Nana Smith

Précis on Simon Goldhill’s The Great Dionysia and Civic

Ideology

Goldhill delves into what consisted of the Dionysia drama festival of Athens in the
fifth century BC. He investigates whether it was solely for entertainment for the
Athenians or if it was more of a religious ceremony with the language of the play
conveying messages to a democratic society. He believes that the Dionysia
characterized Greek culture through the plays performed, showing an ideology of a
polis. He introduces Gilbert Murray’s idea where the processions, which went along
with the festival, created an effect on the entertainment. In addition, Goldhill argues
that one needed to grasp the context of the play rather than only listen and watch, and
that the festival arose questions in Greek tragedy of the politics and society of Athens.
Goldhill clarifies what consisted of the festival. Religious processions such as
taking the statue of Dionysus Eleuthereus to the temple and making a sacrifice to the
god took place prior the drama as well as the poet with his actors and chorus
explaining the story. The ten generals would pour libations before tragedies: the
inscriptions on them say they are for ‘demokratia, eirēnē and agathē tuxē’, thus
Goldhill suggests that the Dionysia seemed quite religious. Fatherless sons would
stand on the platform to show the calamity of war for peace, which encourages
sustainable peace and limit violence to avoid anymore orphans. In contrast, it also
conveys the pride of Athens, for the fathers died fighting for the polis. Athenians had
to do duties for the city, and these individuals would be crowned at the festival: this
was not to praise the individual himself, but instead the duties to the city.
To define Athenian civic ideology, Goldhill mentions military service. He
points out the difference between the Homeric society, which was more about
individual warriors or heroes in single combat, and the Athenian democratic society
where the hoplites fought in a phalanx. Public funeral speeches also seemed to
support the democratic ideology for they were about the polis rather than individuals.
The plays themselves conveyed complicated ideas of what was supposed to be
understood. Goldhill focuses on the Sophoclean Hero and its complications. Ajax and
Antigone conveys the perils of acting individually for they did not seem to achieve
such kleos. They created much conflict, which raises questions as to whether or not
they were true heroes even though they went against nomos. Philoctetes and
Neoptolemus too raise questions as to whether they acted justly: were they right to
abandon the Trojan expedition and is there a deeper meaning behind this alternative
ending of the myth than the traditional one? Sophocles’ tragedies bring up many
conflicts, which can be related to Athenian democratic society such as oikos vs polis
and disruption of social order. This returns to the idea of the Dionysia conveying
moral messages and problems of society. Tragedies create problems by turning simple
ideas and conflicts into more complicated matters. He concludes that Dionysian plays
were not solely on entertainment, but through the literature along with the religious
precessions and public speeches a democratic ideology was clarified more.