On Knowing How it Ends

A Tangent on Greek Tragedy, Media Literacy and Democracy

Hello and Welcome to the Dropout Classicist! Today, I bring you a more rant-ish article exploring the nature of intent and the power of reinterpretation through the lens of Greek Tragedy, and how the same methodology still influences us nowadays. I hope you enjoy, and consider subscribing if you aren’t already!

---

The ancient Mediterranean is often regarded as an area of mass invention and innovation throughout the Archaic and Classical eras. New ideas, philosophies and political concepts were trialled, new sciences established and fundamentals of human learning were cemented into the western canon. Out of all to have sprung from this, one stands out alone as a product of sheer chance and fortune. Theatre, as invented by the Greeks, could only ever exist in its current form due to the circumstances of its invention.

Scholars seem to agree that theatre took root in oral storytelling. Though this culture was not unique to Ancient Greece, it was certainly influential to the entire course of western history. Often, religious ceremonies included processions of chanting and singing by choruses. It is widely theorised that a bard or speechmaker telling a story with a chorus singing and dancing was the earliest form of theatre as we know it. This then evolved with the addition of another speaker, so the two could take turns performing a well known myth. Thus, the stage was set.

When we look at ancient drama, we primarily look at it through the lens of Athens. Though after its birth it spread like wildfire, it is often viewed that the unique conditions of Athenian democracy (which was in progress at a similar time) allowed the two to bounce and build off each other. Plays were typically performed in the Athenian Dionysia, the festival of Dionysus, in a competition format. A majority of the citizen body would have attended, both with it being a key religious festival in the calendar and an entertaining spectacle. All plays were written, performed and funded by the citizen body, and the judges for each competition were selected by lot.

A red figure vase depicting an Early Chorus, dancing in front of an idol. They are widely believed to be a theatre chorus, as they seem to be wearing masks and costumes.

Thus, we can start to see how democracy helped to boost the success of theatre. It allowed for mass citizen participation in a religious event, which was typically restricted to just priests. While citizens may have been in a crowd or a procession, they were essentially just passive watchers. However, in a theatrical performance, the average citizen could be playing a role in front of a majority of the city (more than likely in the chorus than actually on stage). And those watching likely felt more involved too, as they got to watch and judge their fellow citizens act out three dramas in the company of most of the citizen body.

The link between greek theatre and democracy is not just directed in this way, but the two were symbiotic. As one flourished, so did the other. A major power of a performance was that of the writer to tell almost any story they wished. Such went hand in hand with the democratic practices of Athens, wherein every citizen had the right to speak at the assembly. However, unlike in an assembly, the playwrights had much more power. Their audience were captive, and could not argue back to quite the same extent. However, ideas on show were also free from the ties of allegiance and aims at mass appeal, as any idea could be presented should the playwright chose.

The structure of a Greek tragedy is relatively formulaic. Most take a pre-existing mythical narrative, typically beginning close to the downfall of heroes and heroines, and play out their stories. We can assume that most of these myths, if not all, were known by the audience, and this assumption is crucial to the effectiveness of them. For the audience’s knowledge of the stories gives a playwright the ability to reframe and recontextualise them to suit their purposes. With the audience knowing the key beats of a story, it was then not the story itself that had an effect on them but what the playwright chose to change.

Greek tragedians, through this batch of stories in the popular psyche, could then explore whatever they chose, often reutilising the same characters in totally different ways. For example, both Euripides and Aeschylus wrote plays about Orestes. Aeschylus’ Oresteia covers the fall of the house of Agamemnon across three plays, with the murder of Agamemnon taking place in the first and the consequences sprawling out across the remaining two. By the climax of the final play of the trilogy, The Eumenides/The Furies, we are treated to a debate between the titular furies, Athena and Apollo over the justice of Orestes’ actions.

Orestes has by this point murdered his mother and her lover in revenge for murdering his father. This action, the murder of a relative, was divinely sanctioned by Apollo but despised by the furies as a blood crime. Thus Athena, with a jury of Athenian citizens, uses the democratic power of the Athenian legal system to determine whom justice favours. The votes are equal on either side, so Athena steps in and casts the final vote in favour of Orestes and Apollo, thus both divinely sanctioning his actions and indicating that the justice of the Athenian people is also divinely sanctioned.

Euripides’ Orestes also follows Orestes after his murder of his mother in revenge for the murder of his father. However, the conflict is much more down to earth. He chooses to approach it from a much more human perspective, exploring the fallout amongst the surviving relatives. Menelaus and Helen, each a sibling to one of Orestes’ parents, as well as Helen’s father Tyndareus all in their own time show up to speak their thoughts on justice, both divine and human. On paper, they each cover similar dramatic beats, but the more human and downbeat emotion of Euripides’ play separates it from Aeschylus’. This is because the two are both inherently tied to the politics of their time. Aeschylus, writing in the early 400s BCE, is celebrating democracy. Athens was revelling in the height of democratic power, not long ago re-established by Cleisthenes. Euripides however writes at a period of political turmoil, with Sparta and Athens teetering on the edge of tearing the greek world apart. In the years since Aeschylus, the Athenian democracy has grown too greedy, and has frequently been led in the wrong direction by demagogues. Thus, both writers wish to spread different messages to their audiences through the same story, and have the chance to do so with almost all the Athenian population in one place.

Orestes flees the Furies, John Singer Sargent (src Artvee)

Media is, and always has been, a tool for politics in one way or another. Rarely though is it so directly involved as theatre was to the Athenians. Nowadays, it would be almost impossible to pull off a feat like this. The changing of the times and the way we consume media has become individualised. What we watch, read and hear is so personalised and capitalised upon that we are no longer gathered together. Our isolation through technology prevents our ability to open our eyes to new perspectives and to gather as a community to all consider the same issues together. It is rare that I discuss anything modern in my articles, and even rarer that I discuss politics. When discussing Greek Tragedy, it would be more typical of me to cover the intrinsically human emotions that it touches upon, the power it still holds over us today.

The relationship between ancient theatre and ancient democracy is incredibly interesting, and neither could have flourished to the same extent without the other. As much as I would like to argue that we should strive for something similar nowadays, the restrictions and flaws on ancient democracy are too prominent. We do not know if women or enslaved people could attend shows, but we know for a fact that Athenian citizenship was too restrictive for either to vote. The tools of a democracy like this, such as theatre, can only have such a strong effect when you can gather a majority of the population together in one place. Nowadays, this is not feasible, and nor am I a qualified person to suggest a modern alternative. However, it is always important to consider the role theatre played in Athenian democracy, because the stories we tell each other can still work to a similar effect. The debate around media literacy is inescapable nowadays, and as is the epidemic of loneliness caused by technology and social media. This piece has been about media literacy all along. Over time, Greek Tragedy led to Shakespeare, Opera, Movies, TV, Musicals, YouTube Videos. The media we consume is always political, always made with intent. It is impossible for each individual to retell the same story in the same way. That is the power of human expression, and we should keep that in mind. It is how we choose to tell stories that we should devote our attention to, as well as the stories themselves. Our stories have a greater impact than we can ever truly estimate.

Thanks for reading! This post was part experimental, and part a therapeutic experience. Given the turmoil of modern politics, what with the recent election in the Uk and the upcoming one in the USA, alongside the constant debate over media literacy online, I felt a bit overwhelmed and had to put some thoughts into words. If this is not the sort of post you expect me to write, I apologise (though I hope you find it interesting nonetheless). I will be back to normal by next week. And I know a lot of people are mostly on substack to escape the hell that is the modern political climate, in which case I beg your forgiveness again for bringing it right back to you.

---

Sources

• The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy, Cambridge University Press

• Waterfield, R. Creators, Conquerors, and Citizens, Oxford University Press

• Euripides, Orestes

• Aeschylus, The Oresteia

This rant was also partially inspired by watching Alexander Avila’s Hamilton and The Death of the Obama Era. I would strongly recommend this for an explanation of stagecraft and politics in the modern day, and how all media is still intensely intertwined with politics.