Abstract:
The aim of this thesis is to examine how the Athenian audience of Greek Tragedy saw the concept of authority, and how it was gained, lost and transferred from person to person. The argument is made that for a play to emotionally connect to its audience, most of what is seen in the play must be familiar. Therefore, most of what we see in plays must be seen as normal by the Athenian audience. By taking six situations in which we could expect a character’s authority to change and examining them in the context of Tragedy, this thesis finds patterns in how characters’ authority changes. Through the subheadings of ‘Death’, ‘Slavery’, ‘Madness’, ‘Conflicts of Power’, ‘Supplication’, and ‘Travel’, conclusions are drawn as to how each of these situations affects a character’s authority, and therefore how an average Athenian theatregoer would have expected an ordinary person’s authority to change in such a circumstance. Attention is also paid to whether or not a character’s position of power changes in these circumstances. The conclusions which are drawn are: That death only affects a person’s authority if they die ignobly. That slavery does not affect a person’s authority at all. That madness only affects a person’s authority if they are forced into dishonour, and only applies to negatively, divinely inspired madness. That conflicts of power cause a situation in which authority is shared. That supplication may create a situation in which the suppliant borrows authority from the supplicated party in exchange for a later favour. Finally, that being removed from the context of one’s authority, such as through travel, diminishes, but does not take away a person’s authority. As well as these points, the conclusions are drawn that authority is a discrete entity that passes from person to person, rather than being lost or gained, and that in general acting dishonourably will take away a person’s authority in the eyes of those around them.
