Attic tragedy. Medicine and exact sciences
2. Tragedy
1) Origin and structure of the Attic tragedy
At the festival of the “great Dionysius”, established by the Athenian tyrant Pisistratus, in addition to lyrical choirs with the dithyramb obligatory in the cult of Dionysus, also tragic choirs performed. Ancient tradition calls Thespis the first tragic poet of Athens and points to 534 BC. e. as on the date of the first production of the tragedy during the “great Dionysius”.
This early Attic tragedy of the late 6th and early 5th centuries. was not yet a drama in the full sense of the word. It was one of the branches of choral lyricism, but was distinguished by two significant features: 1) in addition to the choir, an actor performed who made a message to the choir, exchanged remarks with the choir or with its leader (luminary); while the choir did not leave the scene of action, the actor left, returned, made new messages to the choir about what was happening behind the stage and, if necessary, could change his appearance, playing the roles of different persons in his various parishes; unlike the vocal parts of the choir, this actor, introduced, according to ancient tradition, by Thespis, did not sing, but recited trochaic or iambic verses; 2) the choir took part in the game, portraying a group of people placed in a plot connection with those whom the actor represented. The actor's parts were still very small in quantity, and he, nevertheless, was the bearer of the dynamics of the game, since the lyrical moods of the choir changed depending on his messages. The plots were taken from myth, but in some cases the tragedies were also composed on modern themes; Thus, after the capture of Miletus by the Persians in 494, “the poet Phrynichus staged the tragedy “The Capture of Miletus”; the victory over the Persians at Salamis served as the theme for the “Phoenicians” of the same Phrynichus (476), which contained the glorification of the Athenian leader Themistocles. The works of the first tragedians have not survived, and the nature of the development of plots in early tragedy is not exactly known; However, already with Phrynichus, and perhaps even before him, the main content of the tragedy was the image of some kind of “suffering.” Since the last years of the 6th century. The production of the tragedy was followed by the “drama of satyrs” - a comic play on a mythological plot, in which the chorus consisted of satyrs. Tradition names Pratina from Phlius (in the northern Peloponnese) as the first creator of satyr dramas for the Athenian theater.
Interest in the problems of “suffering” was generated by the religious and ethical ferment of the 6th century, the struggle that the emerging slave-owning class of the city waged, relying on the peasantry, against the aristocracy and its ideology. The democratic religion of Dionysus played a significant role in this struggle and was put forward by tyrants (for example, Pisistratus or Cleisthenes) as opposed to local aristocratic cults. Myths about heroes, which belonged to the basic foundations of city life and constituted one of the most important parts of the cultural wealth of the Greek people, could not help but fall into the orbit of new problems. With this rethinking of Greek myths, it was no longer epic “feats” or aristocratic “valor” that began to come to the fore, but suffering, “passions” that could be depicted in the same way as the “passions” of dying and resurrected gods were depicted; In this way, it was possible to make myth an exponent of a new worldview and extract from it material for those relevant in the revolutionary era of the 6th century. problems of “justice”, “sin” and “retribution”. The tragedy that arose in response to these requests adopted the type of depiction of the “passions” that is closest to the usual forms of choral lyric poetry, often found in primitive rituals: the “passions” do not occur in front of the viewer, they are reported through the “messenger”, and the person celebrating the ritual The action team reacts with song and dance to these messages. Thanks to the introduction of an actor, a “messenger” who answers the choir’s questions, a dynamic element entered the choral lyrics, transitions of mood from joy to sadness and back - from crying to jubilation.
Aristotle provides very important information about the literary genesis of the Attic tragedy. Chapter 4 of his Poetics tells us that the tragedy “underwent many changes” before taking its final form. At an earlier stage, it had a “satyr” character, was distinguished by its simple plot, humorous style and abundance of dance elements; it became a serious work only later. Aristotle speaks about the “satirian” character of tragedy in somewhat vague terms, but the idea, apparently, is that tragedy once had the form of satyr drama. Aristotle considers the origins of the tragedy to be the improvisations of the “initiators of the dithyramb.”
Aristotle's messages are valuable simply because they belong to a very knowledgeable author, who had at his disposal a huge amount of material that has not reached us. But they are also confirmed by testimony from other sources. There is information that in the dithyrambs of Arion (p. 89) mummer choirs performed, after which individual dithyrambs received one name or another, that in these dithyrambs, in addition to musical parts, there were also declamatory parts of satyrs. The formal features of the early tragedy did not therefore represent an absolute innovation and were prepared by the development of the dithyramb, that is, that genre of choral lyrics that is directly related to the religion of Dionysus. A later example of dialogue in a dithyramb is Bacchylides' Theses.
Another confirmation of Aristotle’s instructions is the very name of the genre: “tragedy” (tragoidia). Literally translated, it means “goat song” (tragos - “goat”, oide - “song”). The meaning of this term was already unknown to ancient scientists, and they created various fantastic interpretations, such as the idea that the goat allegedly served as a reward for the winning choir in a competition. In the light of Aristotle's reports of the former "satyr" character of tragedy, the origin of the term can be easily explained. The fact is that in some areas of Greece, mainly in the Peloponnese, fertility demons, including satyrs, were represented as goat-shaped. It was different in Attic folklore, where horse-like figures (silenes) corresponded to Peloponnesian goats; however, even in Athens, the theatrical mask of a satyr contained, along with horse features (mane, tail), also goat features (beard, goat skin), and Attic playwrights often called satyrs “goats.” The goat-shaped figures embodied voluptuousness; their songs and dances should be imagined as rude and obscene. Aristotle also hints at this when he speaks of the playful style and dancing nature of tragedy at its “satire” stage. "
Tragic”, i.e., dressed as goats, choirs were also associated outside the cult of Dionysus with mythological figures of the “passionate” type. Thus, in the city of Sikyon (northern Peloponnese), “tragic choirs” glorified the “passions” of the local hero Adrastus; at the beginning of the 6th century. the Sicyon tyrant Cleisthenes destroyed the cult of Adrastus and, as the historian Herodotus says, “gave the choirs to Dionysus.” In “tragic choirs” the zalachka element, which was widely used in later tragedy, should therefore occupy a significant place. The lament, with its characteristic alternation of lamentations of individuals and choral lamentation of the group, was probably also a formal model for scenes of joint lamentation between the actor and the choir, which are frequent in tragedy.
However, even if Attic tragedy developed on the basis of the folklore game of the Peloponnesian “goats” and the dithyramb of the Arion type, the decisive moment for its emergence was the development of “passions” into a moral problem. While formally retaining numerous traces of its origin, tragedy in content and ideological character was a new genre that posed questions of human behavior using the example of the fate of mythological heroes. As Aristotle puts it, the tragedy “has become serious.” The dithyramb underwent the same transformation, losing the character of a stormy Dioisian song and turning into a ballad on heroic subjects; an example is the dithyrambs of Bacchylides. In both cases, the details of the process and its individual stages remain unclear. Apparently, the songs of “goat choirs” began to receive literary treatment for the first time at the beginning of the 6th century. in the northern Peloponnese (Corinth, Sikyon); at the turn of the 6th and 5th centuries. in Athens, the tragedy was already a work on the theme of the suffering of the heroes of Greek myth, and the chorus dressed up not in the mask of “goats” or satyrs, but in the mask of persons connected with these heroes. The transformation of the tragedy did not occur without opposition from supporters of the traditional game; there were complaints that at the festival of Dionysus works were performed that “had nothing to do with Dionysus”; the new form, however, prevailed. The old-style chorus and the corresponding humorous character of the game were preserved (or, perhaps, restored after some time) in a special play, which was staged after the tragedies and was called the “satyr drama.” This cheerful play, with an invariably successful outcome, corresponded to the last act of the ritual performance, the rejoicing of the risen god.
The growth of the social significance of the individual in the life of the polis and the increased interest in its artistic depiction lead to the fact that in the further development of the tragedy the role of the chorus decreases, the importance of the actor increases and the number of actors increases; but the two-part structure itself remains unchanged, the presence of choral parts and actor parts. It is reflected even in the dialectal coloring of the language of tragedy: while the tragic chorus gravitates towards the Dorian dialect of choral lyrics, the actor pronounced his parts in Attic, with some admixture of the Ionian dialect, which until that time was the language of all declamatory Greek poetry (epic, iambic) . The two-part nature of the Attic tragedy also determines its external structure. If the tragedy, as was usually the case later, began with the actors’ parts, then this first part, before the arrival of the chorus, constituted a prologue. Then came the parade, the arrival of the choir; the choir entered from both sides in a marching rhythm and performed a song. Subsequently, there was an alternation of episodies (additions, that is, new arrivals of actors), acting scenes, and stsims (standing songs), choral parts, usually performed when the actors left. After the last stasim there was an exod (exit), the final part, at the end of which both the actors and the choir left the place of play. In episodies and exodes, a dialogue between the actor and the luminary (leader) of the choir is possible, as well as kommos, a joint lyrical part of the actor and the choir. This last form is especially characteristic of the traditional lament of tragedy. The choir parts are strophic in structure (p. 92). The stanza corresponds to the antistrophe; they may be followed by new stanzas and antistrophes of a different structure (scheme: aa, bb, ss); Epodes are relatively rare.
There were no intermissions in the modern sense of the word in the Attic tragedy. The game went on continuously, and the choir almost never left the place of the game during the action. Under these conditions, changing the scene of action in the middle of the play or stretching it out for a long time created a sharp violation of the stage illusion. Early tragedy (including Aeschylus) was not very demanding in this regard and dealt quite freely with both time and place, using different parts of the site on which the game took place as different places of action; Subsequently, it became customary, although not absolutely obligatory, for the tragedy to take place in one place and not exceed one day in duration. These features of the construction of developed Greek tragedy were acquired in the 16th century. the name of “unity of place” and “unity of times and”. The poetics of French classicism, as is known, attached very great importance to “unities” and elevated them to the main dramatic principle.
The necessary components of Attic tragedy are “suffering,” the message of the messenger, and the lament of the choir. A catastrophic end is not at all necessary for her; many tragedies had a reconciliatory outcome. The cult nature of the game, generally speaking, required a happy, joyful ending, but since this ending was provided for the game as a whole by the final drama of the satyrs, the poet could choose the ending that he found necessary.
Keywords: conscience, morality, shame, fear, gods, will, punishment, man, responsibility, Aeschylus, Euripides.
V. N. Yarkho (1920-2003): Did the Ancient Greeks have a conscience? Toward a study of humans in the Attic tragedy(pp. 195–210).
The author was an outstanding philologist, cultural historian and pedagogue as well as a first-rate expert on Ancient Greek literature of the archaic and classical periods. Outside Russia and the USSR, his works have been published in German, Italian, English, Chinese, Greek and Hungarian.
Although the title of this article looks rather unusual for a professional scientific text (it was first published in the academic collection 'Antiquity and Modernity' ), it is the brightest and most paradoxical description of the spiritual world of humans living on the threshold of the Axial Age.
Keywords: conscience, morals, shame, fear, gods, will, punishment, humans, responsibility, Aeschylus, Euripides.
A question posed in this way may seem to an inexperienced reader not only paradoxical, but also unnatural: applying the modern scale of moral values to the heroes of ancient Greek literature, we cannot help but suspect the torment of conscience in Achilles, who desecrated the body of Hector, or in Orestes, who killed his own mother, or from Neoptolemus, who crept into the confidence of Philoctetes by deception. The phenomenon of conscience also seems to be a completely integral attribute of ancient Greek ethics to those researchers who want to see in the ancient world the prerequisites for religious morality, formed in the Christian doctrine. In this respect there is no essential difference between Leopold Schmidt, who published his Ethics of the Ancient Greeks ninety years ago (Schmidt 1882: 210–229), and Manfred Class, who recently devoted a special study to the “movements of conscience” in ancient Greek tragedy (Class 1964). The latter, in particular, referring to extensive theological literature, defines conscience as “the divine voice through which God addresses a person, encourages him to act or warns him against it, and, after the action has been completed, praises or condemns” ( Ibid.: 1). Not to mention the fact that such a definition is unacceptable for an atheist philologist, it remains unclear whether it is possible, even from the point of view of a devout Christian, to place such high trust in the numerous ancient Greek gods, who were not always distinguished by impeccable morality and made completely different demands on mortals?
On the other hand, the “divine voice” that sounds in the human soul is something completely different than the direct external intervention of a very specific god or prophet in the fate of the heroes of ancient Greek literature. For this reason alone, we should reject Klass’s attempt to identify with the phenomenon of conscience the warnings of Hermes to Aegisthus, as well as the admonitions of Halifers and Theoclymenes addressed to the suitors in Homer’s Odyssey, as well as the threats of the same Hermes in Aeschylus’s Prometheus. or Tiresias - in Antigone (vv. 1064–1090). In none of these passages are there not only concepts that are in any way close to the concept of conscience, but there are not even descriptive characteristics that could be taken as a depiction of the phenomenon of conscience.
For the same reason, one should undoubtedly abandon the identification with the conscience of the Erinyes in Aeschylus's Oresteia, or, more precisely, in the finale of Hoephorus. That the Erinyes, quite specifically visible and tangible throughout the tragedy of the Eumenides, entering into a dispute first with Apollo, then with Athena and finally deciding to remain for eternal settlement in the bowels of the Athenian acropolis, are not suitable for personifying the conscience of Orestes - even they agree with this those researchers who consider him a victim of remorse in the ending of Hoefor. However, the Erinyes in the last scene of “Choephor” are also by no means ghosts generated by the supposedly sick conscience of Orestes. The young man resolutely rejects such an assumption of the chorus (Tίνες σε δόξαι... στροβоυ̃σιν; - Cho., 1051 ff.): he perfectly distinguishes these Gorgon-like “wrathful dogs of the mother”, entangled in snakes, with blood oozing from their eyes (vv. 1048–1050, 1054, 1058), although the women who make up the chorus do not see them. But the participants in the feast in Macbeth’s palace also do not see the ghost of Banquo entering the hall and taking his place at the table, whom Macbeth himself perfectly distinguishes. The only difference is that the Erinyes in “Choephori” really did not appear in the orchestra, since their minute appearance would have spoiled the entire artistic effect of the opening scene of “Eumenides”, where the Pythia, by the way, preliminarily describes them in approximately the same words ( Eum., 48 ff., 52, 54), as Orestes did, again preparing the audience for this terrible spectacle.
Let us also note that neither Orestes himself, already sensing the approach of madness, nor the chorus see any reason to condemn the act of the man who delivered the Argive land from two tyrants (Cho., 973 ff., 1044–1047). Of course, the freshly shed blood on the hands of Orestes clouds his mind (cf. Art. 1022 ff., where the expression φρένες δύσαρκτοι characterizes the loss of control over the mind) - the ancient Greeks also saw this as the result of the action of Erinyes (cf.: δέσμιоς φρεν ων – Eum., 332–345; μέλος… παραφορά – 341). But there is not a word here about any “split personality” or internal reflection, since such properties are not inherent in any of Aeschylus’s characters. It is enough for Orestes to undergo ritual purification (Eum., 280–283), and his consciousness acquires enviable clarity.
Incomparably more productive than searching for conscience where there is not the slightest hint of it seems to us the path chosen over forty years ago by Friedrich Zucker (Zucker 1928; 1963: 96–117). The timing of the appearance of his research was by no means accidental: it was precisely in the mid-20s - early 30s - mainly in German science - that a keen interest arose in those features of the inner world of the ancient Greek that so significantly distinguish him from the mental make-up of our man time. Not only in archaic ancient Greek poetry and the works of Aeschylus, which became the subject of study in the famous works of Ed. Fraenkel and Bruno Snell, but also in the ethics of Plato, studied by I. Stenzel (Fraenkel 1960; Snell 1955; 1928; Stenzel 1928: 278–282), the deepest difference was discovered between antiquity and modern times in the understanding of the nature of man, his spiritual and intellectual appearance, its social functions.
Zucker's work, which contained a thorough examination of the vocabulary and phraseology associated with the concept of συνείδησις and related ones, showed that in relation to the phenomenon of conscience, antiquity had come a long way before it came to understand συνείδησις - conscientia as a person’s ability to internal self-esteem. Moreover, much more than in the very concept of συνείδησις, the idea of conscience is expressed in the verbal combination συνειδέναι ἑαυτωι (“to be aware of oneself”), which became quite common already in the last quarter of the 5th century (Zucker 1963: 98–100, 102 –106) . Since, however, judging by formal criteria, this presentation hardly affected Greek tragedy, Zucker paid little attention to it in his work. Meanwhile, many episodes from the Attic tragedy may seem to the modern reader as indisputable proof of the similarity of the moral consciousness of the ancient Greeks with ours. Below we will look at the behavior and statements of some characters in the ancient Greek tragedy in order to find out whether the Athenian playwrights were interested in such a psychological phenomenon as conscience, and if so, how they portrayed it.
We will have to start with the classic passage that is given in every work on the topic that interests us - with the already mentioned episode from Euripides' Orestes. Here, to the question of Menelaus, what kind of disease is destroying Orestes, the young man answers: ἡ σύνεσις, ὅτι σύνοιδα δείν’ εἰργασμένος (v. 396).
The verb σύνοιδα in combination with the reflexive pronoun ἑαυτων was discussed above. In our verse, however, this pronoun is absent, and there is no need to mentally add it, since the direct object δεινά and the participle εἰργασμένος do not leave the slightest doubt about the meaning of the subordinate clause: “... since I [well] know that I have committed a terrible thing " The verb σύνοιδα appears here in the same meaning “[to] know well”, in which it is repeatedly attested in sources contemporary to Euripides and in Euripides himself (Med., 495; Hipp., 425; N. F., 368). However, the composition συνειδέναι with the dative case of the reflexive pronoun also in itself does not at all predetermine the appearance of the phenomenon of conscience. The fact that Aristophanes’ Mnesilochus, dressed as a woman, “admits to himself” many sins (Thesm., 477), which are immediately listed, is very far from remorse, and the use of this construction with a direct object is no different from similar examples in prose (for example : Xenoph. Apol., 24; Memor., II, 9, 6; Plato. Phaedr., 235 c), where it never occurs to anyone to look for a manifestation of conscience.
As for the noun σύνεσις, it is already found in Pindar (in combination with φρενων) to designate a “sound way of thinking”, “prudence”, and in seven cases in Euripides (Hipp., 1105; Sup., 203; N. F., 655; Tro., 672, 674; Or., 1524; Iph. A. 375) has one of the following meanings: “intelligence,” “ability to understand,” “understanding,” “consciousness.” Why should we think that in Art. 396 from “Orestes” the noun σύνεσις is used in a different, unusual meaning? Wouldn’t it be more correct to follow the example of Zucker, Pohlenz and Biel (Zucker 1963: 100; Pohlenz 1954: 412; Euripides... 1965), who here translate σύνεσις with the German word die Einsicht – Orestes’ “understanding” of his situation?
Those who look for evidence of his troubled conscience in the words of Orestes usually say that Euripides depicts the young man as suffering not from persecution from the outside by the real Erinyes (as, for example, in the Eumenides), but from a disease that is corroding him from the inside. Although this explanation requires some clarification (see below), we agree that the Erinyes for Orestes are visions, ghosts (δόξαι, φάσματα - art. 259, 407 ff.), overtaking him during attacks of madness - which, however, does this have anything to do with conscience? A completely clinical picture of the state of the same Orestes is given in “Iphigenia in Tauris,” written shortly before (vv. 281–308): his head rises and falls, his hands are shaking, foam appears on his lips, he imagines Erinyes entwined with snakes, for whom he and receives the Tauride herd (δο Xων Ἐрινὺς Jεὰς ἀμύνεσJαι – 299). The patient’s delirium is undeniable, but no one, and quite rightly so, dares to talk about Orestes’ conscience in this tragedy.
It is also impossible to assume that in “Orestes” remorse drove the matricide to complete insanity: after the choir conjures Erinyes (vv. 321–327), Orestes’ mental activity is no longer disturbed, only physical weakness remains - a consequence of a six-day hunger. In addition, its recognition in Art. 396 Orestes does this completely in his right mind, and, therefore, there is no connection between σύνεσις, no matter how it is understood, and Orestes’ temporary insanity. The meaning of σύνεσις in this verse must be revealed based on the hero’s behavior and speeches, his relationships with other characters, and his motivation for his actions. Let us not neglect such a reliable tool as the well-attested meaning of the word σύνεσις - “awareness”, “understanding”. Will it make it easier or more difficult for us to interpret the image of Orestes?
If we compare the thoughts of Orestes in Aeschylus and Euripides, we will discover an interesting pattern: Euripides’ Orestes often uses the same arguments as Aeschylus’s, but before the significant art. 396 rejects these arguments, and after him gives them more and more importance in his favor. In fact, in Aeschylus, immediately after his identification, Orestes sets out the arguments that prompted him to return to his homeland. Among them is the prophecy of Apollo and the torment with which he threatened Orestes in case of disobedience. “How can one disobey such prophecies?” - asks Orestes (Cho., 297). Then, in the commos immediately adjacent to this monologue, Orestes, Electra and the chorus repeatedly appeal to the murdered Agamemnon: he must appear as an ally in revenge both for himself and for the dishonored and orphaned children (vv. 315–318, 329–337, 345– 371, 456–460, 479–509). Encouraging Orestes to take revenge, the chorus and Electra appeal to his reason (ὡς τόσ'εἰδηις, 439; ἐν φρεσιν… γράφου, 450; συντέτραινε μυJoν ἡσόχωι φρενων βάσει – 451 words): it must “accommodate into consciousness” the depth of responsibility that lies on him. And Orestes, convinced of the justice of the test ahead of him, even after the murder of his mother, insists on the correctness of what was done; he strives to confirm this thought while he has control of his mind, in which the idea of \u200b\u200bvengeance matured at one time (ἕως δ’ἔτ’ ἔμφρων εἰμί - 1026).
