Sophacles

The scientific method, (1) Hypothesis (2) Theory (3) Principle/Law[1], permeates Western Ideology. One might say that which exists, exists only insofar as it is proved to exist -- in the Western World. "To be or not to be," as it were, is contingent upon what is calculable by the scientific method. That is to say, methodology within the Humanities is structured according to its counterparts in the "hard sciences," the scientific method. This relationship exists even in such seemingly polar ends of academia as Physics and English.

When a literary critic advances a theory, s/he does so in accordance with the aforementioned scientific method; the mathematical "proof" thus arrived is, for all intents and purposes, proved. It is not a controversial assertion to state that scientific methodology, itself based on mathematical principles, forms the underlying structure of literary analysis. Any attempt at "theory" outside of this structure, in Western Ideology, is universally dismissed as "faulty logic" and deemed inadmissible. The irony, however, is that the scientific method can and has been utilized by literary scholars to disprove itself. In fact, these same disproving theories have been systematically analyzed, tested, and disproved by other such theories.

The history of literary criticism is a seemingly endless cycle of incongruence highlighted by incongruence and so forth down the line -- if it is a line to which we must refer at all. The longer a work remains in the public consciousness, the more controversial it seems to become in regards to how it should be interpreted because proofs and disproves are levied, one upon another, by succeeding generations, cultures, etc. The dramas of Sophocles provide an excellent example of such a paradigm. Here, we have a body of work that has survived in the public and, more importantly, critical consciousness for approximately two and a half millennia. In that span of time, there has been no lack of contradictory, critical analysis about Sophocles' work -- including its authorship. In each and every case, a hypothesis has been forwarded, tested, turned into theory and proposed as law by its advocate(s), to which it has been challenged and debated by other theorists who likewise hypothesized, tested, and proposed counter theories as law/principle.

Today, the bulk of the controversy surrounding Sophoclean drama is twofold: 1) How is it to be understood (primarily Structuralist versus Poststructuralist readings). 2) A repercussion of the former, should these works be "taught" or studied at all? Needless to say, many problematic issues factor into the formulation of either question, not the least of which is hinted at in my use of structuralism and poststructuralism to define the problem. The functions of language are pivotal to the understanding of both structuralist and poststructuralist theory, and they are also central to modern debates about Sophoclean drama. With the above questions in mind, it will be advantageous to compare and contrast the more canonical schools of criticism regarding Sophoclean drama in antiquity and how that criticism functions today. In doing so, I hope to illuminate the interesting and pivotal similarities and differences between the various schools of thought. Then, perhaps, we will be better equipped to address the direction which future inquiry and education should take.

Critical History

Literary criticism is an ill-tempered, oft times dangerous beast. A student's hesitance to enter into communities of literary discourse for fear of being, if I may continue my animal metaphor, eaten alive is understandable. The reasons for this danger are many and complex, not the least of which are the wide range of mediums in which literary discourses take place. Is the criticism an actual work of art in itself, such as a painting, song, fictional story, etc.? Or does the criticism appear in a critical anthology or movie review, newspaper or monthly magazine, academic or nonacademic publication? The physical manifestations in which literary criticisms appear seem endless. This question is pertinent to our discussion; the answer one arrives at will determine how the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle are interpreted.

From a Historian's perspective, the only significance of Greek drama and epic may be that it was the precursor to philosophy. There is an argument to be made that tragedy was philosophy before philosophy was ever recognized as such. On the other hand, a Classical anthropologist might be interested in what Greek drama can tell him about the historical moment of fifth century Athens. Twenty first century feminists and politicians may be interested in reading Greek drama on their own terms -- as opposed to fifth century Athens' -- and excerpting only that which they can apply to their own respective agendas. Yet others, such as linguists, may focus solely on the structural elements of Greek drama or the process(es) of translating it.

There are many other schools of thought, each with its own particular perspective of the subject, Sophoclean drama,