You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
An aim of The Psychoanalytic Theory of Greek Tragedy is to “enlarge psychoanalysis itself (p. 3) through C. Fred Alford's study of Greek tragedy.
Most psychoanalytically oriented readers will probably raise their eyebrows as they read:
I shall argue that psychoanalysis need not be seen as reflection upon inner states, one's own or others. The loosely structured Greek self, acted upon by its passions as though these passions were external forces such as gods, is actually phenomenologically quite accurate. To analyze the play of these passions as though they were uncontained and uncontrolled by the self may be quite fruitful, even if this is not the last word. In fact, if analysts such as Jacques Lacan and Melanie Klein are correct, it may be that moderns think they control their passions far more than they do. Much, but hardly all, of modern psychology may be a defense against truths intuited by the poets. (p. 3)
Alford contends that certain themes in Greek tragic drama are not accounted for in psychoanalytic theory and that therefore the theory will have to be modified in Alford's “eclectic fashion” (p. ix). He adds, “My approach is profoundly eclectic, downplaying issues of theoretical consistency among the psychoanalysts I draw upon” (p. 6). He believes that some psychoanalytic theories may be helpful in understanding Greek tragedy. Yet he maintains that remaining faithful to the intentions of the Greek dramatists requires sacrificing theoretical consistency. “In fact, by the end of