What do you think?
Rate this book
Greek Tragedy
This classic work not only records developments in the form and style of Greek drama, it also analyses the reasons for these changes. It provides illuminating answers to questions that have confronted generations of students, such
* why did Aeschylus introduce the second actor?
* why did Sophocles develop character drawing?
* why are some of Euripides' plots so bad and others so good?
Greek Tragedy is neither a history nor a handbook, but a penetrating work of criticism which all students of literature will find suggestive and stimulating.
* why did Aeschylus introduce the second actor?
* why did Sophocles develop character drawing?
* why are some of Euripides' plots so bad and others so good?
Greek Tragedy is neither a history nor a handbook, but a penetrating work of criticism which all students of literature will find suggestive and stimulating.
430 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1939
20 people are currently reading
328 people want to read
About the author
H.D.F. Kitto
20 books24 followersHumphrey Davy Findley Kitto, FBA was a British classical scholar of Cornish ancestry.
He was educated at The Crypt School, Gloucester, and St. John's College, Cambridge. He wrote his doctorate in 1920 at the University of Bristol. He became a lecturer in Greek at the University of Glasgow from 1920 to 1944. On that year, he returned to the University of Bristol where he became Professor of Greek and emeritus in 1962. He concentrated on studies of Greek tragedy, especially translations of the works of Sophocles.
After his retirement, he taught at College Year in Athens (CYA), a study abroad program for foreign students in Athens, Greece.
He was educated at The Crypt School, Gloucester, and St. John's College, Cambridge. He wrote his doctorate in 1920 at the University of Bristol. He became a lecturer in Greek at the University of Glasgow from 1920 to 1944. On that year, he returned to the University of Bristol where he became Professor of Greek and emeritus in 1962. He concentrated on studies of Greek tragedy, especially translations of the works of Sophocles.
After his retirement, he taught at College Year in Athens (CYA), a study abroad program for foreign students in Athens, Greece.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
May 19, 2022
Reputation - 3/5
H.D.F. Kitto was one of the foremost classicists of the 20th Century. The first edition of this book was published in 1939 and he made a few changes to it before his death in 1982, mostly to translate passages from the original Greek to English. Even with these accommodations to a less academic audience, Greek Tragedy still remains a specialist's text.
Point - 4/5
This is a work of Old Criticism. Kitto is interested primarily in the "problems" of Greek Drama. Usually this involves some sort of special question about a particular play: What would the audience have felt was implied in the lyrical odes of Aeschylus' Agamemnon? How often does Sophocles really write within the mold of Aristotle's tragic ideal? Why ought this or that play of Euripides be classified as a tragi-comedy or a melodrama rather than a tragedy? and so on.
Kitto begins his study with the following statement of intent:
"A book on Greek Tragedy may be a work of historical scholarship or of literary criticism; this book professes to be a work of criticism. Criticism is of two kinds: the critic may tell the reader what he so beautifully thinks about it all, or he may try to explain the form in with the literature is written. This book attempt the latter task...
I make one basic assumption... It is that the Greek dramatist was first and last and artist and must be criticized as such... He felt, thought, and worked like a painter or a musician, not like a philosopher or teacher."
This is promising stuff. There is far too much criticism out there that is merely the critic telling the reader "what he so beautifully thinks about it all." That Kitto recognizes this trend and expressly avoids it is already a virtue.
But he is not entirely successful. It is the habit of academics the world over to rhapsodize on what they like and Kitto, in spite of his attempt at restraint, can't help but fangirl over Sophocles and assert that any effect in a Greek play that doesn't quite hit its mark could not have been due to the playwright's error. Everything that happens in a Greek play was executed perfectly for its prescribed purpose and if we don't understand the effect then it is we who are in error. While this position seems ultimately untenable, it is without a doubt consistent, and it separates Kitto's criticism from much of what came before him.
The very word "criticism" has attained its present connotation in English because of the critic's tendency to highlight the demerits of a work. Kitto refrains from this almost entirely in developing his theory:
"If there is one thing which may be said without reserve of all Greek Tragedy (so long as it remained tragic), it is that it never admits anything which does not directly contribute to the tragic idea."
Kitto's parenthetical reserve here is in reference to the later plays of Euripides that he labels "tragi-comedies" and "melodramas." As far as Kitto is concerned Greek Drama can be divided into three periods:
Old Tragedy - Aeschylus from the addition of the second actor to Sophocles' addition of the third
Middle Tragedy - The high period of tragedy. Most of Sophocles' plays and those works of Euripides which uphold the tragic idea like Medea and Hippolytus
New Tragedy - A few of Sophocles' later plays and Euripides' tragi-comedies and melodramas.
There is nothing uniquely original in this classification, but Kitto's originality comes in his exhaustive treatment of every Greek play and his allegiance to his thesis that everything can be explained. It is summed up nicely in one sentence putting critics in their place:
"When a critic can improve a play of Sophocles', he may be sure that he is only giving it a turn that Sophocles' had already rejected."
This is a fine starting point for all criticism. Always give the artist the benefit of the doubt. In Kitto's view of Greek Tragedy that means identifying the all-important tragic idea and explaining how the tragedian successfully expressed it.
Very well. But I can't help but think how Kitto's first sentence doesn't quite square with the thesis that everything is subservient to the tragic idea. Is it really possible to see a creative writer strictly as an artist, and at the same time make the case that everything he wrote was dictated by a tragic (often quite philosophical) idea?
Only in 5th Century Athens perhaps. Philosophers and artists were not segregated in those streets. They met in the market together, discussed ideas, voted and fought in wars side by side. There cannot be the slightest doubt that Plato's dramatic dialogues are dedicated to the expression of a particular philosophical idea. Is it such a stretch to think that Euripides was doing the same in poetry on the stage?
Recommendation - 2/5
The Greek Tragedies are indisputably eternal. Even at a distance of 2500 years the blend of dramatic force, poetic beauty, and philosophical depth still affects us deeply. Kitto's study goes a long way in explaining why this is so.
Only it is too detailed and too scholarly for the average reader. You really must be very familiar with the canon of Greek Drama to read this book cover to cover. There remains an air of old scholarship over this work that keeps it from being universally accessible. Kitto's concession to translate the Ancient Greek to English was one step, but he quotes from earlier critics in their original French or German. There is a high-brow feel to the whole effort. It is not unwelcome, but can only be recommended without reserve to students of the classics or Greece's biggest fans.
Personal - 3/5
I learned a good deal from this book and there were moments when Kitto really hooked me, but reading it cover to cover was a slog. Kitto is a devoted Sophoclean, and most of his best writing comes in the section concerned Middle Tragedy and Sophocles' thought. I'm more of a Euripidean, myself, but towards the end of the book Kitto does a really fine job tracing the work of those two artists, who, we must remember, would have known each other very well and competed year in and year out at the Dionysian festival. What a remarkable rivalry it must have been! And Kitto brings his book to a close by comparing the posthumous works of the two poets: Euripides' Bacchae and Sophocles' Oedipus Coloneus. These are the end of Greek Tragedy. And Kitto gives the last word to Sophocles, concluding that in the Coloneus Greek Tragedy "comes home to die."
And who can disagree? Could a better ending to that inimitable art have been written by Sophocles himself?
H.D.F. Kitto was one of the foremost classicists of the 20th Century. The first edition of this book was published in 1939 and he made a few changes to it before his death in 1982, mostly to translate passages from the original Greek to English. Even with these accommodations to a less academic audience, Greek Tragedy still remains a specialist's text.
Point - 4/5
This is a work of Old Criticism. Kitto is interested primarily in the "problems" of Greek Drama. Usually this involves some sort of special question about a particular play: What would the audience have felt was implied in the lyrical odes of Aeschylus' Agamemnon? How often does Sophocles really write within the mold of Aristotle's tragic ideal? Why ought this or that play of Euripides be classified as a tragi-comedy or a melodrama rather than a tragedy? and so on.
Kitto begins his study with the following statement of intent:
"A book on Greek Tragedy may be a work of historical scholarship or of literary criticism; this book professes to be a work of criticism. Criticism is of two kinds: the critic may tell the reader what he so beautifully thinks about it all, or he may try to explain the form in with the literature is written. This book attempt the latter task...
I make one basic assumption... It is that the Greek dramatist was first and last and artist and must be criticized as such... He felt, thought, and worked like a painter or a musician, not like a philosopher or teacher."
