Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T09:13:05.713Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Victorian Perceptions of Greek Tragedy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 September 2010

Richard Dowgun
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Victorians would have been remarkable if they had resisted the temptation to find lessons for, and parallels with, their own situation in the history they wrote. The story of Athens in the fifth century B.C. was particularly enticing in this regard. The small state that defeated the Persians at Salamis, that rapidly became the leader of Western civilization, that brought to birth advances in art, in philosophy, in practical science, that struggled toward democracy, that attained imperial power but then began to decline, seemed obviously to prefigure the destiny of the small state that defeated France at Waterloo, that brought to birth the Industrial Revolution, and so on. In this paper I will examine the implications for their own times that various Victorians found in the lives and works of the Greek tragedians. I will show how two different groups interpreted Aeschylus so as to appropriate his prestige for their own view of life; how the figure of Sophocles was used in the debate over aestheticism; and how Euripides' philosophical sophistication and ambiguity were felt to have a special relevance for troubled thinkers at the end of the century. Trying to summarize so much critical diversity is rather like trying to reduce an opera to a melody or two; but, to change metaphors, the field is new, and first maps are always crude.

Type
Research Article
Information
Victorian Literature and Culture , Volume 10 , Spring 1982 , pp. 71 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Schlegel, A. W., A Course of Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature, trans. Black, John (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1846), p. 24.Google Scholar

2. The most ambitious account of nineteenth-century attempts to reconcile or at least clarify the relations between Classic and Christian art is DeLaura, David J., Hebrew and Hellene in Victorian England (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1969).Google Scholar

3. Wilson, John, “The Agamemnon of Aeschylus,” Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, 30 (1831), 389.Google Scholar

4. Dyer, Thomas, “On the Chorus of the Eumenides,” Classical Museum, I (1843), 282.Google Scholar

5. The work most instrumental in introducing modern ideas on the origins of tragedy to England in these years was probably The Theatre of the Creeks, which went through eight editions between 1827 and 1875. The work had an odd history: originally written by a scholar named Buckham, it was remodeled after the first three editions by J. W. Donaldson, and all subsequent editions bore his name alone. I have only been able to obtain a copy of Donaldson's 1860 edition and so can only guess how much information the book made available and when. In that edition Donaldson devotes a good deal of attention to the religious origins of tragedy and takes scrupulous note of the latest German scholarship: I assume he also did so in the earlier versions. Dyer's objections to the increasingly religious interpretation of Greek tragedy can be found in “Sophocles and his Dramatic Art,” Classical Museum, 5 (1848), 65–99.Google Scholar

6. Scott, Robert, “The Oresteia of Aeschylus,” Quarterly Review, 70 (1842), 325.Google Scholar

7. Lee, Henry T., “Shakespeare's Brutus,” Knickerbocker, 57 (1861), 492.Google Scholar

8. Alison, Archibald, “The Greek and Romantic Drama,” Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, 59 (1856), 66–73.Google Scholar

9. Scott, Robert, “Modern Criticism of Aeschylus,” Quarterly Review, 64 (1839), 387.Google Scholar

10. Donaldson, J. W., “The Choephorae of Aeschylus,” Westminster Review, 68 (1857). 244.Google Scholar

11. “Blomfield's Edition of Aeschylus' Agamemnon,” English Review, I (1844), 111.Google Scholar

12. J. S. Blackie, “Euripides and the Greek Drama,” p. 257.

13. J. W. Donaldson, “The Choephorae of Aeschylus,” p. 245.

14. “Blomfield's Edition of Aeschylus' Agamemnon,” p. 117.

15. Ibid., p. 111.

16. See Newman, J. H., Essays and Sketches (1948, rpt. Westwood: Greenwood Press, 1970), I, 55–60Google Scholar; and Letters and Diaries (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), I, 82–83.Google Scholar

17. Keble, John, Lectures on Poetry 1832–1841, trans. E. K. Francis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1912), 11, 5.Google Scholar

18. J. S. Blackie, “Euripides and the Greek Drama,” p. 252.

19. Blackie, p. 256.

20. Lester, J. D., “Sophokles,” Westminster Review, NS 43 (1873), 3.Google Scholar

21. Campbell, Lewis, Religion in Greek Literature: A Sketch in Outline (London: Longmans, Green, 1898), pp. 272–73.Google Scholar

22. Lewes, G. H., “Was Dancing an Element of the Greek Chorus?” Classical Museum, 2 (1844), 350.Google Scholar

23. Campbell published a translation of Aeschylus in 1898, an edition of Sophocles in 1871–81, a translation of Sophocles in 1883, a guide to Sophocles in 1880 (New York: D. Appleton), and Tragic Drama in Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Shakespeare in 1904 (rpt. New York: Russell and Russell, 1965).Google Scholar

24. Lewis Campbell, Religion in Greek Literature, p. 361.

25. Ibid.; all three quotations are from pp. 275–76.

26. Thirlwall, Connop, “On the Irony of Sophocles,” Philological Museum, 2 (1833), 483–538.Google Scholar

27. Thirlwall, p. 489.

28. See Courtney, W. L., The Idea of Tragedy in Ancient and Modern Drama (New York: Brentano, 1900), p. 30.Google Scholar

29. Thomas Dyer, “Sophocles and his Dramatic Art,” pp. 65–99.

30. For Dyer's argument with Lewes over Hegel, see Lewes, G. H., “Philosophy of Art,” British and Foreign Review, 13 (1841)Google Scholar; “Sophocles' Antigone and Its Critics,” Foreign Quarterly Review, 35 (1845)Google Scholar; and Dyer, Thomas, “The Antigone of Sophocles and the Foreign Quarterly Review,” Classical Museum, 3 (1845)Google Scholar. George Eliot's review of Antigone, in the Leader (29 Mar. 1856) seems to show traces of Lewes's Hegelianism.

31. Jebb, R. C., Essays and Addresses (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1907), pp. 32, 39.Google Scholar

32. Jevons, F. B., ”Religion in Greek Literature,” Edinburgh Review, 191 (1900), 350. My quotation is taken from this review; most of the phrases within it, however, are lifted by Jevons directly from Campbell.Google Scholar

33. J. D. Lester, “Sophokles,” pp. 31–33.

34. Lewis Campbell, Tragic Drama in Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Shakespeare, p. 57.

35. Ibid., p. 170.

36. John Keble, Lectures on Poetry, p. 205.

37. Lewis Campbell, Tragic Drama in Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Shakespeare, p. 165.

38. Arnold, Matthew, The Complete Prose Works, ed. Super, R. H. (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1960), I, 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39. The Poems of Matthew Arnold, ed. Allott, Kenneth (London: Longmans, Green, 1965), p. 105.Google Scholar

40. Tyrrell, R. Y., “Sophocles,” Quarterly Review, 170 (1890), 415.Google Scholar

41. Matthew Arnold, Complete Prose Works, 1, 18–37.

42. Arnold, Complete Prose Works, v, 272–88.

43. A. W. Schlegel, Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature, pp. 111–34. Art and Literature, pp. 111–34.

44. Verral authored Euripides the Rationalist, (1900), Four Plays of Euripides, (1905), and ”The Bacchantes of Euripides” and Other Essays, (1910), all published by Cambridge University Press.

46. See Verrall, Four Plays of Euripides for the interpretation of these two plays.

48. Verrall, ”The Bacchantes of Euripides” and Other Essays, p. 160.

48. Mahaffy, James, Euripides, (New York: Appleton and Co., 1906).Google Scholar

49. Mahaffy, p. 15.

50. Mahaffy, p. 29.

51. Mahaffy, p. 34.

52. Mahaffy, p. 36.

53. Mahaffy, pp. 84–85.

54. Westcott, Brooke F., “Euripides as a Religious Teacher,” Contemporary Review, 45 (1884), 543–51.Google Scholar

55. Murray, Gilbert, Euripides and His Age (London: Oxford University Press, 1913), p. 126.Google Scholar

56. Murray, p. 126.

57. Pater, Walter Horatio, Greek Studies (London: Macmillan, 1910), p. 29.Google Scholar

58. Pater, p. 49.

59. Pater, pp. 49–50.