Nomos and Physis (in Greek Tragedy)

(4), not surprisingly, and in *PROMETHEUs BOUND as the endpoint of Jo's WANDERINGS (*PJ7812 847). It also appears in EURIPIDES, not only in HELEN, where it is the first word, but also in ANDROMACHE (Andr. 650), not to mention various fragments. JULIE BROWN Nod see GESTURE AND BODY LANGUAGE dramatized anthropological treatise (Rose 1976: 49-105; see also ANTHROPOLOGICAL APPROACH TO GREEK TRAGEDY). In fact, the contest between PHILOCTETES (physis) and ODYSSEUS (nomos) for NEOPTOLEMUS' soul places the discussion of whether SÔPHROSYNË ("good judgment") can be taught or not within the physis—nomos framework (Roisman 1997: 166). However, it is perhaps in WOMEN OF TEACH—is that the opposition plays the most important role: DElANEnta's struggle to dominate her physis, namely her PASSIONS and nomos and physis in Greek Tragedy DESIRES, in order to conform to social conven- (vo.toç, tion or nomos, has been said to be influenced by Antiphon's defence (in Aletheia) of a utilitarian kind of morality where right and wrong are not intrinsically but only socially determined (Gasti 1993). However, the disastrous consequences of her attempt to win back HERACLES may indicate that, for Sophocles, forcing one's nature to accommodate conventional morality will never be completely satisfying (Dover 1974: 268-9). That EURIPIDES' plays widely attest to an underlying physis—nomos controversy seems to be clear not only from the frequency with which his characters refer to it, but also from the variety of apparent solutions we encounter in the plays. Against the claim, in line with Callicles, that nature alone suffices and that convention is irrelevant, echoed in one of Euripides' fragments (Kannicht, TrGF vol. 5.2 F 920), ION presents himself in the homonymous play as combining the two in order to render best service to APOLLO (Ion 642). It is not physis or nomos, but rather a balance of both which seems to be the most convenient: in point of fact, in BACCHAE (895-6) the CHORUS affirms that when physis and nomos are properly understood the latter is necessarily based on the former (Dodds 1977). However, HIPPOLTTUS in turn shows that nomos is also an indispensable end for physis. Even if married (nomos) to old THESEUS, the young PHAEDRA is naturally inclined (physis) towards the YOUTH Of HIPPOLYTUS, who, however, rejects her. As for the latter, considering himself as gifted with söphrosyne (temperance) Even if Hesiod's opposition between HYBRIS and dike in Works and Days (225-86) might be seen as a first approach to the physis—nomos polarity (nature versus law) insofar as it equates the former to the bestiality of animals and the latter to human culture (Guthrie 1969a: 55-6) which is rewarded by the gods (Op. 225-37), it is in the Hippocratic corpus that the concepts account for health and illness, respectively, for the first time (Heinimann 1945: 95-7). Archelaos, the pupil of ANAXAGORAS, who reportedly applied the terms in an ethical context (Al, 2 D—K; Heinimann 1945: 110-14; Pohlenz 1953: 432), might, however, have been the very first to use it explicitly as an antithesis. In any case, for the contrast between physis and nomos in tragedy, we will have to wait for SOPHISTS such as Antiphon (52-61 D—K), or Hippias (Plato, Prot. 337e), who may have developed it from Heraclitus' contrast between communal reason (xynos logos) and private understanding (idie phronesis) (2 D—K; Johann 1973: 24-5; see also GREEK fnaç) TRAGEDY AND PHILOSOPHY). Although absent from AESCHYLUS, the antithesis plays a growing role in SOPHOCLES, whose ANTIGONE has been interpreted, since Aristotle's Rhetoric (1373B10-15), as symbolically representing the conflict between physis and nomos, or more precisely between natural and positive law (Guthrie 1969a: 56). As for the PHILOCTETES, the role of "underlying organizational principle" played by the physis— nomos pair (Fuqua 1964: 55, 70, 215-16) has led interpreters to consider the tragedy a NOMOS AND PHYSIS IN GREEK TRAGEDY by the gods, which is consequently seen as the product of nature (physis) rather than of learning (nomos) (72-87), Hippolytus thinks he is above the worship of APHRODITE, a particular, commonly accepted nomos. In believing so, however, he clearly interprets söphrosyne as chastity (87), and therefore does not reject nomos altogether in the name of physis, but simply in the name of a different nomos, namely ARTEMIS worship. Even if his attitude is reproved by the SERVANT as being unmeasured, Hippolytus explains it in terms of a personal choice (104) and preference (106). In his eyes, worship is convention (nomos), which some gifted (physis) individuals may ignore, adapting it to the principles governing their lives (Berns 1973). Physis consequently seems to gain supremacy. The same seems to be the case in HECUBA, where both notions also occupy a central place. After TALTHYBIUS narrates the sacrifice of POLYXENA (518-82; see also HUMAN SACRIFICE), the body of POLYDORUS is found on the seashore. Determined to take revenge on the traitor POLYMNESTOR, Hecuba requests assistance from AGAMEMNON: she first appeals to nomos, the convention which, she argues, human faith in the gods relies on, but which also protects HOSPITALITY and distinguishes between right and wrong (799-801). However, if she finally convinces him it is due to her resorting to physis, in reminding Agamemnon of the nightly pleasures provided by her daughter Cassandra (824-30). Physis wins, since, as Hecuba puts it, men are most grateful for the pleasures they receive in nightly darkness (831-2). A case for nomos seems to he behind MEDEA. The physis—nomos antithesis governs the play, with JASON and MEDEA representing nomos and physis respectively. Indeed Jason's apology to Medea his WIFE from a natural perspective but CONCUBINE from a legal one for marrying