In Euripides, Orestes, although presented at the beginning of the tragedy as seriously ill, still comes to his senses from time to time (ἔμφρων – Or., 44; ἕως σ’ἐωσι σ’εὖ φρονειν ’Eρινύες – 238 ). Those statements of his are dated to this moment, which can be directly contrasted with the above motives from “Choephor”: he condemns Loxius, who prompted him to an ungodly act (Or., 285 ff.), and thinks that his father himself would have prayed to him do not kill the mother, since this will not bring the dead back to life, and the survivor, i.e. Orestes, will plunge himself into the abyss of troubles (288–293). Thus, the first monologue of Orestes, who has come to his senses, is nothing more than his attempt to comprehend and evaluate everything that happened. How the comprehension itself occurs, Euripides does not show; we have reason to assume that Orestes has sufficient “stage” time for this while the choir is performing the 1st stasim. At the beginning of the next dialogue with Menelaus, he again says that he is depressed (tormented, tormented) by what he did (τἅργ' αἰκιζεται - 388) - it goes without saying, not so much the act as the memory, thinking about it, in other words, then the very “awareness”, “understanding”, which Orestes calls the most suitable word for this, σύνεσις in Art. 396.
It should be noted that even such an explanation turns out to be incomprehensible to Menelaus: like every Athenian of the 5th century, he was accustomed to consider illness a consequence of the intervention of a deity and is ready to recognize as such even the melancholy that consumes Orestes (397–399). Much more understandable for him as the source of Orestes’ madness (μανίαι – 400) are those “sacred virgins” ( Xόραι σεμναί), which are not recommended to be named, but whose effect on mortals is well known to everyone (408–410); It is they, according to Menelaus, who torment Orestes with fits of madness (αὕται σε βακχεύουσι – 411), sending visions to him (407, cf. 423). Of course, Electra (vv. 36–38) and the chorus conjuring Eumenides to free Orestes from madness (vv. 316–327) adhere to the same traditional opinion about the origin of Orestes’ illness. Therefore, the unusualness of the explanation contained in Art. 396, not that the concept of conscience is introduced here, but that Orestes sees the cause of the illness tormenting him not in an external, divine factor, but in his own assessment of what was perfect. If in Aeschylus's Orestes the whole process of reflection and decision occurs before matricide, then with Euripides’ Orestes the situation is just the opposite: awareness comes after matricide, and, moreover, at first does not give Orestes the confidence in his rightness with which Aeschylus’s Orestes justifies his actions in the finale of “Choephorus” (vv. 973–1006, 1027–1033). This explains the above refutation of the arguments of Aeschylus’ Orestes in the first scenes of Euripides’ tragedy, leading the hero Euripides to σύνεσις - “consciousness” of the perfect.
But perhaps we attach too much importance to the question of how to translate the Greek σύνεσις, and our whole polemic is a dispute about words? In the end, “so-znanie” and “conscience” in the composition of the word are siblings, and it was no coincidence that the ancient Russian translators from Greek conveyed the word svest not only συνείδησις, but also εἴδησις, ἔννοια, διάνοια, γνώμη (Sreznevsky 1958). It is clear to everyone that conscience cannot awaken in a person until he has realized what he has done—didn’t it also awaken in Euripides’ Orestes? To this, however, one can answer that awareness is a purely intellectual phenomenon, conscience is to a huge extent emotional. A person may be well aware that any murder is a crime, but if he saved society from a robber or traitor, then he will not be tormented by any remorse (“a dog’s death is a dog’s death”). On the contrary, someone who killed his wife in a fit of jealousy and then realized the depth of his moral decline will not find peace of conscience until he suffers the just punishment he has brought upon himself. Consequently, in order to correctly assess the state of Euripides’ Orestes, it is necessary to find out whether he seeks to atone for guilt through repentance or, on the contrary, to avoid responsibility and retribution. In the first case, we will have to recognize in σύνεσις the equivalent of conscience, in the second - nothing more than an understanding of his position, forcing Orestes to take care of his own salvation. Let us turn to the text of the tragedy where we left Orestes shortly after the significant verse 396.
Before Menelaus had time to find out all the details of Orestes’ illness, the young man, who had recently condemned Apollo, expressed hope for his help; after all, it was Phoebus who ordered him to kill his mother (vv. 414–420). And further, in his justificatory monologue before Tyndareus, Orestes again refers to the will of Apollo (vv. 591–599), to whom he could not help but obey - in this interpretation, Orestes is already approaching the motivation put forward in “Choephori” (vv. 271– 275, 297 ff.). Even closer to the arguments of Aeschylus’s Orestes is Euripides’ reference to Orestes’ debt of revenge for his father (vv. 547, 563), whose mother betrayed his marital bed, cheating on him with Aegisthus and finally killing him to hide her crime (vv. 557–563 , 573–578; 1235–1237). Hence the fear that justifies Orestes of his murdered father, who would have sent his Erinyes against him if the son had approved of his mother’s actions (vv. 580–584). As we know, both of these motifs are also used in the “Choephori” (cf. Art. 434 f., 479; 273–285, 293 f., 324–326, 925), in order to justify Orestes’ decision and strengthen his soul, – but we also remember how Euripides’ Orestes, having just gotten rid of delirium, questioned these arguments, approaching the “understanding” of what was perfect. Now it's all over!
Aeschylus's Orestes, despite all his readiness for action, experienced instant hesitation at the sight of his mother's naked breast (Cho., 896-899), and Euripides' Tyndareus cannot resist tears, imagining this heartbreaking scene (Or., 526-529 ). Meanwhile, Orestes himself remembers this differently. He believes that he has done a service to all of Hellas by killing his traitorous wife; otherwise women would have reached such impudence that they would have killed their husbands for any reason, and then sought salvation from their children, showing them their breasts (vv. 565–570; cf. the same arguments in Orestes’ speech in the national assembly, art. 932 –942)! And if Aeschylus’ Orestes was driven by the plight and contradictory situation of Agamemnon’s children to a desperate cry: “What should we do, Zeus?” (pa τίς τράποιτ’ ἄν, ὦ Zευ; Cho., 409), then Euripides’ Orestes with his prose: “What should I have done?” (τί χρην με δρασαι; Or., 551) introduces a long string of arguments, devoid of any duality and aimed only at his defense: “Do not say that this was done poorly, but say that for me, who did it, it turned out unfortunately” (600 words).
There are no traces of repentance in the second exculpatory monologue of Orestes, where the emphasis is on the debt of Menelaus to the son of the murdered Agamemnon and Orestes’ act becomes the subject of a kind of bargaining. Orestes’ arguments are worthy of being reproduced here: “Suppose I committed an injustice, but in exchange for this misfortune I should receive something unfair from you. For my father, Agamemnon, having gathered an army from all over Hellas, unjustly went to Troy: he himself did not commit any offense, but saved the offense and injustice committed by your wife” (646-650). Or again: “Repay me for the service rendered to you by working for my salvation for just one day, not ten years. As for the sacrifice of my sister in Aulis, so be it; There is no need to kill Hermione” (655–659).
Finally, if we add to all that has been said the behavior of Orestes after the verdict, we will see that the “understanding” he acquired of what was accomplished turns out to be a completely unexpected side: if the Atrides are destined to perish, then why don’t they drag along the wife and daughter of Menelaus, who betrayed them, and it would be even better to take revenge on the traitor and stay alive (vv. 1163–1176). We can evaluate the moral character of Orestes as we please, but we are unlikely to be able to find in his arguments and actions the slightest signs of an awakened conscience. At one time, I. Annensky, in a well-known article, preferred to “leave aside” “even the question of how natural and appropriate such self-defense is in the mouth of a man who just called Menelaus his illness as torment of conscience” (Annensky 1900: 67). But if we want to understand what idea the ancient Greek tragedians had of conscience, we do not have the right to “leave aside” the principles of constructing the image they accepted and impose such an understanding of it that is not confirmed by the text.
However, perhaps there is nothing to expect remorse from the characters in Orestes, who, according to the ancient commentator, “all except Pylades are worthless people”? However, if we turn to the more noble heroes of Euripides, we will notice that to assess their voluntary or involuntary crimes they use completely different concepts and ideas than conscience.
So, for example, a young stepmother, who fell in love with her stepson and understands the criminal nature of the passion that has taken possession of her, should apparently experience torment of conscience, especially after her love became known to the young man and he rejected her. Meanwhile, the determining role in Phaedra’s assessment of her behavior is played by the concepts αἰσχρός and αἰσχρύνω (Hipp., 246, 331, 404, 408, 411, 420, 499, 503, 505, 692), which do not denote her internal state (“how could I love his stepson?”), but some objective criterion applied to a noble hero. Shame and disgrace are what prompt Phaedra to death, and she speaks about this with complete clarity before pronouncing the final verdict on herself: “I will never disgrace (oὐ γάρ ποτ' αἰσχυνω) my home in Crete and will not appear before the eyes of Theseus was burdened with a shameful act (αἰσχροις ἐπ' ἔργοις) for the sake of saving her life” (Hipp., 719–721).
Likewise, Hercules, having come to his senses after killing his wife and children, does not ask himself: “What have I done and how will I answer to myself?” We are talking about something else: how will he live further, covering himself with disgrace in the eyes of people (N. F., 1152, 1279–1290, 1301 ff., 1423)? Hercules best characterizes his internal state with one phrase: Аἰσχύνομαι γαρ τοις δεδραμένοις κακоις. - “I am ashamed of the disasters that have been committed” (1160). Here we can say that shame is a feeling that is quite close to conscience, but does not coincide with it. Shame presupposes, first of all, an assessment from the outside, conscience - from the inside; The Russian phrase “no shame, no conscience” conveys this difference very well. But it is most clearly revealed from the very meaning of the noun αἶσχος and its derivatives αἰσχρός and αἰσχύνω.
As is known, the first meaning of the adjective αἰσχρός is “ugly”, physically “ugly” (Il., II, 216; hymn. Hom. Ar., 197; Mim., 1, 6; Sem., 7, 73), and αἰσχρὰ ἔπεα - “shameful words” not for the one who utters them, but for the one to whom they are addressed, whom they make the subject of shame and reproach (for example, Il., III, 38); and αισχύνω originally means “to disfigure” (cf. Il., XVIII, 24, 27); the best way to disgrace a fallen enemy is to mutilate, mutilate his corpse (νέ Xυς ἠισχυμμένος – Il., XVIII, 180). And in the classical era, the lexical nest, grouped around the root αισχ-, retains two significant shades, indicating, firstly, the external, concretely visible “shameful” consequences of any action, and secondly, the assessment of the victim not according to his intention, but because of the objectively “shameful” result. A few examples are enough to confirm this.
The Persian fleet, heading to Hellas in 492, was caught in a storm at Cape Athos, lost 300 ships and over 20 thousand people, and therefore Mardonius decided to retreat. “So this army, having suffered a shameful defeat (αἰσχρως ἀγωνισάμενος), returned to Asia,” summarizes Herodotus (VI, 45), although, from our point of view, there is nothing shameful in the fact that the fleet became a victim of the elements. In Sophocles, Menelaus says that the Atrides would have died a “most shameful death” (αἰσχιστωι μόρωι - Aiax, 1059) if not for the intervention of Athena - although a person does not choose the type of death for himself, unexpected death at the hands of an angry enemy seems shameful to Menelaus. In the same way, Euripides' Hercules decides to keep with him the bow and arrows with which he killed his loved ones; otherwise, it may happen that, falling unarmed into the hands of enemies, he will die shamefully (αἰσχρως - N. F., 1384). And again, from our point of view, it is shameful to attack a defenseless person - according to Hercules, it is shameful to become a victim of an attack that you cannot resist.
