In the present study, two literary topics of love are introduced and its historical development is traced from the classical tradition to the modern culture. Also being studied is Eugene O'Neill's modern American tragedy, Electra Is Good for Mourning (1931). These topics consist of 'love for hate' and 'jealousy in love'. It is argued that both topics comprise four stages, originate in ancient Greek and Roman literature and evolve into modern culture, as in O'Neill's work, following tradition. Also, despite critics' belief that Electra is fine with mourningO'Neill's is based on the versions of Euripides, Sophocles and Aeschylus on the history of Orestes and Electra, the contextualization of these two topics follows the tradition of Homer's Iliad and Ovid 's Metamorphoses. Finally, this article studies the appearance of each mole on television and in contemporary world cinema, such as the British La Joven Jane Austen (2007), the Iranian Shahrzad Series (2015) and the American La La Land (2016).
From the fifth century B.C., the nature of the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus as presented by Homer was a matter for discussion among writers and scholars in antiquity: was it a relationship of homosexual love or was it simple friendship? Out of this debate came discussion of a more specific question as well: whether, assuming a homosexual relationship, Achilles took the part of the lover (erastés) or of the beloved (erómenos). At no point does Homer make explicitly clear the nature of the relationship between the heroes, as noted already by Aeschines in his speech Against Timarchus 1.142. This uncertainty brought about the controversy, but the view that they were lovers prevailed. 1 The main points in the history of the debate, given briefly and in chronological order, are as follows. In the first place, in Aeschylus, the homoerotic relationship between Achilles and Patroclus is the principal theme of the tragedy Myrmidons, as emerges explicitly from two fragments (TrGF 3, 135-6 Radt). Aeschylus presents Achilles as the lover, speaking to his dead beloved Patroclus. Plato for his part puts in the mouth of Phaedrus the opinion that Achilles and Patroclus were lovers (Symp. 179e-180b), though Phaedrus, expressly refuting Aeschylus, specifies that Achilles, who was younger than Patroclus, was the young beloved. Aeschines, in his speech Against Timarchus, presents the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus as a noble, loving relationship, in contrast to the prostitution of which he accuses Timarchus (Aeschin. 1.141-2). In support of his thesis, Aeschines resorts to the Homeric example, giving a pederastic reading of the friendship between the two heroes, for which he extensively cites the text of the Iliad (Aeschin. 1.145-50). 2 Later allusions, in Theocritus, Martial, Meleager, and Ps.-Lucian agree in presenting the relationship between the heroes as homosexual. 3 The single relevant piece of evidence for the contrary view is from Xenophon, who puts in Socrates' mouth the opinion that the friendship between Achilles and Patroclus was not erotic in character (Symp. 8.31). It is clear that there was a polemical tradition concerning the nature of the relationship between the two heroes, a tradition which is attested by texts that are still extant. It is logical, therefore, that an author like Chariton, who felt such an affection for the Homeric poems, whose text he cites very frequently, 4 would have formed an
Ha tratado sobre cuestiones de ética aplicadas a la biología (2009a, 2009b), a los seres vulnerables (2011), a la muerte provocada (2013) y al medio ambiente (2015). Como nuevo eslabón en su trayectoria de ética aplicada, en este libro defiende la causa animalista. Como se indica desde el propio título, se trata de un manifiesto político, es decir, de una proclama por que se adopten desde los gobiernos políticas encaminadas al respeto de los derechos de los animales. Como manifiesto político está inspirado por la estructura y naturaleza del Manifiesto comunista de K. Marx y de F. Engels (1848). El libro discute como sustento del manifiesto cuestiones tangenciales, aunque importantes, como la denuncia del sufrimiento infligido a los animales (pp. 13-15, 93-107), en la línea de Singer (1975); la fundamentación filosófica de sus derechos (57-67), siguiendo a Regan (1983); o la historia de la reinvindicación de los mismos (34-38), en la que se mencionan los trabajos de Singer (1975), Regan (1983), Fontenay (1998) y Derrida (2006). Es bastante significativo que el tratado de Jacques Derrida (1930-2004) sea póstumo, lo que sugiere que el influyente filósofo francés, uno de los padres de la postmodernidad, sintió que debía dedicar sus últimas energías intelectuales a la causa animalista.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.