological explanation.
That is why the historiography of Thucydides became possible on the basis of such a relatively independent role of time. This historian for the first time began to explain things from themselves, without necessarily resorting to mythology. But we must, from the point of view of modern science, say that with all his factual and pragmatic explanations, Thucydides is still not averse to references to fate and chance. And this is understandable, because classically polis Greek historicism was still powerless to break with mythology completely, and if it broke with it, then this happened conditionally and only due to the specific interests of this or that historiographer, and not due to a fundamentally anti-mythological understanding of time and history.
It is also interesting to note that this convention of separating time with its historical flow from mythology and the mythological richness of the epic could take very intense forms in classical Greece and try to interpret the human individual in his complete independence and independence from mythological presets. True, here too the polis individual eventually returned to mythology when he was looking for one or another explanation of what was happening. From this, the tragedy only became more intense, and the sense of personality, along with its history, became very acute and tragic. Nevertheless, mythology again won, and ancient thought, at least in the classical period, could not do without it. It is for outlining this progress of the individual, together with the fatal need for him to return to mythology, that the tragedies of Sophocles are very indicative, which we will begin to explain.
In Sophocles, with very strong mythologization, a more abstract idea of time progresses as the passage of events and as an eternal alternation of suffering and joy. The events in his tragedies are not viewed as an interconnected chain. Although Sophocles nowhere contradicts the idea of lawfulness and the omnipotence of punishing gods, Sophocles’ attention is shifted to something else, namely to how a person acts in the flow of time. Therefore, Sophocles views fate in a different aspect, namely as bringing with it changes, vicissitudes, and misfortunes. Time may short term destroy the greatest wealth (frg. 588).
Any mortal can in one hour
Fall and rise again
("Ajax", art. 131 - 132, trans. S. Shervinsky)
As I.K. says Opstelten, Sophocles "is more concerned with the heroes' reaction to their suffering than with the cause of it."
Time appears to Sophocles' heroes either as a raging storm or as the measured movement of the heavenly bodies.
Like countless waves
Under Boreas or Noth
They'll run across the open sea,
They will fly in and leave again, -
So is the son of Cadmus
It will either sink or carry out
The bottomless sea of life -
Difficult swell
("Trakhinyanki", art. 114 - 118, trans. S. Shervinsky)
Today is grief, tomorrow is happiness -
Like the celestial bear
Circular eternal course
(ibid., art. 131 et seq.)
Romilly believes that these two contradictory images of time can be easily reconciled. Namely, time in itself may be lawful, but for a person it signifies only disordered change. Only the gods are not subject to the vicissitudes of time,
Only gods
They know neither old age nor death
("Oedipus at Colonus", art. 608 - 609, trans. S. Shervinsky)
This point of view greatly distinguishes Sophocles from Aeschylus. Instead of the pattern of fate, inconstancy is put forward as a way of human existence in time. Human life such that time “confuses” everything in it or “extinguishes”, “destroys”. Romilly finds it possible to compare such a philosophy of time with Heraclitean philosophy. In her opinion, “Sophocles’ point of view stands in the same relation to the philosophy of Heraclitus as the point of view of Aeschylus - to the old belief of pious times.”
Sophocles' heroes often call upon one to submit to the erasing effects of time, learn wisdom from it and pacify oneself. This is what Ajax says, for example:
Immeasurable, above numbers (anarithmCtos) time
Hides reality and reveals secrets.
You can wait for everything... Time crushes
And terrible oaths of power, and strength of spirit.
That's how I am, amazingly resilient,
Suddenly softened
("Ajax", art. 646 - 651)
The chorus in "Electra" says:
Do not forget about your enemies, but moderate your hatred, remember:
Time smoothes everything, playful god
("Electra", art. 176 - 179, trans. S. Shervinsky)
But, as Romilly notes, if Sophocles’ heroes had followed such advice, no tragedy would have resulted. In fact, these heroes act in the opposite way and, with their unbending will, resist the smoothing and depersonalizing effect of time. There is an unchanging rule for the actions of the heroes, which they firmly follow. Sophocles' people choose not the fluidity of life as the norm, but the eternal law. Antigone, justifying her action, explains why she neglected Creon's command.
