Only two of the seventeen passages which mention trierarchs are concerned with their attitudes to mutual relations with the democracy at home, rather than their military activities at sea. As Steiner argues, the representation of this elaborate display and contest may suggest a comparison with the boat-race to Sounion, which was probably introduced to the Panathenaia during the fifth century; here too the implications seem rather to be that this extravagance suggested a lack of understanding of the serious nature of the campaign, as well as providing a deeply ironic contrast with the later highly visual pictures of the disasters at the end in Sicily In the early stages 8.
Later on 8. Some trierarchs were dismissed, and others led by Thrasyboulos and Thrasyllos controlled the move back to democratic restoration, and evidently did not feel so burdened. He prefers to suggest on the one hand that contests for philotimia between rival trierarchs and their ships wasted money and created a misleading impression of power, and on the other that, when military conditions were worse, the trierarchs generally resented the forced expenditure. Once more, he may be disinclined to give his versions of traditional and familiar themes of political rhetoric.
He does at times give a clear indication of how much more significant in winning wars is public than private wealth 1. But all this seems less than a satisfactory explanation. As we have seen, Thucydides can be interested in private resources when they are the object of damaging greed, and he does at least once hint at some of the critical arguments about liturgies, as they led some trierarchs to support regime change. In my view, a strong argument can be made that this avoidance is unfortunate and leads to a significantly incomplete picture.
The complex issues of the operations of festivals and contests, the intense rivalries between elite liturgists, and the mutual attacks in the courts on grounds of shirking liturgies, were all relevant to what was undeniably a major Thucydidean theme, the progressively worsening relations between the Athenian demos and the wealthy. Fuller and more nuanced presentations of varied arguments over the appropriate levels of liturgical performances would have added depth to this theme. The other uses all denote the dangerous and destructive power of individual ambition: generally in the stasis-ridden cities 3.
In the post-Corcyra analysis 3. One has to rely largely on non-Thucydidean sources such as comedy, Lysias and Plutarch. One cannot doubt that he had personal experience of such public rhetoric and more private argumentation. As a aner pachys himself in the language of Ar. Wasps , of someone likely to be tried in Athens for military failure in the Thraceward district, conceivably referring to Thucydides himself 38 , and an owner of mines in Thrace, Thucydides might have been invited, challenged or have volunteered to perform liturgies in the period between the outset of his political career and his election as general and exile in 39 ; or he would have been anticipating such a invitation.
That we have no record of one is not surprising, given his calculated personal abstinence and the absence of evidence about him available to later writers. He may then have become conscious of the pressures felt by liturgists, and the sense among some of them of under-valuation; this may have led him not to give more than the briefest hints in the Funeral Speech about the positive social value of successful festival participation in choruses and dramas, of the sort which impressed even Xenophon.
On the other hand if he wished to avoid giving the impression of personal bitterness against Kleon, if he or his friends were primarily responsible for his own exile 40 , Thucydides may equally have preferred to say little directly hostile to him beyond the single abusive hint biaiotatos about his attacks on rich Athenians in the courts. My argument is that this, while an important part, is not the whole of the story, and other motivations were involved.
Osborne, like Loraux, generalises from Thucydides to many other political historians ancient and modern. But I end by returning to Xenophon, to confirm that he may be seen as significantly different, and as we saw was followed by many other ancient writers in his appreciation of the social value of festivals. Had Thucydides completed his task, he too might have observed with relish how the atmosphere of the trial of the generals after Arginusai was affected by political manipulation of rituals of mourning and burial at and after the Apatouria 42 , but perhaps he would have been less inclined to bring out as Xenophon does the two contrasting festival connections of the return of Alkibiades, the ill-omened coincidence with the Plynteria 1.
At the end of the war, again Thucydides would probably have been less likely to mention the playing of the flute girls as the democracy was destroyed 2. In all the areas considered by this paper, Xenophon characteristically takes different lines, with his more welcoming attitude to divine intervention, his readiness to acknowledge the value of civic religion for Greek societies and his repeated admiration for the discipline and good order of well-trained Athenian choruses and athletic teams. Bowden, H. Cairns, D. Cartledge, P. Crane, G. Derenne, E. Dillery, J. Fisher, N.
Goldhill, S. Gotteland, S. Kallet-Marx, L. Kallet, L. Konstan, D. Rutter : Envy, Spite and Jealousy. Loraux, N. Low, P. Marinanos Kopff, N. Osborne, R. Phillips, D. Quinn, J. Rengakos, A. Rutherford, R. Steiner, D. Thomas, R. Tuplin, Chr. Wilson, P. See e.myoblowhawidtrip.tk/la-seora-really-y-otros.php
Hamlet: Divine Intervention and the Natural Order Essay
Hornblower , Hussey , Low , , Thomas II 62ff. Note also that the texts of both the truce and the treaty of the Peace of Nicias 4. Despite Dover ad loc, it seems likely that Thucydides does not discourage readers from making the Herodotean connection; but in my view he allows them, if they choose, to agree with Nikias and many of the Athenians on the final retreat 7. See now Hornblower on 7.
