The Misunderstanding of Opsis in Aristotle’s Poetics
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 20053217 |
|---|---|
| Authors | G M Sifakis (corresponding author) |
| Year | 2013 |
| Pages | 45-61 |
| Publication date | 2013-01-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | CHAPTER |
| Venue | Performance in Greek and Roman theatre (SOURCE_BOOK) |
| Publisher | Brill (PUBLISHER • NL) |
| DOI | 10.1163/9789004245457_003 |
| OpenAlex | W2405381221 |
| ISBN | 9789004245457 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
In this chapter, well-entrenched notion is the often repeated or implied assumption, shared by Aristotelians as well as by historians of drama, that Aristotle did not care about and actually underestimated the theatrical performance of tragedy. The basis of this assumption is the apparent contradiction between the inclusion of opsis -whether it is taken to mean ‘spectacle’ or the appearance of the actors-in the six qualitative or formative parts of tragedy and the fact that a little later, in the same chapter, opsis is called atechnotaton and unrelated to the art of poetry. The crucial question, however, is not whether Aristotle underestimated theatrical performance, but whether he really made two opposing statements within the limits of the same chapter of his short work. This is what is really at stake, regardless of whether one addresses the problem with respect for the philosopher, as Halliwell does, or with Taplin’s critical attitude. Keywords:Aristotle; drama; Halliwell; opsis ; Poetics ; Taplin
Art · Literature · Poetics · Poetry · Classical Antiquity Studies · Classical Philosophy and Thought · History · Philosophy · Theatre and Performance Studies
| Citations per year | 0.3 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2016 - 2018 (3) |
| Highly cited | No |