Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T11:37:05.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Character in Sophocles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

Extract

Critics are always reminding us that character-drawing in Greek tragedy was a very different thing from what we meet in the modern theatre, different and (it is implied) perhaps more limited or rudimentary. But this contrast between ancient and modern is too vague to be illuminating: we need to define exactly what kind of difference it is before we can decide whether it is important. In drama meant for live performance it can hardly be a difference of technique, since every playwright is limited to two basic means of character-drawing, what his figures say and do and what other people say and do to them and about them. Nor can there be much significance in differences of convention. Of course convention counts for something: a dramatist writing for three masked male actors, who must take all the speaking roles in his play, male or female indiscriminately, using a highly formal and declamatory style of acting in a large open-air theatre, will create characters which can be rendered in these circumstances. But there is no reason why the particular conventions of his time should limit his portrayal of character in any serious way: Lady Macbeth, after all, was written to be played by a teenage boy. Surely the differences that really demand attention are those of attitude.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1. On Aristotle and Greek Tragedy (London, 1962), p. 33.Google Scholar

2. Reading εἴα at 88 with Vauvilliers. There is no justification for bracketing these two lines as in the O.C.T.

3. Sophocles: A Reading (Melbourne, 1972), p. 209.Google Scholar

4. See in particular Knox, B. M. W., The Heroic Temper (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1964), chs. 1 and 2.Google Scholar

5. Die dramatische Technik des Sophokles (Berlin, 1917, repr. 1969), p. 78.Google Scholar

6. Sophocles later explains Oedipus' failure to recognize Laius as a king by emphasizing that Laius was on a visit to the oracle, with only a modest retinue (750 ff.).

7. Illinois Classical Studies 3 (1978), forthcoming.Google Scholar

8. Jebb has a sensitive note on this passage.

9. Euripides, , Alcestis (London, 1954), p. xxvii.Google Scholar