From here it is clear that for Phaedra, and for the same Hercules, and for Ajax, the main driving motive is not the “inner voice”, but an orientation towards objectively existing moral standards, accessible for verification and evaluation from the outside. But Sophocles’ Neoptolemus, in whose image the modern reader is most inclined to see the victory of a triumphant conscience, is in no different position.
It cannot be denied that, having first witnessed Philoctetes’ severe attack of illness and then listened to his angry speech, Neoptolemus experiences extreme difficulty. His three-fold exclamation (Ὦ Zευ, τί δράσω; Oἴμοι, τί δράσω; τί δρωμεν; 908, 969, 974) reveals the whole complexity of the situation and, if you like, the whole depth of Neopto’s despair lem, faced with the need to commit a shameful act (αἰσχρο ς φανουμαι – 906). But it also cannot be denied that throughout the entire first half of the tragedy, Neoptolemus, having overcome his doubts under pressure from Odysseus (vv. 86–95, 100–109) and deciding to act “throwing aside all shame” (πασαν αἰσχύνην ἀφείς – 120), acts entirely in accordance with the decision made: he enthusiastically tells Philoctetes about the fictitious enmity with the Atrids; takes part in a hoax played by a spy sent by Odysseus; supports the choir in the hope that Philoctetes will soon return to his homeland. If at this time a mental struggle occurs in Neoptolemus, which we can assume on the basis of his later statements (vv. 906, 966), then Sophocles, in any case, does not give the hero the opportunity to betray himself either by word or gesture.
However, no special insight is required to determine the direction of this internal struggle, which leads Neoptolemus to the final awareness of the incompatibility of his behavior with his noble nature: in the reflections of Neoptolemus αι̉σχρός becomes the same key concept as in the reasonings of Phaedra (Phil., 906, 909, 972; 1228, 1234, 1249). Refusing to further deceive Philoctetes and then returning the bow to him, Neoptolemus acts in full accordance with the maxim expressed by Philoctetes at their first acquaintance: “For the noble, the shameful is disgusting, the valiant is glorious” (475 ff.). For Neoptolemus, a shameful deviation from his nature is no longer conceivable (cf.: την αὐτου φύσιν… λιπων – 902 ff.), which he had previously decided on not without difficulty. Should we talk here about the hero's internal judgment over his criminal plan or about the refusal of shameful behavior imposed on him from the outside, contrary to his true nature? A negative answer to the first question and an affirmative answer to the second seems to us the only correct one.
Literature
Annensky, I. F. 1900. Artistic adaptation of the myth of Orestes, the murderer of his mother, in the tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. Journal of the Ministry of Public Education 8.
Sreznevsky, I. I. 1958.Materials for a dictionary of the Old Russian language: in 3 vols. vol. III (conscience). M.: GIS.
Euripides Orestes erklärt von W. Biehl. Berlin, 1965.
WITHancrini,A. 1970. Syneides's. Il tema semantico della (con-scientia) nella Grecia antica. Roma.
ClAss,M. 1964. Gewissensregungen in der griechischen Tragödie. Hildesheim.
Fraenkel, E. 1960.Wege und Formen frühgriechischen Denkens. Munich.
Pohlenz,M. 1954. Die griechische Tragödie. vol. I. Göttingen.
Schmidt, L. 1882. Die Ethik der alten Griechen. B. 1. Berlin.
Schönlein, P.W. 1969. Zur Entstehung eines Gewissensbegriffes bei Griechen und Römern. RheinischesMuseum. t. 112.
Seel,ABOUT. 1953. Zur Vorgeschichte des Gewissens-Begriffes im altgriechischen Denken. Festschrift Franz Doraseiff. Leipzig.
Snell, B.
1928. Aischylos und das Handeln im Drama. Leipzig.
1955. Die Entdeckung des Geistes. 3 Aufl. Hamburg.
Stenzel,J. 1928. Platon der Erzieher. Leipzig.
Zucker, F.
1928. Syneidesis-Conscientia. Rede gehalten... am 16.VI.
1963.SemanticA, Rhetorica, Ethica. Berlin.
All these examples are borrowed from Class (see: Class 1964: 12–15, 28 ff., 79 ff.). Identification with conscience στέγη…συνίστωρ in Ag. 1087–1090 ( Ibid.: 22) shows what comic results following a violent scheme can lead to.
Schönlein (1969: 289–305) questions the traditional idea that the Latin conscientia is a copy of the συνείδησις, which supposedly originated in the Greek philosophical lexicon. He puts forward quite solid arguments in favor of the view that the concept of conscientia was first formed in the sphere of Roman judicial eloquence and from there passed into the moral philosophy of Cicero, Seneca and subsequent Greek prose.
We exclude from consideration of the question of conscience the scene from Andromache, Art. 802 words Although the concept of σύννοια (805) appears here, the awareness of the perfect awakens in Hermione not conscience, but an elementary fear of her husband (807–810, 833–835). Her first impulse - to die so as not to become a victim of a shameful reprisal - is then replaced by the desire to escape from retribution, which she realizes with the help of Orestes.
The same idea is expressed in a negative way in one of the fragments of the poet of the new comedy Diphilus: “Whoever is not ashamed of himself, aware of his bad deed, will he really be ashamed of someone who knows nothing about it?” (fr. 92 Edm.). And here the criterion of behavior is not the opinion of others, but one’s own ability for moral assessment, which in this case, apparently, is absent.
Attic tragedy
Just as the archaic era in Greece expressed itself in lyric poetry, the 5th century (BC), when Athens became the center of literary and poetic creativity, began to speak in the language of Attic tragedy and comedy. Tragedy (literally “song of the goats”) arose from a choral song, from a dithyramb sung by “satyrs” dressed in goat skins and depicting the constant cheerful companions of the god of wine Dionysus. Such “choirs of goats,” or satyrs, existed already in the 7th century. BC e. throughout Greece. Decisive in the birth of the Attic tragedy was the establishment by the Athenian tyrant Pisistratus of the national holiday of the Great Dionysius, thanks to which the popular cult of Dionysus now relied on the official support of the authorities. When the poet Thespis added an actor to the chorus, “answering” and conducting a dialogue with the chorus, the tragedy turned into a dramatic action. At first, the participants in the performance acted out scenes from myths only about Dionysus himself, but later the turn came to other myths. Only Aeschylus remained in the first half of the 5th century. BC e. bring before the audience also a second actor, and Sophocles a third, and the ancient “chorus of goats” was finally transformed into drama.
But the origin of Greek tragedy from choral song was reflected in the fact that in the future the choir played no less a role in the drama than the actors. This brings Greek tragedy closer to the modern opera or oratorio. The themes and plots of the tragedies were also not arbitrarily chosen, but borrowed from mythology.<Персы» Эсхила или «Завоевание Милета» Фриниха - редчайшие исключения, подтверждающие правило.
Like the epic poetry of Homer, Greek tragedy performed not only aesthetic functions, but also didactic and educational ones. Great tragediographers of the 5th century. BC e. they sought not only to interest the viewer, but also to frighten, shock, instruct, and show, using the example of the destinies of well-known heroes of myths, the operation of divine laws that govern people’s lives.
The Attic theater differed from the modern one, however, not only in what was shown, but also in the way it was arranged. The performances lasted only three days, during the festival in honor of Dionysus. They gave three tragedies in a row, and then a “satire drama” - another dramatized episode from mythology, but in a lighter, cheerful, funny light, which allowed the audience to relieve the tension from the tragedies. Each of the three dramatic poets who competed with each other these days brought to the attention of the audience the entire tetralogy, that is, a complete cycle of three tragedies and one “satyr drama.” The performance took place in the open air, on a round platform - an orchestra. The benches for spectators were carved right into the rocky slope of the Acropolis; It was this simple auditorium that was called theatron. In such a huge open theater it was impossible to see either the facial expressions of the actors or the details of the costumes, so the participants in the performance went on stage in long, formal robes and large traditional masks, which were supposed to indicate either the stage type of character (king, old man, woman - female roles men also played), or state of mind (joy, grief, arrogant grandeur, despair). It was necessary to enlarge the actor's figure and wear special high shoes - buskins. Standing on buskins, the tragic actor pronounced sublime monologues written in a language far from everyday. All this distracted the viewer from the routine of everyday life, filling the soul with solemnity and a feeling of great celebration. It was the theater that was the main event for the Athenians during the days of the Great Dionysius, celebrated in late March - early April.
Attic tragedy owes its unfading glory to three great poets of the 5th century. BC e.: Aeschylus, Sophocles and Vrypidus. The first of them, although he belonged to the aristocracy by birth, is closely connected throughout his work with the idea of the emerging Athenian democracy. This is visible not only in the “Persians,” where eastern despotism and the tyranny of the Persian king Xerxes are defeated by the Athenians, but also in the most perfect work of Aeschylus, perhaps, in the “Oresteia”: the court established by Athena, the Areopagus, pronounces a sentence on Orestes and thus the oldest family law, the law of blood feud. Thus, the birth of new social forms coincided with and found expression in the birth of new aesthetic and artistic forms. In the tragedy “Prometheus Bound”, people who have mastered fire and other fruits of the then civilization, through the mouth of the tormented titan Prometheus, challenge the omnipotence of Zeus, represented here as a cruel, hateful tyrant. The author's sympathies and the audience's sympathy were on the side of the hero, a lover of humanity and a fighter against God.
Of course, Aeschylus, as was typical for people of his generation, still thought entirely in religious and ethical terms. As in Solon’s elegies, the boundaries of truth, justice, and good are outlined in most of his tragedies by a deity who rewards good and punishes evil. for violating his own established limits in the behavior of mortals. The inevitable law of fair retribution is manifested in the fates of almost all of Aeschylus’s heroes.
If for Aeschylus the will of the gods is, as a rule, fair, then for Sophocles it is, first of all, omnipotent, while its ethical meaning is hidden from mortals. The conflict of his tragedies is in the dramatic confrontation between man and inevitable fate. The unwritten laws established by the gods require that the dead body be buried so that the soul can find eternal peace in the underground kingdom of Hades, but a daring man, referring to the state laws he himself introduced, tries to prevent this, and then all possible misfortunes befall him one after another (the conflict between Antigone and King Creon in Antigone). Trying to fight the unknowable, to prevent the fulfillment of divine prophecies, the individual dooms himself to the inevitable retribution of fate (“Oedipus the King”). But since the will of the gods is omnipotent, the people who dare to resist it are bright and unusual: such are Creon and Oedipus. Majestic and powerful in spirit are those who in one way or another fight for their right to follow the unwritten divine regulations: the gallery of strong, unyielding and persistent heroines of the Attic tragedy is opened by Antigone and Electra in Sophocles. This increasing attention to the individual, independently making his life choices, undoubtedly reflected the increasing importance of the individual principle in the social system and culture of classical Athens. The close connection of Sophocles’s work with the circle of ideas and intellectual interests that dominated his hometown at that time is also evidenced by the fact that many of the dialogues of his heroes are built according to all the rules of the sophistic art of argument (remember, for example, the dialogue between Antigone and Creon). Sophocles's bright, dramatic tragedies more than once brought him awards in theatrical competitions of that time.
A new generation of cultural figures in Athens asserted itself on the dramatic stage in the work of Euripides, although he and Sophocles lived at the same time and, as far as we know, even died in the same 406 BC. e. In contrast to the traditionally minded Sophocles, who shares old religious beliefs and prejudices, Euripides is full of skepticism, even going so far as to outright fight against God. The gods of the youngest of the three great tragediographers are cruel and partial, but it is not they, but the uncontrollable impulses of the human soul that determine the destinies of people, throwing them from one abyss of suffering to another. For Sophocles, the will and authority of Apollo are indisputable, absolute - Euripides attacks the cult of the formidable god-soothsayer, calling Apollo himself vengeful and vindictive, like an ordinary mortal. Such different attitudes towards Apollo’s religion also had social roots. The conservative Sophocles, close to the aristocracy, remembers the former authority of both God himself, the patron of noble youth, and his Delphic sanctuary, which once controlled many aspects of the life of the Greeks. For the democratic circles of Athens, to which Euripides belonged, a passionate supporter of democratic Athens in its many years of confrontation with aristocratic Sparta, the temple of Apollo at Delphi embodied the ambiguous position of its priests during the Persian attack on Hellas.
The playwright also does not believe in the divine origin of laws and other norms regulating social relations and human behavior. Love, a product of human nature itself, forces Medea, and in another tragedy Phaedra, to reject family ties, prevailing customs, and traditions. Natural law conflicts with the law established by people. The poet denounces the prejudices that doomed Athenian women to a position close to slavery, and slaves to the inhuman attitude and contempt of their owners. The tragedy of “The Trojan Women” also sounds a protest against an offensive war, which brings suffering to both the victors and the vanquished; at the height of the Peloponnesian War, this position of Euripides demanded from him courage and loyalty to his convictions. Here again and again the creators of the Greek theater recognized themselves as educators of their contemporary society.
If the focus of Aeschylus’s attention is not on an individual hero, but on the action itself, the conflict of the drama itself, and therefore the main role is assigned not to the actors, but to the chorus, then Sophocles has already decisively broken with this tradition. Choral songs and lyrics receded into the background, the importance of actor's recitations, monologues, and dialogues increased noticeably. For Ajax, Antigone or Electra in Sophocles, the chorus serves only as a background. The psychological picture of the main roles became more and more expressive and clear. Euripides now acts as a real explorer of the secrets of the human soul. Such power of expression of love, anger, maternal passion, as in the monologues of Medea, is not easy to find in the drama of later times. The heroes of Aeschylus and Sophocles do not change at all internally throughout the entire action. Not so with Euripides: his heroes are familiar with painful hesitations, doubts, transitions from despair to determination, from self-confidence to weakness and impotent rage. Myth does not ask about the psychological motives of someone’s activity, just as neither the tragedies of Aeschylus nor the “History” of Herodotus ask about them. The tragedies of Euripides, like Thucydides' History, are realistic and look for the reasons for a person's actions in himself.
The dialogues also became more natural. In Aeschylus, the heroes utter either long, pathetic tirades or short, one-verse remarks. In Euripides' dialogues there is almost no stylization, no artificiality: the heroes speak as ordinary people speak, only those who are in great excitement or tormented by strong passions. From decade to decade, Attic tragedy developed towards increasingly entertaining, dynamic, intense intrigue, and unexpected plot twists. In Euripides' tragedies, viewers were treated to rapid changes in situations, unpredictable developments of action (of course, within the framework of some canonical requirements of the genre), and sudden recognitions and revelations. In his works, plots are often borrowed from lesser-known myths, interpreted very arbitrarily; a lot of realistic, everyday details and direct political allusions; the language is more familiar and natural. The tragedy of gods and heroes turned into a tragedy of people. Even the ancients said that Sophocles presented man as he should be, and Euripides - as he is. When Jason in Medea appears cowardly and base, and Electra, the king's daughter, is the wife of a poor peasant, the myth is destroyed, the sacred legend becomes a secular narrative.
Since tragedy was born from choral lyrics, from dithyramb, music always played an important role in Greek theater, even when the attention of authors and spectators was transferred from the choir to the actors. The tragedy consisted of two parts: lyric-orchestral, entrusted entirely to the choir and not directly related to the action, and stage, or mimetic, covering monologues and dialogues. Along with the actors, the choir also showed itself in this part in the person of its leader, called the luminary. The lyrical part was sung, the stage part consisted of recitation to the accompaniment of a flute. This is how colloquial speech, recitation to music, i.e. melodic recitation, and singing itself were combined. It should be remembered, however, that singing in ancient times was closer to melodic recitation than to today's vocals, and the recitations of ancient actors were more reminiscent of singing than modern conversations on stage. In addition, the stage part was preceded by fragments written in lyrical poetic meters, and the singing was accompanied by expressive gestures. In addition to purely speech and choral scenes, the classical Greek tragedy had the so-called komnos - a joint singing part of the soloist and choir, which continued the tradition of funeral songs: the plaintive lamentations of the actor were echoed by the refrain of the choir.
Tragic poets also had to be excellent musicians. They were especially famous for the beautiful, sweet-sounding melodies of the tragedy of Phrynichus. The lyrical and choral parts of Aeschylus are also distinguished by their freedom and variety of composition. But in Sophocles' tragedies the musical element does not play a significant role: music would only hold back the lively, dynamic development of the action. However, Sophocles also managed to achieve a rare perfection of melodic structure in the choral parts. Euripides, in a sense, restored music to its rights on stage, but not by strengthening the chorus, but by having the actors perform large solo arias; the choral parts had very little connection with the action of the drama, producing a purely musical effect. Euripides' solo arias, full of expression, required considerable virtuosity in performance, which led to professionalism and the identification of theatrical music as a special type of creativity.
Attic comedy
How the tragedy occurred is not yet entirely clear. But the genesis of comedy is generally mysterious. The first complete comedy to survive, Aristophanes' Acharnians, was presented to the public only in 425 BC. e. From the earlier comedies, only titles and a small number of passages have reached us. Aristotle was already unable to make any definite judgment about the origin of Attic comedy. Analysis of the structure of the surviving comedies shows that this new literary genre combined primarily a choral element and a dramatic element Comic choral songs originated in rural Attica, because the word “comedy” itself means “song of komos" - a festive village procession. The combination of these songs with dramatic scenes of cheerful, funny content gave rise to a new genre - comedy.
Its dramatic element and comic scenes were also found outside of Attica: for example, in the Doric regions. There is information about realistic farces played out in Megara, with stable comic types reminiscent of the later commedia dell'arte. Here the gluttonous cook Meson, or pretending to be deaf, but in fact, Mill, who hears everything perfectly, performed in front of the audience.
The most prolific creator of such genre scenes can be considered the Sicilian Epicharmus (late 6th - first half of the 5th century BC). He also parodied myths and introduced a whole gallery of comic characters, such as the rude, uncouth peasant or the hanger-on chasing a good meal. But all these were just the beginnings of the comedy genre. The future belonged to Attic comedy, which, as already mentioned, combined dramatic scenes with cocky village songs. Another important, decisive moment was the appeal to subjects from the then political life of Athens. And today one is struck by the extraordinary ingenuity of Athenian comedians, the wealth of imagination, the power of caustic satire and the constant acute political topicality. Lyrics, politics, rough vulgar humor, obscenity, pathos - everything is mixed in ancient Greek comedy, ensuring its long life through the centuries.
These are the comedies of Aristophanes, the only creator of Attic, or more precisely, the so-called old Attic comedy, whose works have survived to our time not only in fragments, but also in their entirety. His predecessors, who boldly combined phallic jokes and obscenity with political satire, were Eupolis and Cratinus, who, together with Aristophanes, form the same triad of outstanding talents in comedy that Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides form in tragedy. The old Attic comedy is based on many fantastic performances, reversals, and parodies. In his unpreserved comedy “Dionysalexandros”, Kratin portrays the matter as if the judge called upon to resolve the dispute between the three goddesses about which of them was the most beautiful was not Paris, but the god Dionysus himself. It was he who received the beautiful Helen from Aphrodite and took her to Troy; when the war began, he ran away, but was caught and given into the hands of the Achaeans, while Helen went to Paris. The attention of the Athenians was attracted not only by the bold parody of the epic legend and myth, but also by a direct political allusion to the first person in the state, Pericles: like Dionysus of the Trojans, so he involved the Athenians in the war. The image of Dionysus became only a mask under which Pericles, who was considered the culprit of the Peloponnesian War, was supposed to hide.
Thus, Attic comedy played out in allegories and symbols the real political dramas of the great city.
The edge of those comedies, the content of which we know, was usually directed against the leaders of the radical democratic group: Pericles, later Cleon and Hyperbole. It is not surprising that comedians eagerly praised the past both in politics and in art. Not only Aristophanes in “Frogs” praised the old Aeschylus, speaking with hostility about the innovator Euripides. And other comedy authors loved to bring characters from bygone eras onto the stage, contrasting them with those living today. In the “Laws” of Cratinus, Solon himself addressed the audience from the stage, calling on the Athenians to return to the ancient simplicity of morals. In the comedy "Demes" Eupolis seemed to call Miltiades, Aristides, the same Solon from the underground kingdom of the dead, who then descended again into the gloomy Hades.
The political focus of the old Attic comedy is clearly visible in the work of Aristophanes, who is close in his sympathies to the conservative Attic peasantry and the middle strata of the urban population, the demos. During the Peloponnesian War, which devastated fields and undermined trade, the comedian persistently promoted peace (the comedies “Acharnians”, “Peace”, “Lysistrata”). In Acharnanae, the oldest surviving comedy by Aristophanes, staged in 425 BC. uh, through the mouth of the hero, an ordinary Athenian citizen of Dikeopolis, the author mocked the belligerence of Athenian politicians and praised peace. Aristophanes' fantasy is bold and magnificent: Dikeopolis, fed up with the hardships of war, decides to conclude its own separate peace with Sparta. The God of Agriculture brings him from Sparta “samples” of the world in different bottles: here is a five-year world, a ten-year world, and a thirty-year world. Dikeopolis tastes from each bottle and finally chooses the most “delicious” world - thirty years old, for eight drachmas. After the prologue came the most important part in any Attic comedy - the agon, that is, the scene of an argument between two opponents. With skillfully selected arguments, Dikeopolis manages to convince the angry residents of the Attic community (deme) of Acharna, eager to take revenge on the Spartans for the devastated vineyards, of the correctness of his decision. The war continues, and Dikeopolis and his family enjoy the benefits of a peaceful life and conduct profitable trade with all Greek states. And so Dikeopolis is going to a feast, and the military leader Lamakh is going on a winter campaign. The first returns cheerful, drunk, and softened, the second returns wounded and beaten. Fantasy intertwines with reality, the topicality of what is shown on stage is beyond doubt among the audience, and now they themselves must reflect on their choice.
The anti-war theme is continued, as already mentioned, by the comedies “Peace”, where only through combined efforts people manage to bring out of captivity the much-desired goddess Eirene (Peace), and “Lysistrata”: here the cause of peace is taken into their own hands by women led by Lysistrata, who decide keep men away until they put an end to the terrible war.
But the most famous was the comedy “The Riders”, the satirical edge of which is directed against the Athenian demagogue, political leader of radical democracy, owner of the leather workshop Cleon. The almost completely deaf, decrepit, stupid old man, whom the arguing Tanner and Sausage Maker are trying to win over to their side with promises and persuasion, here bears the name Demos and personifies the Athenian people, deprived of traditional valor and becoming a victim of self-interested demagogues. In the end, the Sausage Man, by cunning and bribery, attracts the old man Demos to his side, the Tanner (Cleon) is disgraced and expelled, and Demos himself, having bathed in magical water, suddenly appears young, full of heroic powers and receives, in addition, thirty years of peace. Sober, prudent, moderate policies that promise people a calm and prosperous life are winning. At the same time, Aristophanes does not question the very foundations of the democratic structure of Athens, but only denounces the bad leaders of the people who drag gullible people into the abyss of war, and themselves profit from their misfortunes. Aristophanes was understood correctly: his comedy “The Horsemen” received the greatest award from Athenian audiences.
The comedian’s conservatism and his suspicious attitude towards any “innovations” that could shake traditional polis morality are even more noticeable in the comedies “Frogs” and “Clouds”. The author is irreconcilable with such “innovators,” be it the poet Euripides or the philosopher Socrates, who is presented as absurd and immoral, capable of teaching young people only crookedness and disrespect for elders. The son of the main character, Strepsiades, having listened to Socrates' reasoning, begins to beat his father, justifying his actions with sophistical justifications of permissiveness. And the father has no choice but to furiously set fire to the house of the harmful philosopher.
However, not only the son of Strepsiades, but also the entire Athenian society passed into the 5th century. BC e. the school of sophists, Socrates, and new poets. Generous comic fantasy, unbridled gaiety, noisy, full-blooded laughter receded, replaced by irony, a caustic grin, and a passion for lively, psychologically subtle intrigue, and not daring political attacks, beatings and outright obscenity. Instead of easy-to-guess political characters, everyday types who were just as familiar to the audience appeared on the stage: tipsy revelers, hangers-on, hetaeras, foreigners, cooks, flutists, doctors, etc. The new genre properties of comedy noticeably changed its form: the role of the chorus became much smaller , the agon disappeared, the choral parts gave way to simple vocal and dance inserts. This is how the middle and then the new Attic comedy was born.
Introduction
Friedrich Nietzsche. Is he a philosopher? Is he a philologist? A crazy nihilist, an ideologist of fascism, a man out of his time? They tried to define it in different ways in different years of history. The very fact that he was scolded or admired does not give us the courage to say that Friedrich Nietzsche is a gray mouse in the history of philosophy. “To shine after three hundred years is my thirst for glory,” Nietzsche said in his “Evil Wisdom,” but he began to shine nine years after the publication of his first book, which was called “The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music.” A book aimed at the phenomenon of antiquity, the Hellenic phenomenon, the phenomenon of Socrates, a book designed to change the attitude of the intellectual world to ancient culture.
In this work, which consists of three paragraphs, we will consider the phenomenon of Greek tragedy. The works of F. Nietzsche will help us deal with this problem: “The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music”, “Thus Spoke Zarathustra”. When analyzing these works, we will see what roots Greek tragedy has, how it continues its existence in the work “Thus Spoke Zarathustra,” as well as what influence it had on the art of the Greeks. The influence of Apollonian and Dionysian on the formation of culture. Let us shed light on the problem of ancient man, his place in the world, as well as the problem of cognition of existence. Let's take a look from a new angle at Socrates, the personality with whom any scientific approach begins, as well as what role he played in Greek culture.
The problem of man and knowledge against the background of the Attic tragedy
When considering ancient culture, Nietzsche paid close attention to mythology. There are two principles in the culture of the Greeks: Apollonian and Dionysian. The first is responsible for the art of plastic images, in other words, the art of theater. The second is responsible for music. The Hellenic will was able to combine two opposite directions into a new art - the art of Greek tragedy. “With their two deities of the arts, Apollo and Dionysus, is connected our knowledge of the enormous opposition in origin and purpose that we encounter in the Greek world between the art of plastic images - Apollonian - and the non-plastic art of music - the art of Dionysus; these two very different aspirations act side by side with one another, most often in open discord among themselves and mutually encouraging each other to ever new and more powerful creations, in order to perpetuate in them the struggle of the named opposites, only apparently united by the common word “art”; until, finally, by a miraculous metaphysical act of the Hellenic “will” they appear bound into some permanent duality and in this duality they finally create a work of art that is as Dionysian as it is Apollonian—the Attic tragedy.”
Two gods. Two beginnings. Two completely different worlds. The Apollonian world of sleep and the Dionysian world of intoxication. And if the world of dreams brings peace to a person after a hard day, this world always remains illusory. This world, like Apollo himself, remains unshakable, self-limited, not crossing the line, so as not to turn into harsh reality. Dionysian intoxication is the opposite of this tranquility of the Apollonian principle. The life of the Dionysian madmen rushes by in a stormy rush of dances and orgies. Here life celebrates its union with man. All the boundaries separating people and man from nature are broken here. “Now, with the good news of the harmony of the worlds, everyone feels not only united, reconciled, united with his neighbor, but one with him, as if the veil of Maya was torn and only shreds of it were still fluttering before the mysterious First One.”
Already here we can see the origins of Zarathustra. It is from this work that Nietzsche “kills” God. Thanks to Dionysus, a person feels like a god. “Just as animals have now received the gift of speech and the earth flows with milk and honey, so something supernatural sounds in man: he feels like a god, he himself now walks enthusiastic and sublime; This is how he saw the gods walking in his dreams.” This idea is just emerging in Nietzsche’s first work, it is not so important for understanding it, but subsequently, it is the idea of God-Man, or rather, only man, but Man with a capital “M”, a man free from the prejudices of religion and society, that will become one of the central problems of Nietzsche's creativity. Here Nietzsche only touches on it and takes us further into the intricacies of Apollonian and Dionysian motifs. We see the influence of Dionysian rhythms on the Greeks, accustomed to the calm of Apollo. One can watch for a long time and not without pleasure how Nietzsche, like a laboratory scientist, examines the emerging Greek conflict. Delving into the Apollonian and Dionysian, Nietzsche comes to the conclusion that these phenomena are not the cause of the Greek worldview, but a consequence. Nietzsche rejects the simple explanation for the appearance of the Olympian gods. Why, asks Nietzsche. Why exactly this and for what purpose. Nietzsche finds the answer in the old Greek legend about King Midas, who was chasing Silenus, the companion of Dionysus. “When he finally fell into his hands, the king asked what was best and most preferable for a person. The demon remained stubbornly and motionless; Finally, forced by the king, he burst out with a roaring laugh in these words: “Ill-fated one-day-old generation, children of chance and need, why are you forcing me to tell you something that would be more useful for you not to hear? The best for you is completely unattainable: not to be born, not to be at all, to be nothing. And the second most important thing for you is to die soon.” Fear of existence, fear of living, lead to the creation of a pantheon of gods. In order to be able to live, the Greeks are overshadowed by the gods, and we remember what the Greek gods were like. By no means ascetic gods, and what is important, it is through the prism of the Apollonian instinct of beauty that the Olympic order of joy develops. Nietzsche shows us that it is the gods who justify human life by living it themselves. Now a person wants to live and the worst thing for him is death in general. We see here the unconditional victory of the Apollonian illusion. Illusions, since a person replaces reality with an Apollonian dream, the existence of gods, in order to avoid a clear picture of reality. However, Nietzsche correctly notes that the Dionysian has not gone away. The Dionysian broke through the boundaries of Apollonian culture time after time, reminding the Greek on what his existence rested, bringing painful sobriety. “Moreover, he also had to feel that his entire existence, with all its beauty and moderation, rested on the hidden substratum of suffering and knowledge, which was revealed to him again through the medium of this Dionysian principle.” And here lie the origins of Greek tragedy. In the close interweaving of two opposing principles, Attic tragedy is born as the goal of both instincts. The goal, as it may seem at first glance, is simple and understandable, to make a person’s existence happy. Cover yourself with illusion again. Oh, this Nietzsche, again under the veil of a scientific study of tragedy, with its integral aspects, he, as if by chance, hides the problem of knowledge, the problem of ancient man with his attitude to the world. Brings Homer and Archilochus onto the stage. Shows us their influence and place in Greek history. And only towards the end, as if by chance, does he draw our attention to the fact that Hellenic thought, thanks to the Dionysian principle, penetrated into the essence of the so-called world history and saw there the destruction, finitude and meaninglessness of the individual. This feeling of deepest despair is facilitated by the Dionysian state. “The fact is that the exaltation of the Dionysian state, with its destruction of the usual limits and boundaries of existence, contains within itself, while it lasts, a certain lethargic element into which everything personally lived in the past is immersed. Thus, between everyday life and Dionysian reality lies an abyss of oblivion.” Thus, a person learns the processes of being. He realizes that his individual Self is nothing. He cannot change anything in the eternal essence of things. “No consolation will help here; passionate desire does not stop at some world after death, even at the gods; existence is denied in its entirety, together with its sparkling reflection in the gods or in the immortal otherworldly future. In realizing the truth that has once appeared to one’s eyes, one now sees everywhere only the horror and absurdity of existence.” Fatalism and, as a consequence, pessimism, veiled by Greek art as a way to protect themselves from reality, are the core of the Greek world. The man of antiquity is deeply unhappy, and tragedy is a cure. Nietzsche confirms his conclusions with a striking example: “When, after a bold attempt to look at the sun, we, blinded, turn away our gaze, then, like a healing agent, dark spots appear before our eyes; on the contrary, the appearance of light images of Sophocles’ heroes - in short, the Apollonian mask - is a necessary product of a gaze cast into the terrible depths of nature, like shining spots, healing a gaze tormented by the horrors of the night.” Actually, on this note the era of the great Greek tragedy ends, a mixture of Apollonian calm and Dionysian ecstasy, frantic dancing. A tragedy in which, immersed in the action, the Greek merged with nature, destroyed the boundaries of individuality, became something whole, timeless, not subject to the suffering of reality and at the same time comprehending the principles of existence, the operating forces of the world. Now time is playing a cruel joke on the Greeks. The great tragedians who felt and understood Apollo and Dionysus, and turned their influence into art, beautiful and unique art, are being replaced by new faces who do not feel, at least, the Dionysian influence. Euripides was the first to destroy tragedy with his own hands. The man, according to Nietzsche, is very far from Dionysian music. Euripides did not understand either the music of Dionysus or the myth that, with its help, was so skillfully woven into the tragedy. “What did you want, blasphemous Euripides, when you tried once again to force this dying man into slave labor for your benefit? He died in your hands - the hands of a rapist, and so you put into practice a false, disguised myth, which, like the monkey of Hercules, only dressed itself up in ancient splendor. And just as the myth died for you, so did the genius of music die for you.” However, Euripides could not give up; he felt the poet in himself. He created a comedy that was only a shadow of a tragedy. The beginning of the end of the greatness of the Greeks. As if to mock them, Nietzsche speaks of the last man in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. “Woe! The time is approaching when man will no longer give birth to a star. Woe! The time of the most despicable man is approaching, who can no longer despise himself. Look! I show you the last person. "What is love? What is creation? Aspiration? What is a star? - so asks the last person and blinks. The earth has become small, and the last person is jumping on it, making everything small. His race is indestructible, like an earthen flea; the last person lives the longest. “We have found happiness,” say the last people, and blink.” Socrates decided to help Euripides in his difficult work. The one who did not understand the tragedy more than others, the one who relied only on knowledge and reason, the one who was unable to feel the sacredness of Apollo-Dionysian knowledge, hammered the last nail into the coffin of the ancient tragedy. Nietzsche very correctly notes the failure of Socrates in this area: “Like Plato, he ranked it among the flattering arts, depicting only the pleasant and not the useful, and therefore demanded from his students abstinence and strict self-isolation from such unphilosophical entertainment.” Thus, tragedy and music die when the Dionysian call to Greek man weakens. From their death a completely new, unprecedented phenomenon is born. The phenomenon of Socrates. Socrates, as Nietzsche claims, is a completely new type of being, a type of theoretical person. Socrates is the prototype of a theoretical optimist. It relies exclusively on the knowability of nature and the world. Socrates considers knowledge to be the main virtue. Delusion is the greatest evil. Every science begins with Socrates, but Nietzsche reproaches Socrates for this. Science, Nietzsche believes, is something like a ball, striving further and further in pursuit of a dream, sooner or later it comes to its boundaries, where it actually crashes. At some point it reaches a point, followed by something incomprehensible, not cognizable by science. And here Socrates’ optimistic theory of knowledge becomes tragic knowledge again, which needs the protection and support of art. According to F.G. Junger, the end of Greek tragedy: “This is the time when philosophy and history, ethics and sophistry, Euripides, Socrates and the new Attic dithyramb appear. This is a step forward from the fictional, imaginary world to the true world, a step that Nietzsche takes in the opposite direction. For here his thought begins, here he himself begins.”