This is promising stuff. There is far too much criticism out there that is merely the critic telling the reader "what he so beautifully thinks about it all." That Kitto recognizes this trend and expressly avoids it is already a virtue.
But he is not entirely successful. It is the habit of academics the world over to rhapsodize on what they like and Kitto, in spite of his attempt at restraint, can't help but fangirl over Sophocles and assert that any effect in a Greek play that doesn't quite hit its mark could not have been due to the playwright's error. Everything that happens in a Greek play was executed perfectly for its prescribed purpose and if we don't understand the effect then it is we who are in error. While this position seems ultimately untenable, it is without a doubt consistent, and it separates Kitto's criticism from much of what came before him.
The very word "criticism" has attained its present connotation in English because of the critic's tendency to highlight the demerits of a work. Kitto refrains from this almost entirely in developing his theory:
"If there is one thing which may be said without reserve of all Greek Tragedy (so long as it remained tragic), it is that it never admits anything which does not directly contribute to the tragic idea."
Kitto's parenthetical reserve here is in reference to the later plays of Euripides that he labels "tragi-comedies" and "melodramas." As far as Kitto is concerned Greek Drama can be divided into three periods:
Old Tragedy - Aeschylus from the addition of the second actor to Sophocles' addition of the third
Middle Tragedy - The high period of tragedy. Most of Sophocles' plays and those works of Euripides which uphold the tragic idea like Medea and Hippolytus
New Tragedy - A few of Sophocles' later plays and Euripides' tragi-comedies and melodramas.
There is nothing uniquely original in this classification, but Kitto's originality comes in his exhaustive treatment of every Greek play and his allegiance to his thesis that everything can be explained. It is summed up nicely in one sentence putting critics in their place:
"When a critic can improve a play of Sophocles', he may be sure that he is only giving it a turn that Sophocles' had already rejected."
This is a fine starting point for all criticism. Always give the artist the benefit of the doubt. In Kitto's view of Greek Tragedy that means identifying the all-important tragic idea and explaining how the tragedian successfully expressed it.
Very well. But I can't help but think how Kitto's first sentence doesn't quite square with the thesis that everything is subservient to the tragic idea. Is it really possible to see a creative writer strictly as an artist, and at the same time make the case that everything he wrote was dictated by a tragic (often quite philosophical) idea?
Only in 5th Century Athens perhaps. Philosophers and artists were not segregated in those streets. They met in the market together, discussed ideas, voted and fought in wars side by side. There cannot be the slightest doubt that Plato's dramatic dialogues are dedicated to the expression of a particular philosophical idea. Is it such a stretch to think that Euripides was doing the same in poetry on the stage?
Recommendation - 2/5
The Greek Tragedies are indisputably eternal. Even at a distance of 2500 years the blend of dramatic force, poetic beauty, and philosophical depth still affects us deeply. Kitto's study goes a long way in explaining why this is so.
Only it is too detailed and too scholarly for the average reader. You really must be very familiar with the canon of Greek Drama to read this book cover to cover. There remains an air of old scholarship over this work that keeps it from being universally accessible. Kitto's concession to translate the Ancient Greek to English was one step, but he quotes from earlier critics in their original French or German. There is a high-brow feel to the whole effort. It is not unwelcome, but can only be recommended without reserve to students of the classics or Greece's biggest fans.
Personal - 3/5
I learned a good deal from this book and there were moments when Kitto really hooked me, but reading it cover to cover was a slog. Kitto is a devoted Sophoclean, and most of his best writing comes in the section concerned Middle Tragedy and Sophocles' thought. I'm more of a Euripidean, myself, but towards the end of the book Kitto does a really fine job tracing the work of those two artists, who, we must remember, would have known each other very well and competed year in and year out at the Dionysian festival. What a remarkable rivalry it must have been! And Kitto brings his book to a close by comparing the posthumous works of the two poets: Euripides' Bacchae and Sophocles' Oedipus Coloneus. These are the end of Greek Tragedy. And Kitto gives the last word to Sophocles, concluding that in the Coloneus Greek Tragedy "comes home to die."
And who can disagree? Could a better ending to that inimitable art have been written by Sophocles himself?
