Department of Philosophy and Classics
Permanent URI for this collection
Browse
Browsing Department of Philosophy and Classics by Subject "Drama"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Caesar’s Crossing Of The Rubicon: Ambition Or A Call For A Change In Governance?(University of Ghana, 2016-07) Adiku, S.D.Most of the literature on the affairs of Caesar that survived was either written by people who stayed under the patronage of the Roman nobles or were themselves Roman aristocrats such as Appian, Livy, Plutarch, Sallust, and Cicero. For these reasons the main motive of Caesar‟s crossing of the Rubicon was seen to be the inordinate ambition of a Roman general who wanted more for himself. This propaganda has gotten hold of scholars of classical history so much that even notable historians and commentators such as Plutarch, William Smith, Tom Holland, Henry Boren, H. H. Scullard, Adrian Goldsmith, Christian Meier, and Phil Grabsky, have bought into this Optimates idea of deception that the main motives of Caesar‟s crossing of the Rubicon were ambition (excessive) and the fear of prosecution. In our estimation this is not borne out by the facts. Some of the questions answered by the thesis in the attempt to clarify these points were: What accounted for the apparent enmity borne by the senatorial nobility to Plebeians? Why were most of the vociferous champions of the Plebeians tagged as would-be tyrants and assassinated? The research is mainly literature-based, using a qualitative research method. The study made use of historical analysis of the happenings in Rome after the fall of Carthage till Caesar crossed the Rubicon. It also made use of comparative analysis in looking at the affairs of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Cicero, and Caesar. Additionally, this study clearly outlined the affairs in Rome just after the fall of Carthage to the crossing of the Rubicon so as to make it quite obvious that as a Roman, Caesar had ambition to attain greater feats in oratory, warfare and politics but he was not driven by inordinate ambition in crossing the Rubicon as he was accused of. Consequently, Caesar‟s crossing of the Rubicon was not an act of ambition or the fear of prosecution but that he was the champion of the Plebeians who responded to their cry for help on the one hand just as the Gracchi brothers and on the other hand, the call of the Republic for a change in governance due to the failure of the existing system of governance under the watch of the Patricians. Finally, this research critically linked the happenings in some African countries to that of ancient Rome. This was aimed at making it clear that any attempt by the select few to maintain the same system of governance without innovations to improve it by introducing socialist interventions to assist the masses and making it possible for other emerging political parties to win power; form government, or contribute to the governance in the their respective countries coupled with the existing socio-economic and political inequalities would not have a happy ending.Item Reassessing the Nonconformist Charges against Euripides: A Study of Selected Plays of Euripides and Aristophanes’ Frogs(University Of Ghana, 2016-06) Karikari, L.Ancient Greek tragedy came to Euripides with its general conditions fixed in a manner which he could not attempt to alter. There is a governing diction, tone and propriety which define the genre and sustains its elevation; three actors in a play, a chorus, and subject-matter that must be taken from the heroic legends and myths. Wounds and death were not supposed to be presented on stage. These are some of the basic conventions of ancient Greek play. But it is widely held against the background of the criticisms of Euripides‘ drama that his plays generally represent a sharp departure from the existing traditions, customs, and theatrical conventions of the tragic genre. To Aristophanes in particular, and some modern scholars such as August W. Schlegel, Friedrich Schlegel, Ann Norris Michelini, Paul Decharme, Stahlin Schmid and Ebener Dietrich, Euripides is an immoral dramatist, a misogynist, an anti-traditionalist, impious, a lover of rhetoric, a sophist, a systematic thinker and a skeptical dramatist whose plays show nonconformist attitudes and views towards the traditional religion, morality and the mythological stories of the tragic genre. However, some other commentators like Adele Robert, Donald Mastronarde, Helen Foley, Desmond Conacher, David Kovacs, and G. M. A. Grube are of the view that Euripides is an innovative, realistic, and creative dramatist, whose drama should not be misinterpreted from our modern perspectives. Thus, there appears to be lack of consensus among ancient and modern scholars about the interpretations of Euripides‘ plays. The problem I identify is that some of the arguments from both sides about the interpretations of Euripides‘ drama are either incorrect or misconstrued. Therefore, the questions that this dissertation attempts to address are: what are the aspects of Euripides‘ writings that give rise to the criticism that he is a nonconformist? What are the interpretations that are favored by scholars who charge Euripides with nonconformism? What are the interpretations of Euripides‘ plays that are preferred by scholars who argue that he is an innovative and creative dramatist? In what ways are the allegations against Euripides in Aristophanes‘ Frogs justified? Which interpretations of Euripides‘ works would be more representative of his perspective of Greek society? My main focus of investigation in my attempt to address the questions noted above, will be on Aristophanes‘ Frogs in which the comic poet criticises and stigmatizes Euripides in various ways, and the Hippolytus and Hecuba of Euripides which commentators and critics consider as among the plays which are reflective of the attitudes and thoughts of Euripides. By and large, my fundamental objective here is to reassess the charges against Euripides; and by way of methodology, I hope to argue, where necessary, and critique and comment on not only the views of scholars about the works of Euripides but also the communicative intentions of the playwright with particular reference to his two plays in focus.