Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository

Thesis Format

Monograph

Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Program

Classics

Supervisor

Suksi, Aara

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.

Summary for Lay Audience

It is now widely accepted that Athenian theater possessed an inherently political character owing to its performance context and engagement with Athenian civic institutions. Scholarship on the political character of Greek tragedy has increasingly turned its attention to the relationship between tragedy and the empire. In tragedy and funeral orations, Athens’ rule is modelled after hegemony, that is, moral leadership. Yet, historical sources reveal that the positive image of the city often conflicted with the realities of empire. Several recent approaches have concentrated especially on tragedies which 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 interest of this analysis is in understanding the way Athenian hegemonic ideology operates in tragedy when ‘Athens’ is absent.

To this effect, I argue that Euripides’ Andromache, which was produced during the opening years of the Peloponnesian War, offers insight into how the Athenians thought about their roles as leaders of an empire. Using the methodology of ‘audience studies’, I interpret tragedy as a product of its historical environment and consider what the play meant for the members of its first audience. In order to construct this context, I employ comparative analysis of the writings of the Athenian historian Thucydides, the rest of Athenian tragedy, and other contemporary texts.

My interpretation of Athenian rule is based on the modern theoretical discussions of hegemony and colonial discourse. Drawing on these concepts, I suggest that the ideological message of Andromache speaks on two levels. The first is in part directed outward at Athenian subjects and works to spread and promote ideas, which challenged the competing ideas advanced by Sparta, Athens’ rival for supremacy, and indirectly 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 process integral to achievement and preservation of dominance.

Download

Share

COinS