It was not Zeus who announced it to me, not Truth,
living about the underground gods
and prescribed laws for people.
I didn’t know that your order was omnipotent,
And what dare a person violate
The law of the gods, not written, but strong
("Antigone", art. 450 - 455, trans. S. Shervinsky)
No matter what happens, Sophocles' true heroes refuse to change. Even Ajax, who seemed to have resigned himself and abandoned his decision, actually retains unbending resilience. Heroes retain their "I", their true nature, against all odds. The real misfortune for them is not what time brings with it, but abandonment of their moral path.
Yes, everything is disgusting if you change yourself
And you do it against your soul
("Philoctetes", art. 902 - 903, trans. S. Shervinsky)
No, even in a miserable life
A pure heart will not want to stain
Your good name
("Electra", art. 1182 - 1184)
Thanks to willpower, a person emerges from the historical order of things and lives forever.
It's sweet for me to die having fulfilled my duty...
After all, I will have to
Serve the dead longer than the living.
I'll stay there forever
("Antigone", art. 72, 74 - 76)
“This choice,” writes Romilly, “which always amounts to a denial of the influence of time and which often means death or the danger of death, in fact gives the action of Sophocles’s plays tragic character and rules the internal structure of dramas... The action is always centered around one hero, whom events and personalities try to convince or break; and this hero or heroine endures all threats and dangers, even death, if death is involved - all this in increasing loneliness, which can lead to despair, but never to humility."
Here is a huge difference between Sophocles and Aeschylus, Romilly continues. “For Aeschylus, the tragic quality of action came from the fact that people were aware that the eyes were blindly obeying the inevitable divine plan leading to the triumph of justice. For Sophocles, the source of tragedy was that they consciously and boldly refused to adapt to changing life circumstances” [ibid. ].
Further, in Sophocles, the very time that, in the specific circumstances of the action, is hostile to the hero and destroys him, ultimately turns out to be true, it brings the truth to light. This, one might say, is the common Greek idea of time. Time reveals everything in Thales. Solon hopes for time to “show” that he is sane. In Theognis, time “reveals” the true nature of lies. Finally, for Pindar, time is generally the only means of discovering truth. This idea is also found in minor places in Aeschylus. But in Sophocles it acquires paramount importance. It is no coincidence that his most famous tragedy, “Oedipus the King,” is a tragedy of discovery, when “all-seeing time” finally “discovered” (ephCyre) Oedipus. “Whether time is accepted in order to build on such foundations a humanism acceptable to all, or it is rejected in furious self-affirmation, or it is attracted as a witness to human virtues - time for Sophocles only provides the background against which man’s own action and personality appears in his doomed greatness" [ibid., p. 110].
In general, according to Romilly, Sophocles, unlike Aeschylus, introduces us to the moral problems of time. And he can no longer find that broad view beyond generations, which is inseparable from Aeschylus’s idea of time. "The duration of time became more subjective" in Sophocles. In fact, about Ajax, for example, it is said that he lingers “too long” in inaction and that only gradually and over time (syn chronAi) “reason returned to him”; and yet we are talking only about a few hours.
Thus, time in Sophocles begins to approach uniform fluidity, in contrast to the pure mythologism of Aeschylus, but this uniform fluidity is still endowed with enormous moral authority and therefore has very little in common with modern European time.
In Euripides, time almost completely loses its mythological meaning when mythology receives not so much factual as mythological comparison of phenomena with a very noticeable psychologization and subjective understanding of time processes.
