Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Reversals in Euripides' Iphigenia in Aulis: Political Subjectivity Study, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Poetics

The pattern of reversals in euripides' iphigenia in aulis, focusing on iphigenia's active adoption of the achaean army's demand for her sacrifice and its implications for political subjectivity. How each speaking elite character experiences two changes of mind in response to the army's sacrificial imperative and how iphigenia's exuberant opfertod aligns her with the army's demands while making her the only active political subject among the play's elites.

What you will learn

  • What are the political implications of Iphigenia's active adoption of the Achaean army's demands?
  • What is the pattern of reversals in Euripides' Iphigenia in Aulis?
  • How does Iphigenia's political subjectivity differ from that of other elite characters in the play?

Typology: Study Guides, Projects, Research

2021/2022

Uploaded on 09/12/2022

anvi
anvi 🇺🇸

4.8

(4)

228 documents

1 / 3

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Subjectivity and the Pattern of Reversal in Euripides’ Iphigenia in Aulis
In response to Aristotle’s well known criticism of Iphigenia’s anômalia (Poetics
1454a32-33), a number of scholars have situated Iphigenia’s sudden volte-face in the context of a
broader pattern of reversals in Euripides’ Iphigenia in Aulis (henceforth IA) (Mellert-Hoffman
1969: 80-89; Knox 1979: 243-46; Chant 1986; Luschnig 1988: 21-36 and 105-9; Griffin 1990:
148; Sorum 1992: 528; Gibert 1995: 250-52; Schenker 1999: 648-49; Burgess 2004). Thus, it is
now generally acknowledged that, although Iphigenia’s willing self-immolation occurs quickly
and unexpectedly, her change of mind is nevertheless of a piece with other characters’ alterations
over the course of the play. However, the specific pattern of these reversals has gone relatively
unexplored, as have the political questions raised by Iphigenia’s active adoption of the Achaean
army’s demand for her sacrifice. The aim of this presentation, then, will be to illuminate the
pattern that governs change of mind in IA, and then to read Iphigenia’s departure from this
pattern in a politically meaningful way. Iphigenia, I will argue, provides a crucial but troubling
model of political subjectivity in response to the malicious popular authority wielded by the
Achaean force at Aulis.
It has, to my knowledge, gone unnoticed that each of IA’s speaking elites experiences two
changes of mind in response to the army’s sacrificial imperative. Agamemnon, Menelaus,
Clytemnestra, Achilles and Iphigenia all make an initial move to outright opposition to the
sacrifice, and all subsequently acquiesce to Iphigenia’s death and the pursuit of the Trojan
expedition. This sequential pattern of opposition and acquiescence occurs as a consistent
response to the political authority of the Achaean army and its elite representatives (Odysseus
and Calchas). However, in contrast to the other characters’ grudging resignation to parthenic
sacrifice, Iphigenia’s exuberant Opfertod (Schreiber 1968) both aligns her with the army’s
pf3

Partial preview of the text

Download Reversals in Euripides' Iphigenia in Aulis: Political Subjectivity Study and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Poetics in PDF only on Docsity!

Subjectivity and the Pattern of Reversal in Euripides’ Iphigenia in Aulis In response to Aristotle’s well known criticism of Iphigenia’s anômalia ( Poetics 1454a32-33), a number of scholars have situated Iphigenia’s sudden volte-face in the context of a broader pattern of reversals in Euripides’ Iphigenia in Aulis (henceforth IA ) (Mellert-Hoffman 1969: 80-89; Knox 1979: 243-46; Chant 1986; Luschnig 1988: 21-36 and 105-9; Griffin 1990: 148; Sorum 1992: 528; Gibert 1995: 250-52; Schenker 1999: 648-49; Burgess 2004). Thus, it is now generally acknowledged that, although Iphigenia’s willing self-immolation occurs quickly and unexpectedly, her change of mind is nevertheless of a piece with other characters’ alterations over the course of the play. However, the specific pattern of these reversals has gone relatively unexplored, as have the political questions raised by Iphigenia’s active adoption of the Achaean army’s demand for her sacrifice. The aim of this presentation, then, will be to illuminate the pattern that governs change of mind in IA , and then to read Iphigenia’s departure from this pattern in a politically meaningful way. Iphigenia, I will argue, provides a crucial but troubling model of political subjectivity in response to the malicious popular authority wielded by the Achaean force at Aulis. It has, to my knowledge, gone unnoticed that each of IA ’s speaking elites experiences two changes of mind in response to the army’s sacrificial imperative. Agamemnon, Menelaus, Clytemnestra, Achilles and Iphigenia all make an initial move to outright opposition to the sacrifice, and all subsequently acquiesce to Iphigenia’s death and the pursuit of the Trojan expedition. This sequential pattern of opposition and acquiescence occurs as a consistent response to the political authority of the Achaean army and its elite representatives (Odysseus and Calchas). However, in contrast to the other characters’ grudging resignation to parthenic sacrifice, Iphigenia’s exuberant Opfertod (Schreiber 1968) both aligns her with the army’s

inevitable demands and locates her as the only active political subject among the play’s speaking elites. That is, during her spirited rhesis at lines 1368-1401, Iphigenia comes to experience the army’s expectant gaze ( apoblepei , 1378) as an interpellation or “hailing” to a political subjectivity (Althusser 2008: 44-51) distinct from the forced agreement of other elite figures in the play. In this way, I will argue, she occupies an ethical middle ground that enables her both to yield to the army’s imposition of sacrifice and to situate herself as a political agent ( Hellados t’ euergetis , 1446), upon whom depend the Trojan expedition and Greece’s domestic stability and freedom (1379-84). At the moment of Iphigenia’s reversal, then, her identity is embedded in popular authority, in contrast to its prior orientation toward relations of kinship or elite social status. I will conclude my discussion by addressing the issues that Iphigenia’s unique subjectivity raises about popularly organized political authority. Produced near the end of a devastating, protracted and democratically approved war, IA dramatizes the imposition by the Achaean army of troubling ritual violence. Iphigenia’s active adoption of and complicity in the army’s authoritative position, I will suggest, raises the possibility that, within this model of political authority and collective decision making, the only available subjectivity is that of uncritical and even ecstatic embodiment of the impulses and ambitions of an unaccountable ochlos (450, 517, 526, 735, 1030, 1338).

Works Cited: Althusser, Louis. 2008. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes towards an Investigation).” Rpt. in On Ideology , 1-60. London: Verso. Burgess, Dana L. 2004. “Lies and Convictions at Aulis.” Hermes 132: 37-55.