Braniff Graduate School

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14026/2073

Browse

Browsing Braniff Graduate School by Author "Dr. David Sweet"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A Tale of Two Tragedies: Catharsis of Hero and City in Miltonâ s Samson Agonistes and Shakespeareâ s Coriolanus
    (2019-10-01T00:00:00-07:00) Szczesny, Stanley; Dr. Scott Crider; Dr. Joshua Parens; Dr. David Sweet
    In his prologue to Samson Agonistes, Milton champions the conventions of Greek tragedy over those followed by Elizabethan dramatists. Great tragedy, he contends, purges fear and pity out of audiences, facilitating a more sober, moral, rational life. Based on his argument and on the content of the poem, the most important difference between classical and Elizabethan tragedy is the Chorus. The Chorus represents a poetic, monolithic, communal voice that interacts dialectically with a strong, independent hero. The Elizabethans eschewed the unified Chorus in favor of realistic and comedic imitation of the various members of the British masses, which, according to Milton, dilutes the dialectical conflict of heroic independence with community morals and weakens the potential of tragedy to produce a cathartic synthesis in the audience. In order to further understand and test Miltonâ s conception of the Chorus, this dissertation compares Samson Agonistes with Shakespeareâ s Coriolanus. Coriolanus was selected because many critics have contended that it is the closest Shakespearean tragedy comes to imitating the unified structure and aims of classical tragedy while still retaining many Elizabethan conventions. Coriolanus is a model of the Aristotelian tragic hero who is superior in virtue but falls because of an error. His aristocratic, military values are depicted in sharp contrast with the increasingly republican values of the Roman citizens. Those citizens are depicted in typical, Elizabethan fashion, making their conflict with Coriolanus an ideal contrast with the Chorusâ s conflict with Samson. Further, there are many fascinating parallels between the experiences of Samson and Coriolanus and in the structure of both plays. This dissertation will argue that while Shakespeareâ s more realistic and entertaining imitation of complex political interactions does produce tragic emotions, especially in the final confrontation between Coriolanus, Volumnia, and Virgilia, Coriolanus dies rejected by Romans, Volscians, and often by audiences. On the other hand, Miltonâ s tightly constructed dialectic between Samson and the Chorus, including the conflicts with Manoa and Dalila, tends to produce a more meditative experience and to mediate a clearer cathartic resolution. Samson dies celebrated by the Danite Chorus, and audiences, with some important exceptions, have accepted him as a hero.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Improving on Sallust and Tacitus: Thomas More's Narrative Techniques in Historia Richardi Tertii
    (2021-10-01T00:00:00-07:00) Johnson, RoseMary; Dr. Gerard Wegemer; Dr. David Sweet; Dr. Andrew Moran
    In his Historia Richardi Tertii, Thomas More shares a common goal with Sallust and Tacitus: to help prevent tyranny by promoting civic virtues in readers. After reviewing the similarities between Moreâ s Historia and his classical models, I employ close reading and the insights of narratology to show that More surpasses Sallust and Tacitus in the sophistication of his narrative techniques. More uses an encomiastic introduction, mimetic indirect discourse, and divergent focalization to fill the Historia with a multiplicity of voices and points of view. The result is a complex narrative that is the perfect arena for teaching the art of character discernment, especially through the â character puzzlesâ of King Edward and Queen Elizabeth. These character puzzles are carefully constructed to assist the reader in discovering and exercising the principles of character discernment. A close reading of the text shows that King Edward falls far short of the humanist ideal of kingship, since he is ambitious, imprudent, prone to flattery, and puts his own pleasure ahead of his peopleâ s good. The â character puzzleâ of Queen Elizabeth is more difficult to solve. Why does she allow her son to leave sanctuary when she knows there is â nothing more hazardousâ than to put both her sons in Richardâ s power (CW15 394/20)? By carefully analyzing the entire Historiaâ including Moreâ s references to Lucianâ s De Calumnia, Livyâ s History of Rome, the Book of Lamentations, and Petrarchâ s â De Obedientia ac Fide uxoria, Mythologiaâ â I conclude that Elizabeth approaches the decision of whether to give up her son not as a mother, but as the leader of a faction. She is primarily concerned with what will advance her political interests and restore her fortunes, not with what will save her son. After explaining Moreâ s use of narrative techniques and â character puzzlesâ to help readers discover and exercise the principles of character discernment, I conclude that the sophistication of Moreâ s narrative techniques makes his Historia Richardi Tertii superior as a work of art to Sallustâ s Bella and Tacitusâ Annales.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Tyranny and Political Philosophy
    (2021-04-01T00:00:00-07:00) Guinea, David; Dr. Joshua Parens; Dr. Richard Dougherty; Dr. David Sweet
    Tyranny is a theme that reverberates in politico-philosophical scholarship since the post-war era of the twentieth century and it has been taken up with a renewed interest in recent years. Aside from Leo Strauss, only very few scholars have focused on the link between ancient and modern tyranny, and even fewer on how the concept of tyranny might give insight into the study of political philosophy itself. In this dissertation, I argue that the concept of tyranny can make us aware of the permanent character of the problems that arise between philosophy and politics, and help us distinguish between the core and the peripheral tenets of political philosophy. On this basis, I contend that it is possible to draw a closer connection between Socratic and Machiavellian political philosophy. Through a close reading of select passages of Xenophon, Plato and Aristotle, on the one hand, and of Machiavelli, on the other, I address the main differences that separate the philosophic from the political way of life. I first analyze the concept of tyranny from the viewpoint of the city and of â real menâ (andres), and then contrast it with the perspective of the philosopher. I assert that the praise of kalokagathia is more of a concession than the real essence of the classicsâ philosophic teachings. Although I show that there is a close connection between the philosopher and the tyrant, I also explain what sets them apart. The subtle distinction that the classics made between the principles of their philosophic politics as opposed to the principles of philosophy itself, I argue, helps us to understand the classics better and to read Machiavelli in a different, more benevolent and more philosophical light. While I acknowledge that modern forms of tyranny, such as the universal and homogeneous state that Kojève proposes, originate in Machiavelliâ s revolution, I hold that the essence of Machiavelliâ s teachings, in harmony with the classics, shores up philosophy, not tyranny. The return both to the classics and to the origins of modernity that I put forward aims at keeping philosophy alive against tyranny of thought.