Aeschylus's belief in the inevitability and regularity of divine punishment is also expressed by Euripides. In the tragedy "Antiope" (fr. 223, Nauck - Snell), which has not reached us, it is argued that justice may come late (chronios), but as soon as it finds a criminal person, it unexpectedly attacks him. However, such judgments are found in Euripides only as banalities. One can also find in Euripides the Sophoclean idea about the lessons of time, but it is put into the mouths of low characters or expresses a vague and confused lesson (chronoy didagma poicilAtaton). Little remains in Euripides and the faith expressed in Sophocles in the unbending dignity of people in the face of history. In Sophocles, a short time is enough for a radical change in life; For Euripides, “one day” is enough. " Human time"(aiAn) can bring anything with him.
How much does Moira have in her hands?
Yarn, and how much with it
Son of Time Vek (aiAn)
The threads are winding...
("Heraclides", art. 898 - 900, trans. I. Annensky)
This "age" is extremely unstable (aiAn polyplan?tos)
In the changing lives of sad
Not a single moment is true
("Orestes", art. 980 - 981, trans. I. Annensky)
“Chance” runs rampant in life, and it can, like a feather, “in one day” take away human happiness. In Euripides one can come across the idea that vicissitudes pursue the evil, but steadfastness is blissful. But it turns out that the gods do not distinguish between people “in wise providence”:
There is no sign of God on people;
The wheel turns us: it will tilt us,
It will lift you up the mountain, and only
The rich stay at the top
("Hercules", art. 656 - 672)
“If the transition from Aeschylus to Sophocles,” writes Romilly, “could be explained by the fact that time was first considered from the point of view of the gods, then in its effect on man and as part of a dialogue in which man had no answer, then we can accept , that the same evolution continues in Euripides... Time is now considered only from the point of view of human sensitivity. Therefore, it is now impossible to mention its impermanence without adding that it is a tiresome and oppressive disorder. Time is judged by the standard of our suffering. emotions" [ibid., p. 122].
Euripides often emphasizes the tension of expectation, the contrasts between the past and the present, and the joy at the arrival of the long-awaited moment. His dramas contain many surprises and twists and turns; time is experienced emotionally and psychologically.
For Euripides, salvation from the vicissitudes of time is time itself, which reconciles contradictions and ultimately brings deliverance. "The years will heal the wound." "The sorrow that is now in bloom will be softened by the years." The art of living is to allow time to heal the wounds of the present through its actions.
Euripides knows another way of salvation from time: in eternal memory. Macaria in "Heraclides", knowing that a joyless existence awaits her, goes to a glorious death. Iphigenia dies “gloriously.” Unlike Sophocles' heroes, who die in struggle, Euripides' men are often "saved" by death. And time, which has no mercy on anyone, turns out to be fair only here, preserving the glorious memory of the heroes.
Even the remains
Time cherishes the good:
They are also on the coffin
Valor shines like a torch
("Andromache", art. 775 - 778, trans. I. Annensky)
A similar trust in the memory of the heroes of time can be found in other Greek authors (Thucydides, especially Pindar).
“Homer knew,” Romilly writes, summing up his comparison, “only fragmentary and disorderly time, where, according to G. Frenkel, “day” was the main concept. Then the idea of continuous time arose, including a whole sequence of events. This idea culminated in tragic time of Aeschylus. In the changing shifts of Sophocles, time, as we have seen, dissolves into an indefinite stream, after which in Euripides the “day” again becomes everything we know about time. However, there is a difference. This new “day” has now become tragic. precisely because it feels like an isolated fragment of a broken “chronos”; it is not that a person does not think about “chronos” as a whole, but this “chronos” ultimately turns out to be irrational and eludes human calculations. The same reason explains. why the new “chronos” is now loaded with psychological pathos. For we are left alone with our emotions, which leads to both a feeling of tragedy and an increase in new interests” [ibid., p. 141].
Thus, time, which has acquired an independent role in the eyes of the polis individual, can either be conditionally considered in its actual independent existence, or it leads us to a deeper understanding of the eternal dictates of fate standing above time, or, finally, under the conditions of progressive subjectivism, it can be decomposed into separate sensations time, which are assessed either as a creative or as a forced beginning, but no longer leads to the restoration of mythological time. It is clear that Euripides’ sense of time testifies to the disintegration of both the classical slave-owning polis and the individuals composing it. In the latter case, mythological time, of course, loses its absoluteness, but Greek classical historicism gains nothing from this in the sense of its natural and organic fluidity.
The individual rejected mythology; but the whole tragedy of such a supposedly free individual lies in the fact that, along with mythology, he also lost consciousness of any organic fluidity of time. Therefore, the individual of a classically slave-owning polis never reached the point of constructing historicism in its complete and independent form, in its organic and at least immanently natural fluidity. But this already reflects the original limitations of both the slave-holding polis of classical times and the individuals included in it.
It is the basis of Greek tragedy, which at first retained all the features of the myth of Dionysus. The latter was gradually replaced by other myths about gods and heroes - powerful people, rulers - as the ancient Greek grew culturally and his social consciousness.
From mimic praises telling about the sufferings of Dionysus, they gradually moved on to showing them in action. Thespis (a contemporary of Pisistratus), Phrynichus, and Kheril are considered the first playwrights. They introduced an actor (the second and third were then introduced by Aeschylus and Sophocles). The authors played the main roles (Aeschylus was a major actor, Sophocles also acted as an actor), wrote the music for the tragedies themselves, and directed the dances.
These views expressed the protective tendencies of the ruling class - the aristocracy, whose ideology was determined by the consciousness of the need for unquestioning submission to this public order. The tragedies of Sophocles reflect the era of the victorious war between the Greeks and the Persians, which opened up great opportunities for commercial capital.
In this regard, the authority of the aristocracy in the country fluctuates, and this accordingly affects the works of Sophocles. At the center of his tragedies is the conflict between tribal tradition and state authority. Sophocles believed reconciliation was possible social contradictions- a compromise between the trade elite and the aristocracy.
And finally, Euripides - a supporter of the victory of the trading stratum over the landowning aristocracy - already denies religion. His "Bellerophon" depicts a fighter who rebelled against the gods because they patronized treacherous rulers from the aristocracy. “They (the gods) are not there (in heaven),” he says, “unless people want to madly believe old fairy tales.” In the works of the atheistically inclined Euripides, the characters in the drama are exclusively people. If he introduces the gods, it is only in those cases when it is necessary to resolve some complex intrigue. His dramatic action is motivated by the real properties of the human psyche. The majestic, but spiritually simplified heroes of Aeschylus and Sophocles are replaced in the works of the younger tragedian by, if more prosaic, then complicated characters. Sophocles spoke of Euripides this way: “I portrayed people as they should be; Euripides depicts them as they really are.”
In Hellenistic times, tragedy follows the tradition of Euripides. Traditions ancient Greek tragedy picked up by the playwrights of Ancient Rome.
Works in the tradition of ancient Greek tragedy were created in Greece before late Roman and Byzantine times (unsurvived tragedies of Apollinaris of Laodicea, Byzantine compilative tragedy “The Suffering Christ”).
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
See what “Ancient Greek tragedy” is in other dictionaries:
Tragedy (ancient Greek τρᾰγῳδία from τράγεος, “goat” and ᾠδή, “song”): Tragedy is a genre in drama, cinema and literature. Ancient Greek tragedy. Human tragedy. “Tragedy” of paintings... Wikipedia
This article should be Wikified. Please format it according to the rules for formatting articles... Wikipedia
AND; and. [Greek tragōidia] 1. Dramatic work, which is based on an irreconcilable conflict in life, an acute clash of characters and passions, most often ending in the death of the hero. Shakespeare's tragedies. Ancient Greek v. Classical ... Encyclopedic Dictionary
Greek culture slave owner society during the period of its formation, prosperity and decline; its development went through the following periods: 1) Creto-Mycenaean (3rd 2nd millennium BC); 2) Homeric (11–9 centuries BC); 3) archaic (8th-6th centuries BC); 4) classic... ... Soviet historical encyclopedia
Ancient Greek tragedy- dramat. a genre that developed in Athens in the last third of the 6th to 5th centuries. According to Aristotle ("Poetics", Chapter 4), etc. arose from the founders of dithyrambs, which formed part of the cult action in honor of the god Dionysus, and the original. her condition can be...
- ... Wikipedia
tragedy- And; and. (Greek tragōidia) see also. tragic 1) A dramatic work based on an irreconcilable conflict in life, an acute clash of characters and passions, most often ending in the death of the hero. Shakespeare's tragedies... ... Dictionary of many expressions
Ancient Greek literature- lit. people who inhabited in the 1st millennium BC. e. Balkan Peninsula, islands of the Aegean Sea, west. coast of M. Asia (Ionia), and then Sicily, southwest. and south coast of Italy, North Africa and Bl. East. The written period of L. d., which begins with poems ... ... Ancient world. Dictionary-reference book.
Ancient Greek drama. It developed from a ritual performance (drama is a Greek word and means action) in honor of the god Dionysus. It was usually accompanied by round dances, dances and songs (dithyrambs). The content of these songs was a legend about the adventures of... Wikipedia
This article or section needs revision. Please improve the article in accordance with the rules for writing articles... Wikipedia
100 RUR bonus for first order
Select job type Thesis Coursework Abstract Master's thesis Practice report Article Report Review Test work Monograph Problem solving Business plan Answers to questions Creative work Essay Drawing Essays Translation Presentations Typing Other Increasing the uniqueness of the text Candidate's thesis Laboratory work Online help
Find out the price
The oldest of known forms tragedy. Comes from ritual actions in honor of Dionysus. Participants in these actions wore masks with goat beards and horns, depicting Dionysus' companions - satyrs. Ritual performances took place during the Great and Lesser Dionysias (festivities in honor of Dionysus). Songs in honor of Dionysus were called dithyrambs in Greece. The dithyramb, as Aristotle points out, is the basis of Greek tragedy, which at first retained all the features of the myth of Dionysus. The latter was gradually replaced by other myths about gods and heroes - powerful people, rulers - as the ancient Greek grew culturally and his social consciousness. From mimetic praises telling about the sufferings of Dionysus, they gradually moved on to showing them in action. The three greatest tragedians of Greece - Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides - consistently reflected in their tragedies the psycho-ideology of the landowning aristocracy and merchant capital at various stages of their development. The main motive of Aeschylus' tragedy is the idea of the omnipotence of fate and the doom of the fight against it. The tragedies of Sophocles reflect the era of the victorious war between the Greeks and the Persians, which opened up great opportunities for trading capital. Euripides motivates the dramatic action with the real properties of the human psyche. The tragedy begins with a (declamatory) prologue, followed by the exit of the choir with a song (parod), then episodies (episodes), which are interrupted by the songs of the choir (stasims), the last part is the final stasim (usually solved in the genre of commos) and departure actors and choir - exod. Choral songs divided the tragedy into parts that modern drama are called acts. The number of parts varied even among the same author.
The chorus (at the time of Aeschylus 12 people, later 15) did not leave its place throughout the entire performance, as it constantly intervened in the action: it assisted the author in clarifying the meaning of the tragedy, revealed the emotional experiences of his heroes, and assessed their actions from the point of view of the prevailing morality. The presence of a choir, as well as the lack of scenery in the theater, made it impossible to transfer the action from one place to another. We must also add that the Greek theater did not have the ability to depict the change of day and night - the state of technology did not allow the use of lighting effects.
This is where the three unities of Greek tragedy come from: place, action and time (the action could only take place from sunrise to sunset), which were supposed to strengthen the illusion of the reality of the action. The unity of time and place significantly limited the development of dramatic elements at the expense of epic ones, which is characteristic of the evolution of the genus. A number of events necessary in the drama, the depiction of which would violate unity, could only be reported to the viewer. The so-called “messengers” told about what was happening off stage.
Euripides introduces intrigue into the tragedy, which he, however, resolves artificially. The role of the choir is gradually reduced to merely providing musical accompaniment to the performance.
Greek tragedy was greatly influenced by Homeric epic. Tragedians borrowed a lot of tales from him. The characters often used expressions borrowed from the Iliad. For dialogues and songs of the choir, playwrights (they are also melurgists, since the poems and music were written by the same person - the author of the tragedy) used iambic trimeter as a form close to living speech (for the differences in dialects in certain parts of the tragedy, see the ancient Greek language ).In Hellenistic times, tragedy follows the traditions of Euripides. The traditions of ancient Greek tragedy were picked up by the playwrights of Ancient Rome. Works in the traditions of ancient Greek tragedy were created in Greece until late Roman and Byzantine times (the unsurvived tragedies of Apollinaris of Laodicea, the Byzantine compilative tragedy “The Suffering Christ”).
(Prologue), skit, alternation of choral and dialogic scenes (episodies). At the end of the speech part, the actors leave the orchestra, and the choir, left alone, performs the stasim. Stasim the choir sings, remaining in the orchestra, but accompanying the singing with certain dance moves. Songs are divided into stanzas and antistrophes, which, as a rule, exactly correspond to each other in poetic size. Sometimes symmetrical stanzas end with an epod, a song conclusion; they may also be preceded by a brief introduction by the luminary. The latter also takes part in dialogic scenes, coming into direct contact with other characters. In addition to purely speech or choral scenes, the so-called commos is also found in tragedy - a joint vocal part of the soloist and choir, in which the plaintive lamentations of the actor are answered by the refrains of the choir. After the third and final stasim, the action of the tragedy moves towards its denouement. In Aeschylus, a small final dialogic scene is often accompanied by an extensive final song, the so-called exode. Each of the three competing playwrights presented at the Great Dionysia not one play, but a group of works, consisting of three tragedies and one satyr drama. This complex in its entirety was called a tetralogy, and if the tragedies included in it were connected by the unity of the plot, forming a coherent trilogy (as usual with Aeschylus), then the satyr drama was adjacent to them in content, depicting an episode of the same cycle of myths in a funny light. In those cases where there was no such connection (as usual with Sophocles and Euripides), the theme of the satyr drama was freely chosen by the artist.
Since ancient times, at festivals in honor of Dionysus, or Bacchus, the god of the vine and wine, villagers organized solemn processions to the temple and sacrificed goats to the god. They dressed up in goat skins, tied up their hooves, horns and tails, depicting the companions of Dionysus - goat-footed satyrs. In honor of God, the choir sang solemn chants (dithyrambs), accompanied by games and dancing. At the same time, a singer stood out from the choir, who portrayed Dionysus or some other mythical figure, and the singing was performed alternately by the choir and then by the singer. This is where the tragedy came from (“tragedy” in Greek means “song of the goats”). Initially, only the choir and the author himself participated in the role of the only actor. The first tragedies set forth myths about Dionysus: about his suffering, death, resurrection, struggle and victory over his enemies. But then poets began to draw content for their works from other legends. In this regard, the choir began to portray not satyrs, but other mythical creatures or people depending on the content of the play.
The tragedy arose from solemn chants. She retained their majesty and seriousness; her heroes became strong personalities, endowed with a strong-willed character and great passions. Greek tragedy always depicted some particularly difficult moments in the life of an entire state or an individual, terrible Crimes, misfortunes and deep moral suffering. There was no place for jokes or laughter.
The tragedy reached its greatest flowering in the 5th century. BC e. in the works of three Athenian poets: Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides.
Before Aeschylus, dramatic performances were still very primitive, since the participation of just one actor did not allow poets to present a complex action, show the struggle of ideas, views, moods, etc. Only after Aeschylus, the “father of tragedy,” introduced a second actor and moved the focus of the play from the chorus to the dialogue of the actors, the tragedy became a real dramatic performance. But still, in the tragedies of Aeschylus, the choir still played an important role. Only with the appearance of a third actor in the drama, whom Sophocles introduced, did the chorus gradually lose its significance, and from the end of the 4th century. BC e. tragedies are written without a chorus at all.
Thus, in ancient Greek tragedy there was singing, dancing and music. In this way it differed from the tragedy of a later time.
Plays with a chorus of satyrs stood out in special genre- a comic, cheerful performance, a “satyr drama.” For the festival of Dionysus, every poet in Athens who wanted to take part in a dramatic competition had to present three tragedies - a trilogy and one satyr drama.
The eldest of the three great tragedians was Aeschylus. He was born in 525 BC. e. in the town of Eleusis, near Athens. The time of his life coincides with the era Greco-Persian wars and strengthening the democratic system in Athens. As a hoplite (heavily armed infantry warrior), Aeschylus fought for the happiness and freedom of his homeland against the Persian invaders.
The ancients attributed 72 or 90 plays to Aeschylus, of which only seven tragedies have come down to us in their entirety: “The Petitioners”, “The Persians”, “Seven Against Thebes”, “Chained Prometheus” and the “Oresteia” trilogy, consisting of tragedies: “Agamemnon”, "Choephori" ("Women pouring a funeral libation") and "Eumenides".
Among his contemporaries, Aeschylus enjoyed the fame of the greatest poet: 13 times he was the winner in dramatic competitions and his plays received the exclusive right to repeat productions. A monument was erected to the poet in Athens. Towards the end of his life, Aeschylus moved to Sicily, where he died in 456 BC. e. in the city of Gela. The inscription on the grave glorifies him as a valiant warrior.
The plots of all Aeschylus’ tragedies, except for “The Persians,” are ancient myths about gods and heroes, but the poet puts into these mythical tales the ideas, concepts and views of his time, reflecting the political life of Athenian society in the 5th century. BC e. A supporter of the Athenian democratic system, Aeschylus appears in his works as an ardent patriot, an enemy of tyranny and violence, who firmly believes in the victory of reason and justice. Using examples of heroic images ancient mythology Aeschylus raised his fellow citizens in the spirit of selfless devotion to the homeland, courage and honesty.
The idea of the advantages of a democratic system over monarchical despotism is expressed with great force by the poet in the tragedy “The Persians.” In it he glorifies the brilliant victory of the Greeks over the Persians at Salamis. The tragedy was staged 8 years after this battle. It is easy to imagine what a huge impression “The Persians” made on the audience, most of whom, like Aeschylus, were participants in the Greco-Persian War.
In ancient times of Greek history, myths arose about a curse that weighed down entire families. The tragedy of Aeschylus “Seven against Thebes” is dedicated to the ill-fated fate of the Labdacid family; three tragedies by Sophocles: “Oedipus the King”, “Oedipus at Colonus” and “Antigone” - and tragedies by Euripides: “The Phoenicians” and partly “The Petitioners”. But while presenting the same myth, each of the poets interpreted it in his own way, depending on the goals that he pursued in his tragedies.
An ancient myth told that the Theban king Oedipus from the Labdacid clan, in complete ignorance, committed terrible crimes: he killed own father Laia and married his mother Jocasta. Only after many years did the terrible truth reveal itself to his eyes. Horrified by crimes committed Oedipus blinded himself. But the Labdacid family did not get rid of the curse. The sons of Oedipus, Eteocles and Polynnicus, attacked each other and both died in a fratricidal war.
The siege of the seven-gate Thebes by Polynnicos, who led a foreign army led by six Argive commanders to his homeland, his battle with Eteocles and the death of both brothers are the plot of Aeschylus’s tragedy “Seven against Thebes.”
