Tycho Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff on the Dramatic Technique of Sophocles

2018 ◽  
pp. 92-106
Author(s):  
Hugh Lloyd-Jones
Keyword(s):  
1953 ◽  
Vol III (2) ◽  
pp. 152-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. K. HUNTER
Keyword(s):  

1964 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-184
Author(s):  
C. W. Amerasinghe

The volume of scholarly literature on Aeschylus is already so large that an attempt to make even the minutest addition to it may well appear rash. But the standard literature has most often dealt with the dramatic technique of Aeschylus and with the moral or social issues raised by him. This is true even of Kitto's work, Form and Meaning in Drama. Thus, in his preface, he states, ‘The presumption with Aeschylus, Sophocles and Shakespeare, when he wrote Hamlet, is that the dramatist was competent. If the dramatist had something to say and if he was a competent artist, the presumption is that he has said it and that we, by looking at the form which he has created, can find out what it is’; that is to say, he was thinking of dramatic form. This article is concerned with an aspect of form which does not appear to have received sufficient attention. I would call it the ‘poetic’ aspect of form. ‘Poetry’ is not easy to define, but one of the ‘tentative formulas’ given by Lattimore expresses what I mean. ‘What is directed’, he said, ‘neither to the emotion nor the intellect but to the imagination is the poetry of the plays.’ Aeschylus is a poet even more than he is a dramatic artist. One would naturally, therefore, expect to find in his plays much of the stuff that is directed towards the imagination. This ‘poetic’ element is to a large extent communicated through the form, which will enhance his meaning or will even be an image of his thought. It is from this point of view that I propose, in this note, to examine the Oresteia, in the hope that it may throw some light on many of the peculiarities of construction that are so prominent a feature of the trilogy.


2000 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 255-265
Author(s):  
Lukas Erne

Britain began making Shakespeare her national poet early in the eighteenth century, and Germany followed suit a few decades later, progressively turning ‘unser Shakespeare’ into one of three national poets, with Goethe and Schiller. As early as 1773, Johann Gottfried Herder included his essay on ‘Shakespear’ in a collection entitled Von Deutscher Art und Kunst. The drama of the ‘Sturm und Drang’, which Herder's collection programmatically inaugurated, appropriated what Goethe (Götz von Berlichingen), Schiller (The Robbers) and their contemporaries (mis)understood to be Shakespeare's dramatic technique. By the end of the century, the assimilation had advanced far enough for August Wilhelm von Schlegel, the famous translator of seventeen of Shakespeare's plays, to indulge in no slight national chauvinism: ‘I am eager’, he writes in a letter to his cotranslator Ludwig Tieck, ‘to have your letters on Shakespeare.… I hope you will prove, among other things, that Shakespeare wasn't English. I wonder how he came to dwell among the frosty, stupid souls on that brutal island? … The English critics understand nothing about Shakespeare.’ Even though Tieck failed to prove that Shakespeare was not of English birth, the conviction that Shakespeare was best understood by German rather than by English critics only grew in the course of the nineteenth century. Appropriately, it was in Germany that the first periodical devoted exclusively to Shakespeare, the Jahrbuch der Deutschen Shakespeare-Gesellschaft, was founded in 1865. Fifty years later, the German novelist Gerhart Hauptmann could still claim that ‘there is no people, not even the English, that has the same right to claim Shakespeare as the German. Shakespeare's characters are a part of our world, his soul has become one with ours: and though he was born and buried in England, Germany is the country where he truly lives.’


1983 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 412-420 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. G. McC. Brown

‘Menander has set up a confrontation between this law [the law about epikleroi] and love… He wants the audience to regard the law as stupid and wrong… Surely one of Menander's purposes in writing this play was to make the Athenians consider seriously whether the law ought to be changed.’ Thus Professor D. M. MacDowell in the concluding paragraph of his article ‘Love versus the Law: an Essay on Menander's Aspis’. A similar view was already implicit in E. Karabelias' treatment of the play as indicative of the general attitude to this law in Athens in Menander's day: ‘A n'en point douter, l'épiclérat est ressenti, á l'epoque de Ménandre, comme une anomalie intolérable pour les mceurs de la societe athénienne à la fin du ive s.av.n.è L'épiclérat est odieux et ridicule… L'hostilité envers l'épiclérat est done un signe des temps’. And Professor E. G. Turner has written: ‘it is hard to imagine that the institution of the epiclerate emerged in good standing from this derisory treatment’.


1976 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-133
Author(s):  
D. L. Shaw

In writing El gesticulador, which marks the opening of the modern theatre in Mexico where it was first performed in 1947, Rodolfo Usigli (b. 1905) faced a number of problems, so that the play's technique represents a compromise between conflicting aims. The predominant aspect of the work is the expression of political protest and criticism; the plot hinges on the election of a new governor for a northern Mexican state. But Usigli described the drama in the year it was performed as the first serious attempt at tragedy in the modern Mexican theatre.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document