Glance to give his children civil rights (551-7) seems to rely on ATHENIAN law, which considered the sons of a FOREIGN mother to be BASTARDS (Grande 1962: 47-8). The same technique of presenting both sides of the antithesis by incarnating them in - - 895 two different characters of the play can be seen in ALCESTIS, in which ADMETUS and PHERES represent physis and nomos respectively (614-742). In fact, in spite of the different solutions offered in diverse plays, Euripides never takes part in the controversy preoccupying the intellectual milieu of his time. He simply lets his characters speak for themselves, presenting in this manner the different sides of a distinction known to his public and that in his eyes probably did not have an unequivocal solution. Rather than choosing one or the other concept as the basis for society, Euripides seems to prefer a harmonious combination of both: as the Chorus of Bacchae referred to above puts it, when properly understood nomos is grounded upon physis. Euripides does not explain why this is so, but, as Guthrie states (1969a: 114): "It is the poet's privilege to pronounce, as an eternal truth, what the philosopher feels he has to prove by argument." References Berns, G. 1973. "Nomos and Physis: An Interpretation of Euripides' Hippolytos." Hermes 101:165-87. Dodds, E.R. 1977. Euripides' Bacchae. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dover, K.J. 1974. Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle. Oxford: Blackwell; Berkeley: University of California Press. Fuqua, C.J. 1964. "The Thematic Structure of Sophocles Philoctetes." Dissertation, Cornell University. Gasti, H. 1993. "Sophocles' Trachiniae: A Social or Externalized Aspect of Deianeira's Morality." AerA 39: 20-8. Grande, C. del. 1962. "Euripide, nomos e physis." Dioniso 26: 46-9. Guthrie, W.K.C. 1969a. A History of Greek Philosophy, vol. 3: The Fifth-century Enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heinimann, F. 1945. Nomos und Physis: Herkunfe und Bedeutung einer Antithese im griechischen Denken des 5. Jahrhunderts. Basel: Reinhardt. Johann, H.T. 1973. "Hippias von Elis und der Physis-Nomos-Gedanke." Phronesis 18: 15-25. Pohlenz, M. 1953. "Nomos und Physis." Hermes 81: 418-38. 896 NOMOS AND PHYSIS IN GREEK TRAGEDY Roisman, H.M. 1997. "The Appropriation of a Son: Sophocles' Philoctetes." GKBS 38: 127-71. Rose, P.W. 1976. "Sophocles' Philoctetes and the Teachings of the Sophists." HSCPh 80: 49-105. LAIJTARO ROIG LANZILLOTTA Non-verbal Communication see BLUSH AND PALLOR; CHRONEMICS; GESTURE AND BODY LANGUAGE; GREETING ETIQUETTE/WELCOME AND FAREWELL PROTOCOLS; Kiss; LAUGHTER; LEAKAGE; PHONATION; PROXEMICS; SILENCE; SMILE; WEEPING spectators. In the Elektra or the Bacchae where the spectators must directly grasp a reconstrual for themselves, as that between the urn and the beloved head or the thyrsos and the head/mask of this reconstrual is facilitated Pentheus by verbal cues and visually perceived props. (Chaston 2010: 242) ... A few examples of some of the major notional props and how they relate to the physical props in their plays follows: Aeschylus PERSIANS nostos (vóotoç) THEME OF see HOMECOMING (NosTos), Notional Props It is difficult to separate real and notional props because usually they belong to the same thematic pattern in a given play and often blend into each other. The physical PROP may hide the imagined prop that is crucial to the plot: the POISONED robes in EURIPIDES' MEDEA and SOPHOCLES' WOMEN OF TRACHIS, for example, are concealed in chests to be carried to the recipients. The imagined prop may precede the appearance of the actual prop: the great BOW of HERACLES is discussed in SOPHOCLES' PHILOCTETES long before it appears in the hands of the abandoned hero. In a special category between real and notional objects are items that would be difficult for all or most of the AUDIENCE to see because of their small size. These include OiuisTEs' signet ring in SOPHOCLES' ELECTRA, DETANEIRA'S and CREUSA'S vials of poison in Sophocles' Women of Trachis and EURIPIDES' ION, the ANIMAL patterns on the weaving Orestes holds up in AESCHYLUS' CHoEPHOROl. The details, at least, must be imagined. Chaston suggests a way of understanding the difference between notional and actual (or physical) props when she writes: Using mental imagery and verbal description Eteocles models the process of reconstrual of the shield devices for the XERXES' MOTHER goes to get splendid robes (see also COSTUMES [AND SHOES]) for her SON, but she does not return. We must imagine, perhaps based on her splendid appearance in her first scene, what he would be clothed in, but to have him change would spoil the ruin and loss that his rags, empty quiver, and cries of woe illustrate so powerfully. The shield mentioned SEVEN AGAINST THEBES in the PROLOGUE used for the blood-OATH (43) and the shields of the seven attackers With their carefully described devices are notional props but they are brought to life in the figure of ETEOCLES himself once he has armed himself for combat with his BROTHER. ORESTEIA The two major visual patterns alternate notional (N) and physical (P) props: FIRES: AGAMEMNON: signal (seen by WATCHMAN but unclear whether the audience could have seen it), altar fires (P), signal fires (described N); Choephoroi: lamps (N); EUMENIDES: torches (P). Cloth: Agamemnon: IPHIGENIA'S wedding dress (N), CLYTEMNESTRA'S red weaving or tapestry (P), nets (N, P); Choephoroi: weaving made by ELECTRA, carried by ORESTES (P with notional details), net/ robe held up by Orestes (P); robes of Eumenides (P). Clytemnestra's man-slaying axe (Cho. 889) is a prominent notional prop, that defines her in her moment of desperation as willing to kill her son if she were able. Edited by Hanna M. Roisrrr,:-, WI LEY- BLACKWELL A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication