A review by eva_io
Greek Tragedy by Elizabeth Vandiver
4.0
An excellent lecture series. Prof. Vandiver analyses the extant tragedies while comparing how different tragedians treated the same myth depending on their sensibilities and illustrating how ancient crowds must have reacted to these productions given the burning questions of the period and the political context.
The segment about the characteristics of tragedy was particularly illuminating. When learning about tragedies at school we were taught about several "requirements" which needed to be respected for a dramatic performance to be deemed a tragedy (such as the catharsis and the "fatal flaw" of the tragic hero). We were given the impression that there were principles ALL tragedies had to adhere to.
It turns out that these criteria are conclusions drawn upon analysis of the tragic plays many years after their initial presentation, in an effort to find common patterns and to distill why they work as an art form. It is not a one-size-fits-all situation, however. It is not like a movement where rigid rules are predefined and should absolutely be respected (much like crossing items off a check list). Indeed, many of the tragedies we know of do not fit the identified patterns at all.
I was particularly fascinated by the exploration of “hamartia” (a concept coined by Aristotle in his "Poetics" about a hundred years after the era of the three great tragedians). The term was famously translated as the "fatal flaw" of a character and this translation gave rise to various psychological interpretations of the ancient tragedies. However, it turns out that the best translation would be "wrong estimation". Through that lens, the heroes are tragic because they interpret a situation and pursue what they perceive to be the best course of action, only to realize in the end that they were misguided.
Although quite obvious to some, this shift in perspective was a revelation to me. It makes much more sense for a hero to be tragic because of an error in judgment, rather than being condemned for a defect that is inherent in his character.
To make matters even more interesting, if one were to consider how hamartia comes into play in "Antigone", the person who arises as the tragic hero is, in fact, Creon!
As someone who took the "hamartia as a fatal flaw" definition to be a done deal, and as someone who – at the same time - felt a bit trapped by this interpretation (trying to see how my readings fit into that mold and getting frustrated when a convincing answer eluded me), I was fascinated and relieved to be apprised of the complexity of the situation. I think my future readings will be much more rewarding.
The segment about the characteristics of tragedy was particularly illuminating. When learning about tragedies at school we were taught about several "requirements" which needed to be respected for a dramatic performance to be deemed a tragedy (such as the catharsis and the "fatal flaw" of the tragic hero). We were given the impression that there were principles ALL tragedies had to adhere to.
It turns out that these criteria are conclusions drawn upon analysis of the tragic plays many years after their initial presentation, in an effort to find common patterns and to distill why they work as an art form. It is not a one-size-fits-all situation, however. It is not like a movement where rigid rules are predefined and should absolutely be respected (much like crossing items off a check list). Indeed, many of the tragedies we know of do not fit the identified patterns at all.
I was particularly fascinated by the exploration of “hamartia” (a concept coined by Aristotle in his "Poetics" about a hundred years after the era of the three great tragedians). The term was famously translated as the "fatal flaw" of a character and this translation gave rise to various psychological interpretations of the ancient tragedies. However, it turns out that the best translation would be "wrong estimation". Through that lens, the heroes are tragic because they interpret a situation and pursue what they perceive to be the best course of action, only to realize in the end that they were misguided.
Although quite obvious to some, this shift in perspective was a revelation to me. It makes much more sense for a hero to be tragic because of an error in judgment, rather than being condemned for a defect that is inherent in his character.
To make matters even more interesting, if one were to consider how hamartia comes into play in "Antigone", the person who arises as the tragic hero is, in fact, Creon!
As someone who took the "hamartia as a fatal flaw" definition to be a done deal, and as someone who – at the same time - felt a bit trapped by this interpretation (trying to see how my readings fit into that mold and getting frustrated when a convincing answer eluded me), I was fascinated and relieved to be apprised of the complexity of the situation. I think my future readings will be much more rewarding.