March 15, 2021
A bright, vivid introduction to the work of the Greek Tragic playwrights.
Unlike the treatments of these plays that delve more into the socio-political context and the culture that gave it birth; Kitto seeks to understand it immanently- through the interplay of form, meaning and drama. He also portrays the playwrights as writing for the stage and not just as philosopher-moralists. The adding of the second actor first, later followed by a third, was not the fumblings of a conservative dramatist but due to the tragic conception the play demanded and thus, Kitto tries to understand each playwright on their own terms, reacting according to their own tragic ideas. We also cannot make each play fit on a Procrustean bed of Aristotle's conception of the 'perfect tragedy'.
Gave me a succinct overview of tragedy since the one person and chorus lyric tragedy; to Thespis, then Aeschylus, Sophocles-and Euripides. Also all the supporting apparatus of Greek tragedy: the skene, machene etc. and its development through time. The reader will probably need a basic understanding of how the tragedy and the Dionysia Festival worked, as I got from YouTube.
As Edith Hall remarks in her introduction Hardly anyone else other than Kitto, before or since, has attempted to analyse every single tragedy in a single accessible volume. Kitto discusses each play of each author- its tragic idea, themes, characters, drama, the chorus, the odes etc. Through his very effective turns of phrase and examples, he gets to the very essence of a point; and makes us see it in a completely different light. Very lively prose.
A limited summary of the difference between Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides (notwithstanding the impossibility of reducing their work to a system) follows:
Lyric Tragedy:
The SUPPLICES is a representative of whatever we have left from the older Lyric Tragedy, and thus shows one actor grappling with his destiny, the spectacle of the hero isolated before some awful rift in the universe, looking, like Pelasgus into the chasm that must engulf him.
Old Tragedy (Aeschylus):
Despite adding a second actor, the fundamental tragic conception remained the same. The second actor could function as heralds or messengers, and help move the plot along. But it is still fundamentally one hero grappling with his destiny. Thus, character and personality is unimportant; and the relationships between characters remain underdeveloped. It is the moral that matters.
Greek drama is also not meant to be naturalistic at all, every event is in the service of a tragic idea. Thus events do not have to be logically coherent, but only immanently coherent in the drama (one perhaps finds reflections of this in Milan Kundera?).
Middle Tragedy (Sophocles and some plays of his near-contemporary Euripides):
Sophocles did NOT set out to write beautiful plays. Whatever perfection and beauty we find in his art was incidental to his true aim- to express a certain tragic idea. He also added the third actor, and thus development of personality and character occurs in his plays- especially in the wonderful triangular scenes. The chorus also has to develop, and instead of becoming an 'ideal spectator' they must be imbued with an individual character. The actors have superseded the chorus; and therefore, the chorus must change to survive. It becomes a stop-gap for dull moments, and a narrator.
The Gods of Aeschylus are direct and personal, while the Gods of Sophocles are more like natural forces which move mysteriously. The Aeschylean Universe is one of strict moral laws, while the Sophoclean one is more like electricity and the inevitable recoil of actions. The action takes place on two planes at once: the human taking free decisions and the divine plane of Fate and the gods who cause the same events to occur. Notwithstanding this compatibilistic causality, the DIKE is what motivates it all. Dike does not really translate as merely justice, but the inevitable consequences and recoil of a certain action in the cosmos. This balance of the forces of nature implies that even people who unwittingly violate it, pay a heavy price; the gods act as electricity does, if an incautious tinkerer makes a mistake.
In the Oedipus Tyrannus, Kitto explores a profound notion of precisely how Jocasta committed ADIKAI: she denied the LOGOS- that powerful underlying basis of Greek thought; and religious faith in a rational KOSMOS. Thus unfolded her tragedy. Kitto finds this faith in the Logos and Dike as the fundamental moral message of Sophocles. Thus he harps on the need for EUSEBEIA (reverence) and PHRONESIS: knowing one's place in the cosmos.
Thus, Sophocles is not just character-study; so let us not have that preconception of that in our heads. The wider meaning is built into the very structure of the play- it does not revolve around individual personalities. We also find a critique of human hubris and thus support for religion in his plays, which is especially relevant during his times of Protagoras and the birth of rationalism. We cannot control life- it is full of uncertainty and illusion. Let us not hubristically neglect these restraints, is his prime message.