Rusten ad loc, comparing Plato, Laws d. Business Writing Skills. Graphic Novels Comic Strips. My Wishlist. Know about stores. Products of this store will be shipped directly from the US to your country. Products of this store will be shipped directly from the UK to your country. Products of this store will be shipped directly from China to your country. Products of this store will be shipped directly from Japan to your country. Products of this store will be shipped directly from Hong Kong to your country.
Egypt Change Country. Shop By Category. My Orders. Track Orders. Sometimes Sacks is quoting someone else, some authority in the field, sometimes not; sometimes Frank is quoting Dr. Rice and sometimes not. That particular passage leads into an account of perception by Molyneaux, modified by Locke and Berkeley, which is borrowed from Sacks p. As Frank mediates this theory it is both interesting and comically pedantic.
In her final monologue, Molly reports Frank as author - of a twenty-seven page letter from Ethiopia. As she summarizes its contents Molly deconstructs Frank as a credible witness ; she does this by paraphrasing his discourse without comment.
By this stage of the play Frank's absurdity is transparent, but it is interesting that for Molly it is now internalized. Thus Frank's invocation of yet another author can be silently dismissed. I should read him, he says. The absurd inadequacy of the sum of money sent to support a deserted wife undermines the value of the reference to Aristotle. And this, in short, is what happens in the play to the whole input of expert knowledge borrowed from Oliver Sacks. It is all revealed as so much dead wood. It may be true, historically and scientifically ; it may have objective, intrinsic value, but it is all irrelevant to Molly's situation.
She ends up broken, deserted, and drifting towards death. It is instructive that in the play the psychotherapist who provides post-operative counselling to Molly is named Jean Wallace, an actual scholar cited by Sacks p. In the play Wallace and her husband are writing a book on Molly's case, but they do or are able to do nothing for her. She is no more than fodder for their academic careers. She said to me : 'We should be seeing a renaissance of personality at this point.
But according to Sacks p. Is Friel making the point that experts simply steal from each other? Just as they steal other men's wives, as happens to Mr. If I am right, Friel's point relates to the ambivalence of knowledge and authority. On the one hand knowledge is essential ; science is progressive and, theoretically at any rate, benignly utilitarian. On the other hand, knowledge is perfectly useless at a certain, fundamental, level because language itself is powerless to intervene where the human spirit is engaged in relating to environment and experience. Frank Sweeney is the butt of this attack on knowledge, but Dr.
Rice's own history reinforces it at. His knowledge propels him into exploitation, where destruction of personality is a calculated risk. That Rice and Frank are not just busybodies who mess up Molly's life is borne out by the expressive story of the badgers, the only really pregnant piece of narrative Frank has to offer in the play. In a landscape undergoing change the badgers are endangered.
It is a landscape beloved of Mr. Rice also, a lake environment where he fishes and finds peace. In the best interests of the badgers Frank and his friend try to move them to another habitat. This, in a nutshell, is what befalls Molly. The parallel is all too clear.
Get PDF Disrupted Ambitions: A Case of Divine Intervention
Even a little learning is a dangerous thing, how dangerous we usually prefer not to consider. Foucault makes a distinction between a discourse founded by a scientist like Galileo and a discourse established by a Freud or a Marx. Galileo's findings were reshaped by his successors and in that sense he 'authors' the later transformations of his discourse. But Foucault makes no provision for the appropriation by the artist of either kind of discourse by, say, Brecht or O'Neill. The playwright literally plays with knowledge what Aristotle in the Poetics calls dianoicfiand transforms it into quite another discourse, dramatic poetiy.
A writer like Friel and in a different way Stoppard is author in the sense of augere, increasing rather than originating.
In addition, it may be said that Friel's formal achievement places the whole question of borrowing in another light. One thinks immediately, of course, of Faith Healer and is inclined to say that Friel's greatest act of appropriation is against himself. He is, in a sense, recycling the methodology of Faith Healer. But this is too apprehensive a view. Leaving aside the resemblance between the use of monologues in both Molly Sweeney and Faith Healer it should be noted that the issue in Molly Sweeney is not who is telling the truth or what is the nature of fact in its relation to creativity, love.
The issue is the invention of an audience. To be sure, this is an issue Friel had been working on since Living Quarters. He assembles characters who inhabit no other common space than the stage. They cannot, with any conviction, be imagined to be present together within the same time frame : they never acknowledge each other's presence, and they never interact. This is a convention Friel has been developing for years, and it is a fictional rather than a dramatic convention. In Molly Sweeney it is extended to the point where we believe that Molly is narrating her own tragedy, even though we clearly understand by the end of the play not only what a totally unreliable narrator she must be which is where Faith Healer leaves off but also that she is not actually speaking to us or to anyone.
We are simply eavesdropping on her inner thoughts as we eavesdrop on the thoughts of that other notable Molly in Irish letters, Molly Bloom. When we step back and consider the play as a whole we must see - the pun is unavoidable - that the play as such does not exist. These three characters come from different quarters of the earth to speak to us in the past tense about Molly : why? Because we are there rather than they : they certify our presence, our desire for illusion, completeness, resolution.
However, the ethics involved in Friel's appropriation of the discourse of Sacks's essay remain challenging. There are doubtless those who would feel more at ease had Friel recycled Synge's The Well of the Saints, after all. But Foucault persuades us that such is an unwarranted reservation.
- Get e-book Disrupted Ambitions: A Case of Divine Intervention;
- The Irreducible Primary;
- Disrupted Ambitions Kindle Edition – ovyrijijex.ml!
- Cooking Game: Best Wild Game Recipes from the Readers of Deer & Deer Hunting.
- Fading Tracks (Faithgirlz! Boarding School Mysteries).
He explains further :. If we are accustomed to presenting the author as a genius, as a perpetual surging of invention, it is because, in reality, we make him function in exactly the opposite fashion. One can say that he author is an ideological product, since we represent him as the opposite of his historically real function The author is therefore the ideological figure by which one marks the manner in which we fear die proliferation of meaning The criminality of the artist is openly heroicized.
On the other hand, it will be of interest to note what Oliver Sacks thinks of the matter :. To speak of 'the ethics of the case' seems meaningless to me here. I think Molly Sxveeney a masterpiece. I was and am delighted that an artist of Brian Friel's calibre was able to draw some inspiration from my case history, that it was a source one of many which gave nourishment to his own unique, creative, and personal rendering of the theme.
It sems to me of the nature of art, and all creativity, that it should be interactive and, in a sense, dialogic and collaborative - that a's work will nourish b, and b's work c, and c's work, perhaps, a, completing the circle of giving-receiving-returning My conclusion is that for Friel knowledge is both enabling and a chimera. It is enabling, as source material is for the playwright, because of the historical illusions about its power.
But in the sceptical philosophy which has always energized Friel's drama to know is ultimately irrelevant. Indeed, as Faith Healer so obviously shows, knowledge in Friel is uncertain and relativistic. In his recent work, there is an increasing disclaimer of the value of language itself as a medium of understanding reality.
- An encyclopedia of philosophy articles written by professional philosophers.;
- Agenda 21?
- Subscribe to Dr. Peterson's Mailing List.
- Lord Emsworth and Others (Blandings Castle, Book 5.5)!
That irony is compounded in Wonderful Tennessee by the insistence that silence is a more viable mode than language of communicating meaningfully That proposition is allowed to sound throughout the play multivalently. What then of the audience? Is what it sees what it understands? Why use such a visual medium as theatre to put that question? Again, Friel's ironic point of view must be part of the answer. Molly Sweeney must be the least visual play to have graced the world stage in a long time. At the same time, it is noteworthy that for the first time Friel has directed his own work in the theatre, as if the better to control meaning and interpretation, or, in short, to increase his authorship of the play.
Here, then, is one more irony surrounding a text more heavily ironized than any other of Friel's to date. For it is mainly through irony that Friel steadfastly redirects discourse toward the tragic. He has left Synge's modernism far behind, and is now more than ever the alchemical artist transforming public discourse into private and back again into public, performed speech, where it may establish a new form of freedom. It is important to note that this acknowledgement appeared also in the American edition of Molly Sweeney New York, Penguin Books, but neither in the Penguin edition published in London in nor in the Gallery Press edition published in Ireland see n.
Bibliographically, the text exists in two worlds.
Copy supplied by Mr. Friel, to whom I here express my gratitude. Subsequent quotations are given from An Anthropologist on Mars and will be given parenthetically. Subsequent quotations are from this edition and page numbers will be cited parenthetically. Yeats, ed. Russell K. Alspach, London, Macmillan, , p. Richard Howard, London, Routledge, , p.
Criticism and Theory : A Reader, ed. George Bornstein and Ralph G. I wish to thank the organiser Professor Maureen Murphy for the invitation to speak at that conference, which gave me this basic idea. John C. Barnes and Stefano Milioto, Palermo, G. Paiumbo, , pp.