nietzsche greek tragedy dionysus
Tragedy. Ancient tragedy names Athens as its first poet Euripides and points to 534 BC. as on the date of the first production of the tragedy during the “Great Dionysia”. This tragedy was distinguished by two significant features: 1) in addition to the choir, an actor performed, who made messages to the choir, exchanged remarks with the choir or with its leader (luminary). 2) the choir took part in the game, portraying a group of people placed in a plot connection with those who the actor represented.
The works of the first tragedians have not been preserved and the nature of the development of plots in the early tragedy is unknown, but the main content of the tragedy was the image of “suffering”. Interest in the problems of “suffering” and its connection with the ways of human behavior was generated by the religious and ethical fermentations of the 6th century, reflecting the formation of the ancient slave society and state, new connections between people, a new phase in the relationship between society and the individual. Problems - myths about heroes belonging to to the basic foundations of polis life, and constituting one of the most important parts in the cultural wealth of the Greek people. Aristotle: Tragedy underwent many changes before it took its final form. At an earlier stage, it had a “satirical” character, was distinguished by a simple plot, a humorous style and an abundance of dance elements; it became a serious work only later. He considers the source of the tragedy to be the improvisations of the “initiators of the dithyramb.” The decisive moment for the emergence of the Attic tragedy was the development of “passions” into a moral problem. The tragedy raised questions of human behavior using the example of the fate of mythological heroes.
However, drama as an independent work of art originated only in Greece, and, moreover, not earlier than the 6th century. BC, and was embodied in the form of tragedy and comedy. After all, drama presupposes greater independence of the human personality and a clash of personalities among themselves, as well as a clash of individuals with nature or society. This could only appear in Greece in connection with the rise and establishment of a democratic society. The individual who once stood out from the clan community had to master the elemental power of the clan and be able to internally understand the life-giving creative forces of the natural world. This is where the cult of such deities, which, of course, dates back to primitive times, came in handy, which was primarily a generalization of precisely these creative processes.
There were always a lot of deities of this kind throughout the entire territory of the primitive world. But during the period of the birth and rise of Greek democracy, Dionysus turned out to be such a deity, whose cult from the non-Greek areas of Thrace in the north, Asia Minor in the east and Crete in the south swept like a violent whirlwind throughout Greece during the 7th-6th centuries. BC.
This orgiastic cult captured the imagination of the Greeks of that time. The cult participants themselves represented themselves as Dionysus, who had another name - Bacchus, and therefore were called Bacchantes and Bacchants. And since Dionysus was nothing more than a generalization of the creatively productive processes of nature and society, he was thought to be embodied in every living creature, which seemed to be torn to pieces and then resurrected, like the deity himself. This undoubtedly contributed to the emergence and growth of various kinds of ideas about the struggle of one individuality with another, that is, the emergence and growth of a dramatic understanding of life.
Dionysian delight and orgasm by its very nature destroyed all barriers between people, and therefore the former clan and aristocratic nobility in relation to this new deity were already on the same level with the lower strata of the population. That is why the religion of Dionysus from the very beginning came into conflict with the former, aristocratic Olympian gods and quickly defeated them, and Dionysus himself now seemed to be the son of Zeus and was also placed on Olympus, to which he had previously had nothing to do. Consequently, the main source of Greek drama during the period of rising democracy was rooted primarily in the profound Dionysian reform of the former Olympian, and in particular Homeric, mythology. It is known that it was the rulers of the 6th century. BC. propagated the cult of Dionysus in their countries. So, for example, the Athenian tyrant Pisistratus, who relied on democratic strata and pursued an anti-aristocratic policy, established the festival of the Great Dionysius in Athens, and it was under Pisistratus that the first tragedy was staged in Athens. Another tyrant, Cleisthenes, who ruled in the city of Sikyon, handed over to Dionysus the holiday that had previously been celebrated in honor of the local hero Adrastus.
The path from the cult of Dionysus to Greek classical tragedy as a work of art was very complex and long, although it was passed in Greece with incredible speed, just as the classical period of Greek literature itself passed incredibly quickly.
2. The forms that the main source of the tragedy took.
a) Aristotle speaks of the origin of tragedy “from the singers of praise.” The dithyramb was indeed a choral song in honor of Dionysus. The tragedy, therefore, arose from the alternating singing of the lead singer and the choir: the lead singer gradually becomes an actor, and the choir was the very basis of the tragedy. Based on the three great Greek tragedians - Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides - one can quite clearly establish the evolution of the chorus in Greek classical drama. This evolution was a gradual decline in the importance of the chorus, starting from those tragedies of Aeschylus, where the chorus itself is a character, and ending with tragedies and represented nothing more than a kind of musical intermission.
b) The same Aristotle speaks about the origin of the tragedy from the Satmra game. Satyrs are humanoid demons with strongly pronounced goat-like elements (horns, beard, hooves, unkempt fur), and sometimes with a horse's tail.
The goat, like the bull, was closely related to the cult of Dionysus. Dionysus was often represented as a goat, and goats were sacrificed to him. Here was the idea that God himself was torn to pieces so that people could taste the divinity of Dionysus himself under the guise of goat meat. The word tragedy itself, translated from Greek, literally means either “song of the goats” or “song of the goats” (tragos - goat and ode - song).
c) It is necessary to recognize the folklore origin of drama in general. Ethnographers and art historians have collected significant material from the history of different peoples about the primitive collective game, which was accompanied by singing and dancing, consisted of parts of a lead singer and a choir or two choirs and initially had a magical meaning, because in this way they thought of influencing nature.
d) It is quite natural that in primitive religious and labor rituals those elements that later led to the development of separate types of drama or to vicissitudes within one drama were not yet differentiated. Therefore, a mixture of the sublime and base, serious and humorous is one of the features of these primitive beginnings of drama, which later led to the origin of tragedy and comedy from the same Dionysian source.
e) In the city of Eleusis, mysteries were given, which depicted the abduction of her daughter Persephone from Demeter by Pluto. The dramatic element in Greek cults could not help but influence the development of drama in the dithyramb and could not help but contribute to the isolation of artistic and dramatic moments from religious rituals. Therefore, in science there is a firmly established theory about the influence of the Eleusinian mysteries on the development of the tragedy in Athens.
f) The theory of the origin of tragedy from the cult of the spirit of the dead, and in particular from the cult of heroes, has also been put forward. Of course, the cult of heroes could not be the only source of tragedy, but it was of great importance for tragedy already in view of the fact that tragedy was almost exclusively based on heroic mythology.
g) Almost every tragedy contains scenes of mourning for certain heroes, so there was also a theory about the phrenetic origin of the tragedy (tbrenos - in Greek “funeral lament”). But frenos also could not be the only source of tragedy.
h) It was also pointed out that there was a mimic dance at the grave of the heroes. This point is also very important. i) At a certain stage of development, a serious tragedy separated from. funny satyr drama. And from mythological tragedy and satyr drama a non-mythological comedy was separated. This differentiation is a certain stage in the development of Greek drama.
3. Tragedy before Aeschylus.
Not a single tragedy has survived before Aeschylus. According to Aristotle, drama originated in the Peloponnese, among the Dorian population. However, drama received its development only in the much more advanced Attica, where tragedy and satyr drama were staged on the festival of the Great (or City) Dionysia (March - April), and on another festival of Dionysus, the so-called Lenaea (January - February) - mainly comedy; At the Rural Dionysia (December - January), plays that had already been performed in the city were staged. We know the name of the first Athenian tragedian and the date of the first production of the tragedy. It was Thespis who first staged the tragedy at the Great Dionysia in 534. A number of innovations and the titles of some tragedies are attributed to Thespis, but the reliability of this information is questionable. A contemporary of the famous Aeschylus was Phrynichus (approx. 511-476), to whom, among others, the tragedies “The Taking of Miletus” and “The Phoenician Women”, which gained great fame, are attributed. Later Pratin acted, becoming famous for his satyr dramas, of which he had more than tragedies. All these tragedians were eclipsed by Aeschylus.
4. The structure of the tragedy.
Aeschylus' tragedies are already distinguished by their complex structure. Undoubtedly, the development path of this structure was long. The tragedy began with a prologue, by which we must understand the beginning of the tragedy before the first performance of the choir. The first performance of the choir, or more precisely, the first part of the choir, is a parod of tragedy (parod in Greek means “performance”, “passage”). After the parod, the tragedy alternated between the so-called episodies, that is, dialogical parts (episodies means “entry” - dialogue in relation to the chorus was initially something secondary), and stasims, the so-called “standing songs of the choir”, “song of the choir in a motionless state” . The tragedy ended with an exodus, exodus, or final song of the choir. It is also necessary to point out the combined singing of the choir and actors, which could take place in different places of the tragedy and usually had an excited-crying character, which is why it was called kommos (copto in Greek means “I hit,” that is, in this case, “I hit myself in the chest.” "). These parts of the tragedy can be clearly traced in the works of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides that have come down to us.
Works of Aeschylus.
The first great Greek tragedian to gain worldwide recognition, Aeschylus, lived in Greece in the first half of the 5th century. BC, in that era, which both the Greeks themselves and all subsequent culture have always regarded as an era of greatest upsurge - social, political, ideological and artistic. Greece, which went through the decomposition of the communal-tribal system, created a state instead of tribal authorities: first an aristocratic and then a democratic republic
Aeschylus (525-456) came from a noble agricultural family. He was born in Eleusis, near Athens. Aeschylus wrote at least 80 plays - tragedies and satirical dramas. Only 7 tragedies have reached us in their entirety; only excerpts remain from the remaining plays. "Oresteia", "Prik.Prometheus". The range of ideas that Aeschylus puts forward in his tragedies is striking in its complexity: the progressive development of human civilization, the defense of the democratic order of Athens and its opposition to Persian despotism, a number of religious and philosophical issues - the gods and their dominion over the world, the fate and personality of man, etc. In the tragedies of Aeschylus, gods, titans, and heroes of amazing spiritual power act. They often embody philosophical, moral and political ideas, and therefore their characters are outlined somewhat generally. Aeschylus's work was religious and mythological. The poet believes that the gods rule the world, but despite this, his people are not weak-willed creatures subordinate to the gods. According to Aeschylus, man is endowed with a free mind and will and acts according to his own understanding. Aeschylus believes in fate, or fate, which even the gods obey. Tragedy "Chained Prometheus". Zeus is depicted here not as the bearer of truth and justice, but as a tyrant who intended to destroy the human race and who condemns Prometheus, the savior of humanity, who rebelled against his power, to eternal torment. The tragedy has little action, but it is full of high drama. In the tragic conflict, the titan wins, whose will was not broken by the lightning of Zeus. Prometheus is depicted as a fighter for the freedom and reason of people, he is the discoverer of all the benefits of civilization, and is punished for “excessive love for people.”
Historical basis and ideological meaning.
The historical basis for such a tragedy could only be the evolution of primitive society, the transition from the bestial state of man to civilization. The tragedy wants to convince the reader and viewer, first of all, of the need to fight against all tyranny and despotism in defense of the weak and oppressed person. This struggle, according to Aeschylus, is possible thanks to civilization, and civilization is possible thanks to constant progress. Aeschylus lists the benefits of civilization in great detail. These are, first of all, theoretical sciences: arithmetic, grammar, astronomy, then technology and practice in general: the art of construction, mining, navigation, the use of animals, medicine. Finally, this is mantika (interpretation of dreams and omens, bird fortune telling and fortune telling by the entrails of animals). Aeschylus demonstrates human strength in the broader sense of the word.
He paints an image of a fighter, a moral winner in conditions of physical suffering. The human spirit cannot be broken by anything, no suffering or threats, if it is armed with deep ideology and an iron will. Finally, this entire apotheosis of the struggle for freedom and progress of mankind is conceived by Aeschylus not in terms of an abstract narrative, but precisely as a story about the struggle with the supreme deity Zeus. This is not yet a direct criticism of religion, since it comes from Prometheus, who himself is a god and even a cousin of Zeus, but in any case it is a sharp criticism of the mythological Olympus: and Prometheus openly speaks of his hatred of all the gods who subjected him to such torture .
"Bound Prometheus" by Aeschylus, unlike his other tragedies, is striking in its brevity and insignificant content of choral parts. This deprives him of that broad and grandiose oratorical genre that is inherent in other tragedies of Aeschylus. There is no oratorio in it, because the choir does not play any role here at all. The dramaturgy of "Bound Prometheus" is also very weak (only monologues and dialogues). The only genre left that is superbly represented in tragedy is the genre of declamation.
d) Characters.
The characters of "Bound Prometheus" are the same as in the early tragedies of Aeschylus: they are monolithic, static, monochromatic and not marked by any contradictions.
Prometheus himself is a superman, an unyielding personality, standing above all hesitations and contradictions, not agreeing to any compromise or conciliation. Prometheus regards what is happening as the will of fate (which he speaks about no less than six times in the tragedy: 105, 375, 511, 514, 516, 1052; the Oceanids also talk about this - 936). The image of Prometheus represents that classical harmony of fate and heroic will, which is generally a huge and valuable achievement of the Greek genius: fate predetermines everything, but this does not necessarily lead to powerlessness, lack of will, or insignificance; it can lead to freedom, to great feats, to powerful heroism. In such cases, fate not only does not contradict the heroic will, but, on the contrary, justifies and elevates it. This is Achilles in Homer, Eteocles in Aeschylus, but even more so is Prometheus. Therefore, the lack of ordinary everyday psychology in Prometheus is compensated here by the monolithic nature of the hero’s powerful deeds, presented, albeit statistically, but sublimely, majestically.
The remaining heroes of "Bound Prometheus" are characterized by one leading feature, quite immovable, but less significant than that of the main hero of the tragedy. Ocean is a good-natured old man who wants to help Prometheus and is ready to compromise, without taking into account the person to whom he offers his services. Io is a physically and mentally suffering woman, distraught with pain. Hephaestus and Hermes are mechanical executors of the will of Zeus, one against his own will, the other insensitive and thoughtless, like an unreasoning servant.
All these characters can be called characters in the figurative sense of the word. These are general diagrams, or mechanical embodiments of an idea or thought.
e) Development of action.
If by action we mean the transition from one state to another, opposite to it, as a result of the relationship of capable heroes, then in “Bound Prometheus” there is no action, and, consequently, no development of it.
What happens between the scenes of Prometheus being chained and overthrown consists exclusively of monologues and dialogues, which in no way move the action forward and in any case do not reverse it. The monologues and dialogues of "Bound Prometheus" are highly artistic, but they are completely undramatic.
The only driving motive can be considered only the future liberation of Prometheus by Hercules, which is predicted by Prometheus himself. But this is only a prediction, and, moreover, about a very distant future, and there are no hints of even the slightest signs of this liberation in the present in the tragedy.
f) Artistic style.
The mere fact that the protagonists of the tragedy are gods and even of the heroes there is only one Io and that these gods are presented in a serious manner testifies to the monumentality that is characteristic of all the tragedies of Aeschylus. As for the other main point of Aeschylus's style, namely pathetism, it is here significantly weakened by large lengths of ideological, theoretical and philosophical content and long conversations, often also of a rather calm nature.
There is pathosity primarily in the initial monody of Prometheus, where Titan complains about the injustice of Zeus, in the scene with the distraught Io, and, finally, in the depiction of the catastrophe in nature during the overthrow of Prometheus into the underworld. However, this pathos is too overloaded with rational content, namely criticism of the despotism of Zeus, and is devoid of those features of frenzy that we found in other tragedies of Aeschylus. But the monumental-pathetic style of "Bound Prometheus" is still evident. Its specificity lies in the general tone of the tragedy, which can be called laudatory-rhetorical. The entire tragedy "Bound Prometheus" is nothing more than a laudatory-rhetorical declamation addressed to its only true hero - Prometheus. Only such an understanding of the artistic style of this tragedy will help to comprehend all its lengths and its non-dramatic setting.
Indeed, Prometheus’s stories and conversations about the past, in particular about his good deeds, without moving the action forward at all, give the image of Prometheus an unusually deep meaning, elevate and saturate ideologically. In the same way, conversations with Oceanus and Hermes, again without developing the action at all, very expressively depict to us the stamina and willpower of Prometheus. The scene with Io immortalizes Prometheus as a sage and seer who knows the secrets of life and existence, although he cannot use these secrets.
In addition to the prophecy of his liberation, Prometheus here also talks a lot about the wanderings of Io with a long list of geographical points through which she has passed and must still pass. Prometheus is credited here with extensive geographical knowledge, which, undoubtedly, was then the latest achievement of science. This story, completely devoid of any drama and even the exact opposite of it, is nevertheless stylistically very important as an increasing depiction of the wisdom of Prometheus.
The choruses in Prometheus Bound are also undramatic. If you approach them from a declamatory-rhetorical point of view, you can immediately see how necessary they are to deepen the general monumental-pathetic style of the tragedy. Parod speaks of the Oceanids' compassion for Prometheus. The first stasim tells us how the north, and the south, and the west, and the east, and the Amazons, and all of Asia, and Colchis, and the Scythians, and Persia, and the seas, and even Hades cry for Prometheus - is this not enough to describe the personality of the main character in relation to everything around him? The second stasim - about the need to subjugate weak beings - and the third stasim - about the inadmissibility of unequal marriages - again emphasize the greatness of Prometheus’ work, which only he is capable of, but weak and downtrodden beings are not capable of.
Finally, the geological catastrophe at the end of the tragedy again demonstrates to us the powerful will of Prometheus, capable of resisting absolutely everything, including all of nature and all the gods who command it. Thus, what is the development of action in “Bound Prometheus” is a gradual and steady intensification of the tragedy of Prometheus’s personality and a gradual declamatory and rhetorical increase in the general monumental-pathetic style of this tragedy.
g) Socio-political orientation.
The ideology of this tragedy, even taken in its abstract form, differs sharply from other tragedies of Aeschylus in its attitude towards Zeus. In other tragedies of Aeschylus we find enthusiastic hymns to Zeus, theological discussions about him, and in any case, constant veneration of him, some kind of directly biblical exaltation of him. In contrast, Zeus of "Bound Prometheus" is depicted as a tyrant, a cruel despot, a treacherous traitor, not omnipotent, a cunning and a coward. When we begin to delve into the style of "Bound Prometheus", it turns out that this attitude towards Zeus is not just some kind of abstract theory and not an accidental appendage to the tragedy, but is carried out in the most daring, daring and even rebellious form, with a revolutionary pathos, with educational conviction and journalistic fervor. This is undoubtedly an educational tragedy, this is an enthusiastic word of praise to the fighter against tyranny.
7. General characteristics.
Aeschylus is a champion of the enlightened aristocracy, which fights against the savagery and barbarism of old times in defense of individuals united in a single state - the polis. A moderately democratized aristocratic polis is for Aeschylus a constant subject of respect and protection. In religious and philosophical terms, Aeschylus also argues in the spirit of the cultural upsurge of his time, freeing his Zeus from all vices and shortcomings and interpreting him as the principle of world justice and constantly praising him.
However, Aeschylus' attitude to mythology is quite critical even without Prometheus. Fragment 70" says: "Zeus is the ether, Zeus is the earth, Zeus is the heavens, Zeus is everything and what is above this." In the "Oresteia" under the guise of Zeis and Dickey, absolute cosmic moralism is preached, which is even higher than individual mythological names. Here is a frank criticism of anthropomorphism. The ardent patriotism of an emancipated aristocrat and an Athenian citizen forced Aeschylus to trace his socio-political and religious-philosophical ideas to the most distant antiquity, finding them there already in a developed form and thereby justifying them with the entire direction of human history.
To characterize the monumental-pathetic style of Aeschylus, not only variations of its two main elements taken separately - monumentality and pathos - are important, but also different forms of their joint functioning in the general style of tragedies. This style, based on the elemental foundations of life, which the religion of Dionysus spoke about, also demonstrates one or another of their design or crystallization in very clear images, which cannot otherwise be called plastic. The main forms of manifestation of Aeschylus’s main monumental-pathetic style did not go beyond the archaic style in general, since everything individual in him, despite the brightness of its design, was always determined not by itself, but by the higher and very harsh laws of life.
An analysis of the artistic style of Aeschylus's tragedies reveals the great efforts of the great genius to depict the wild riot of the dark forces of hoary antiquity, but not just to depict, but to show their transformation and enlightenment, their new organization and plastic design. This occurs as a result of the development of the life of the emancipated polis. It is the polis that is the transformative and organizing force, thanks to which a person is freed from this primitive savagery. But this requires a strong and young, powerful and heroic policy of rising slavery, which, in turn, requires powerful heroes, endowed with the greatest heroic ability to fight the old and create the new. Only the polis, the ascending polis, explains to us in Aeschylus his new moralistic religion, his new civilized mythology, his new monumental-pathetic style and artistic design.
Aeschylus walked with his age along the path of ascending slave-owning democracy, which at first reflected the enormous power of the new class and its titanic efforts to create a new type of culture. Archaic mythology, monumental-pathetic style and titanism do not form an external appendage here, but are a single and inseparable whole with the socio-political life of a young rising democracy. Titanism of Aeschylus is,