Euripides, being the representative of the new doctrines of rationalism too wrote some tragedy in the Middle style; although obviously with somewhat different ideas - He developed the main character and left the minor characters as mere outlines and extremes of personality. Unlike Sophocles who shows us the action and complex characters in a lovely manner, Euripides demands us to think about the actions and its consequences and is therefore, perhaps sparser than Sophocles there. Dike is not the fundamental nature of the cosmos like it was in Sophocles, he shows us the follies of our conflicting drives and passions. Unreason is our greatest folly. The use of the chorus fades, and blinds powers in nature carry out their unrelenting play. The gods are depicted as even more immoral than humans, critiquing traditional religion. Euripides concentrates on the folly of the human race in general, rather than individuals. It is a tragedy of the abstract Universal, not the Particular. Euripides also includes quite a few speeches (another result of his intellectualism); and rather otiose rhetoric and dialectic abounds. The plays are rather episodic, and the plot is not as important as the theme.
This creates a problem, how exactly can Euripides end his episodic and loose plays in the absence of a logical climax? He uses two features- the Deus ex Machine and the AITION- relating the event to a real geographical feature to give the play an air of reality.
New Tragedy (Euripides):
Tragi-comedies: these plays often mix the grave and the flippant. They are characterised by a certain pretty beauty of plot and construction, if not profundity. The happy ending replaces the catharsis, and drama ceases to be religious. Characterization too is decorative.
Melodramas: these are plays meant to be theatrically effective and entertaining, not tragic. Often make fun of the gods and rationalism at the same time. He takes a 'gloomy delight in blackening his characters ' and drawing extremes; and characters are subsumed to prettiness of construction. Chorus declines further and Kitto compares the odes to be 'as empty and silly as Mozart's libretti'. It is non-moral, non-intellectual but bright and shiny entertainment. 'Euripides was turning a church into a cinema. But very good cinema'.
We have lost a great deal of what original Greek Tragedy entailed as part of the Festival- the music, song, dance, chorus singing and imploring, the dizzying proximity of it all to their daily lives. Athenian theatre was truly democratic in manner, and taste; and it was perhaps a unique achievement of the Athenian condition. They focused on the ideas: the greatness of all Greek art lies not in its ability to achieve beauty of form (never the first aim of the great artist), but in its absolute sincerity to the underlying idea.. Also do note that Aristotle only composed his thoughts nearly half a century after Euripides death.
Some particular plays I found interesting and must read up on later: Septem, Prometheus Vinctus, Trachiniae (Heracles reflects Oedipus), the Bacchae and of course the Oresteia and the Theban plays.
Unlike the treatments of these plays that delve more into the socio-political context and the culture that gave it birth; Kitto seeks to understand it immanently- through the interplay of form, meaning and drama. He also portrays the playwrights as writing for the stage and not just as philosopher-moralists. The adding of the second actor first, later followed by a third, was not the fumblings of a conservative dramatist but due to the tragic conception the play demanded and thus, Kitto tries to understand each playwright on their own terms, reacting according to their own tragic ideas. We also cannot make each play fit on a Procrustean bed of Aristotle's conception of the 'perfect tragedy'.
Gave me a succinct overview of tragedy since the one person and chorus lyric tragedy; to Thespis, then Aeschylus, Sophocles-and Euripides. Also all the supporting apparatus of Greek tragedy: the skene, machene etc. and its development through time. The reader will probably need a basic understanding of how the tragedy and the Dionysia Festival worked, as I got from YouTube.
As Edith Hall remarks in her introduction Hardly anyone else other than Kitto, before or since, has attempted to analyse every single tragedy in a single accessible volume. Kitto discusses each play of each author- its tragic idea, themes, characters, drama, the chorus, the odes etc. Through his very effective turns of phrase and examples, he gets to the very essence of a point; and makes us see it in a completely different light. Very lively prose.
A limited summary of the difference between Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides (notwithstanding the impossibility of reducing their work to a system) follows:
Lyric Tragedy:
The SUPPLICES is a representative of whatever we have left from the older Lyric Tragedy, and thus shows one actor grappling with his destiny, the spectacle of the hero isolated before some awful rift in the universe, looking, like Pelasgus into the chasm that must engulf him.
Old Tragedy (Aeschylus):
Despite adding a second actor, the fundamental tragic conception remained the same. The second actor could function as heralds or messengers, and help move the plot along. But it is still fundamentally one hero grappling with his destiny. Thus, character and personality is unimportant; and the relationships between characters remain underdeveloped. It is the moral that matters.
Greek drama is also not meant to be naturalistic at all, every event is in the service of a tragic idea. Thus events do not have to be logically coherent, but only immanently coherent in the drama (one perhaps finds reflections of this in Milan Kundera?).
Middle Tragedy (Sophocles and some plays of his near-contemporary Euripides):
Sophocles did NOT set out to write beautiful plays. Whatever perfection and beauty we find in his art was incidental to his true aim- to express a certain tragic idea. He also added the third actor, and thus development of personality and character occurs in his plays- especially in the wonderful triangular scenes. The chorus also has to develop, and instead of becoming an 'ideal spectator' they must be imbued with an individual character. The actors have superseded the chorus; and therefore, the chorus must change to survive. It becomes a stop-gap for dull moments, and a narrator.
The Gods of Aeschylus are direct and personal, while the Gods of Sophocles are more like natural forces which move mysteriously. The Aeschylean Universe is one of strict moral laws, while the Sophoclean one is more like electricity and the inevitable recoil of actions. The action takes place on two planes at once: the human taking free decisions and the divine plane of Fate and the gods who cause the same events to occur. Notwithstanding this compatibilistic causality, the DIKE is what motivates it all. Dike does not really translate as merely justice, but the inevitable consequences and recoil of a certain action in the cosmos. This balance of the forces of nature implies that even people who unwittingly violate it, pay a heavy price; the gods act as electricity does, if an incautious tinkerer makes a mistake.
In the Oedipus Tyrannus, Kitto explores a profound notion of precisely how Jocasta committed ADIKAI: she denied the LOGOS- that powerful underlying basis of Greek thought; and religious faith in a rational KOSMOS. Thus unfolded her tragedy. Kitto finds this faith in the Logos and Dike as the fundamental moral message of Sophocles. Thus he harps on the need for EUSEBEIA (reverence) and PHRONESIS: knowing one's place in the cosmos.
Thus, Sophocles is not just character-study; so let us not have that preconception of that in our heads. The wider meaning is built into the very structure of the play- it does not revolve around individual personalities. We also find a critique of human hubris and thus support for religion in his plays, which is especially relevant during his times of Protagoras and the birth of rationalism. We cannot control life- it is full of uncertainty and illusion. Let us not hubristically neglect these restraints, is his prime message.
Euripides, being the representative of the new doctrines of rationalism too wrote some tragedy in the Middle style; although obviously with somewhat different ideas - He developed the main character and left the minor characters as mere outlines and extremes of personality. Unlike Sophocles who shows us the action and complex characters in a lovely manner, Euripides demands us to think about the actions and its consequences and is therefore, perhaps sparser than Sophocles there. Dike is not the fundamental nature of the cosmos like it was in Sophocles, he shows us the follies of our conflicting drives and passions. Unreason is our greatest folly. The use of the chorus fades, and blinds powers in nature carry out their unrelenting play. The gods are depicted as even more immoral than humans, critiquing traditional religion. Euripides concentrates on the folly of the human race in general, rather than individuals. It is a tragedy of the abstract Universal, not the Particular. Euripides also includes quite a few speeches (another result of his intellectualism); and rather otiose rhetoric and dialectic abounds. The plays are rather episodic, and the plot is not as important as the theme.
This creates a problem, how exactly can Euripides end his episodic and loose plays in the absence of a logical climax? He uses two features- the Deus ex Machine and the AITION- relating the event to a real geographical feature to give the play an air of reality.
New Tragedy (Euripides):
Tragi-comedies: these plays often mix the grave and the flippant. They are characterised by a certain pretty beauty of plot and construction, if not profundity. The happy ending replaces the catharsis, and drama ceases to be religious. Characterization too is decorative.
