Euripides' 'Andromache' and Athenian Hegemonic Ideology
Abstract
Scholarship on the political character of Athenian tragedy has increasingly turned its attention to the relationship between tragedy and empire. In Athenian panegyric, Athens’ rule is frequently portrayed as hegemonic, although historiographical sources reveal inconsistencies between the idealized image of the city and the historical realities of empire. Several recent approaches have concentrated especially on tragedies that feature an Athenian setting or character in the dramatic action as a means to explore the ways in which the plays engage with Athenian ideas on power and domination. In response, the primary aim of this analysis is an understanding of the way Athenian hegemonic ideology operates in tragedy when ‘Athens’ is conspicuously absent.
To this effect, I argue that Euripides’ Andromache offers insight into how the Athenians conceptualized their roles as leaders of an empire. I suggest that the political overtones of the play are conveyed by the marriage alliance between the Spartan and Thessalian characters, which had implications for the historical relations between Athens, Sparta, and Thessaly. My approach, therefore, can be classified broadly speaking as belonging to the methodology of ‘audience studies’, as it considers what the play signified for the members of its original audience. In this regard, I draw on comparative analysis of the historical context of the drama as evidenced in Thucydides, the rest of Athenian tragedy, and other contemporary texts. The theoretical foundation of my analysis is informed by Antonio Gramsci’s theory of hegemony and the study of colonial discourse, first popularized by Edward Said, both of which conceive of predominance as achieved through the consent or inclusion of dominated parties. In keeping with these concepts, I suggest that the ideological message of Andromache speaks on two levels: the first is in part directed outward at subordinate groups and works to disseminate and promote an ideology, which actively contested the competing voice advanced by Sparta and implicitly justified Athens’ position of leadership over Greek city-states. The second is targeted inward at the Athenian audience members themselves and encourages self-reflection and criticism, a necessary precondition of a dominant group’s attainment and preservation of hegemonic status.