Sophocles and the Greek Tragic Tradition (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: Sophocles and the Greek Tragic Tradition Robin Mitchell-Boyask Simon Goldhill and Edith Hall, eds. Sophocles and the Greek Tragic Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. xvi + 336 pp. Cloth, $99. Just as Machiavelli argued that the successful ruler needs to be feared more than loved, one might say of modern academia that the truly successful scholar should be respected more than loved, though most of us would prefer to experience both. I doubt there is any figure in the study of Greek literature who has inspired more respect and love than the scholar to whom this volume is dedicated in honor, Pat Easterling. Indeed, I here openly acknowledge that I am a part of the group, well represented in this book, who has benefitted from Pat's advice and guidance, and I am thus somewhat relieved to be able to report that the collection as a whole is worthy of its object. The editors' introductory chapter, "Sophocles: the state of play," uses Jebb as a springboard to dive into the changes and trends in the study of Sophocles over the past century, balancing Jebb's idealistic but staid Victorianism, with its stress on aesthetic beauty against the darker impulses of the Elektra of Hofmannstahl (and Strauss). The influences of anthropology and psychology on the Viennese poet's vision of Sophoclean tragedy would set the stage for much scholarly thought in later decades. This essay is particularly valuable because it sets Sophoclean criticism in historical and theoretical contexts and self-consciously addresses the cyclical nature of scholarly trends, as it offers a stimulating assessment of the contributions of such scholars as Reinhardt, Kitto, Bowra, Knox, Winnington-Ingram, Vernant (and his colleagues), Segal, and Zeitlin. One would hope that this essay would be read by every graduate student seriously engaged in the study of tragedy. Particularly valuable is the authors' concern with how the tradition of Sophoclean criticism has been constructed (18-20). They identify four main areas of particular current ferment from this tradition: first, the relationship between tragic drama and Athenian democracy and how and to what extent tragedy is political; second, performance, especially performance in the city of Athens; third, [End Page 158] the nature of tragic language (of particular interest to Goldhill recently); fourth, a grab bag called again "tradition," but perhaps it should be more accurately labeled "reception." These areas then become the organizing structure of the rest of the volume. Part 1, "Between Audience and Actor," presents three chapters that examine the relationship between audience and the actors in Sophocles. This is the strongest and most coherent part of the book. Part 2, "Oedipus and the Play of Meaning," remains fascinating, especially with its persistent interest in Sophoclean ambiguity and ambivalence, but, as a unit it is not as tightly conceptually unified as part 1. Part 3, "Constructing Tragic Traditions," continues the topical broadening, and really is much more of a grab-bag than the editors allow; again, these are essays worth reading, but their insistence that this is still "Sophocles AND . . ." becomes rather strained. In part 1, Simon Goldhill ("The audience on stage: rhetoric, emotion, and judgement in Sophoclean theatre," 27-47) opens with his customary verve and argues that the Athenian audience member viewed the performances as a democratic citizen who participates in a collective act of deliberation with other spectators. Sophocles shapes and dramatizes this deliberation by staging scenes with an on-stage audience in which characters are observed by other characters, whose responses model the deliberations of the audience in the theater. Goldhill thus posits an audience response that is more emotionally detached, critical, and intellectual than is commonly thought. Next, Ismene Lada-Richards similarly examines metadrama in Sophocles ("'The players will tell all': the dramatist, the actors and the art of acting in Sophocles' Philoctetes," 48-68), although without Goldhill's political framework. Lada-Richards shows how the rebellion of Neoptolemus the actor against the part assigned to him in the drama staged by Odysseus reflects the increasing independence of theatrical actors late in the fifth century and the concomitant "dwindling authority of dramatist and text" (65). Lada-Richards makes a provocative, but ultimately convincing argument that the...