Aeschylus presents the struggle of two brothers for royal power in the tragedy as the struggle of the free Theban people against foreign invaders - the Argives, who came to enslave the city, betray it to fire and violence. By creating a terrible picture of a besieged city, the poet evokes in the audience’s memory sentiments similar to those that the Greeks experienced during the years of the Persian invasion. The ruler of Thebes, Eteocles, according to myth, is a blind instrument in the hands of the gods. In the tragedy, he is depicted as a decisive, reasonable and courageous military leader. This is a man of strong will, going into battle with his brother consciously, in the name of protecting his fatherland. The image of Eteocles combines all the best qualities of Greek fighters, the heroes of Marathon and Salamis. Thus, under the influence of contemporary events, Aeschylus processed the ancient legend.
The poet’s tragedy “Chained Prometheus” is world famous, in which he immortalized the image of the tyrant-hater Titan Prometheus, a fighter for freedom, happiness and culture of mankind.
Wanting to save the human race from destruction, Prometheus stole fire from Zeus and gave it to people. He taught them to build houses and ships, tame animals, recognize medicinal plants; taught them the science of numbers and literacy, endowed people with consciousness and memory. For this, Zeus severely punished the titan. In response to Zeus' messenger Hermes, who threatened him with new torment, Prometheus proudly declares:
Know well that I would not trade
Their sorrows into servile service...
A fighter for truth and justice, Prometheus says that he hates all gods. This tragedy was one of Karl Marx's favorite works.
The powerful characters of the images of Aeschylus' tragedies made a huge impression. To express the feelings and thoughts of these heroic individuals, a particularly majestic and solemn style was required. Therefore, Aeschylus created poetic speech, rich in vivid hyperboles and metaphors, and composed complex words consisting of several roots and prefixes. In this regard, the understanding of his tragedies gradually became more and more difficult and interest in his work among later generations decreased.
However, the influence of Aeschylus on all subsequent world literature is enormous. Poets of all eras and movements were especially attracted to the image of Prometheus, which we find in the works of almost all famous poets XVII - XIX centuries: Calderon, Voltaire, Goethe, Shelley, Byron and others. The Russian poet revolutionary-democrat Ogarev wrote the poem “Prometheus”, in which he protested against the tyranny of Nicholas I. The work of Aeschylus also had a great influence on composers: Liszt, Wagner, Scriabin, Taneyev and others.
The work of Aeschylus' younger contemporaries - Sophocles and Euripides - dates back to the period of the highest economic and cultural prosperity of the Athenian democratic state.
After the victory over the Persians, Athens became the scientific and cultural center of all Greece - the “school of Hellas.” Scientists, artists, sculptors, and architects come there. Are being created greatest works arts, among which one of the first places is occupied by the temple of Athena - the Parthenon. Works are written on history, medicine, astronomy, music, etc.
Particular interest is shown in the personality of the person himself. The beauty of the human body is depicted by the sculptors Phidias and Polykleitos. The inner world of man, his moral experiences are revealed by the Greek tragedians Sophocles and Euripides. Like Aeschylus, they draw plots for their works from ancient mythological tales. But the heroes they created are no longer powerful, unshakable titans towering above mere mortals, but living people who evoke deep sympathy in the audience for their suffering.
In Sophocles' famous tragedy "Oedipus the King", all attention is focused not on external events, but on the feelings that take possession of Oedipus as he learns about the crimes he has committed. From a happy, beloved and respected king by his people, Oedipus turns into an unhappy sufferer, dooming himself to eternal blindness and exile. Another remarkable tragedy of Sophocles, “Antigone,” tells about the death of Oedipus’s children.
Euripides, like Sophocles, with subtle observation depicts in his tragedies the changing feelings and moods of the characters. He brings the tragedy closer to life, introduces a lot of everyday traits from family life their heroes. Being one of the most progressive people of his time, Euripides puts into the mouths of the characters discussions about the injustice of slavery, the advantages of a democratic system, etc. The best of Euripides' tragedies that have come down to us is “Medea.”
The works of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides played a colossal role in the education of many generations. Defense of the Athenian democratic system, defense of human rights, the spirit of patriotism and irreconcilable hatred of tyranny and violence, love of freedom - this is what forms the basis of the ancient Greek tragedy.
If you find an error, please highlight a piece of text and click Ctrl+Enter.