Melodramas: these are plays meant to be theatrically effective and entertaining, not tragic. Often make fun of the gods and rationalism at the same time. He takes a 'gloomy delight in blackening his characters ' and drawing extremes; and characters are subsumed to prettiness of construction. Chorus declines further and Kitto compares the odes to be 'as empty and silly as Mozart's libretti'. It is non-moral, non-intellectual but bright and shiny entertainment. 'Euripides was turning a church into a cinema. But very good cinema'.
We have lost a great deal of what original Greek Tragedy entailed as part of the Festival- the music, song, dance, chorus singing and imploring, the dizzying proximity of it all to their daily lives. Athenian theatre was truly democratic in manner, and taste; and it was perhaps a unique achievement of the Athenian condition. They focused on the ideas: the greatness of all Greek art lies not in its ability to achieve beauty of form (never the first aim of the great artist), but in its absolute sincerity to the underlying idea.. Also do note that Aristotle only composed his thoughts nearly half a century after Euripides death.
Some particular plays I found interesting and must read up on later: Septem, Prometheus Vinctus, Trachiniae (Heracles reflects Oedipus), the Bacchae and of course the Oresteia and the Theban plays.
February 20, 2022
Kopalnia wiedzy o dramacie i kulturze antycznej, wnikliwe analizy i bardzo przystępnie napisane.
August 23, 2019
A useful companion when reading through Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. Kitto's primary strength is how he brings out the sui generis nature of the different dramatic conceptions found across the 31 plays considered - so that we don't, for instance, get the impression that Aeschylus couldn't quite see how to be a Sophocles, or that Euripides wasn't quite good enough to be a Sophocles. The way dramatic method is ordered towards expounding dramatic idea is nicely explained for each poet.
On the downside, some of the discussions of individual plays are too short for Kitto to really say anything, and more importantly, the book (first published 1939, my edition 1973) feels very dated, lacking many of the more (post)modern interpretative methods and frameworks of later scholarship. It would be a considerable mistake to leave it at Kitto and not explore this more modern work, but he nevertheless provides a nice foundation for such further exploration.
On the downside, some of the discussions of individual plays are too short for Kitto to really say anything, and more importantly, the book (first published 1939, my edition 1973) feels very dated, lacking many of the more (post)modern interpretative methods and frameworks of later scholarship. It would be a considerable mistake to leave it at Kitto and not explore this more modern work, but he nevertheless provides a nice foundation for such further exploration.
May 18, 2019
A fascinating and refreshing look at the three Greek tragic writers. I would definitely recommend reading the relevant chapters if you are going to be reading the tragedies, but this works just as well as a reference book as it does a nonfiction book.
October 9, 2011
Still one of the best intros to Greek tragedy for people interested in this genre of lit.
July 6, 2023
Το βιβλίο αυτό εξυπηρετεί τον μελετητή της αρχαίας ελληνικής τραγωδίας -πρέπει να είναι γνώστης κάποιος για να μπορέσει να ανταποκριθεί. Είναι ένας μπούσουλας, ένας οδηγός για κάποιον που ενδιαφέρεται να εμβαθύνει στην τραγωδία. Όμορφη πινελιά, η αναφορά πιό σύγχρονων τραγωδών και η συσχέτισή τους με την εκάστοτε ανάλυση -π.χ. Σαίξπηρ.
April 8, 2018
A vigorous and lively introduction to Greek Tragedy as it was practiced by its three most famous playwrights, Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. Kitto's analysis is largely concerned with the form and structure of the drama, but there are interesting insights into other elements as well.
December 24, 2023
Certainly the cattiest and bitchiest work of scholarship I've ever read, let down by some astonishingly sloppy copy-editing, it's absolutely rife with errors, including the only time I've ever seen a letter printed both backwards and upside down
March 6, 2026
Arid, but illuminating and comprehensive. Apparently everyone else that had written about tragedy is at best an idiot, at worst illiterate.
January 18, 2023
Thoroughly enjoyable writing style even for someone with little to no education in Greek literature. No regrets, I cannot of course comment on the accuracy of it but it was an educative read to me, and I felt the love and enthusiasm for the subject as I read, which is of course the most important.
February 5, 2017
3rd time reading - brilliant as ever.
July 2, 2022
Acquired 1985
The Word, Montreal, Quebec
The Word, Montreal, Quebec
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews