This paper considers the hypothesis that Sophocles, Plato, Marcus Aurelius, and Andraeus Capellanus were all individuals struggling to live in times that they believed were regrettable departures from a more secure and desirable past, and that their writing was both an attempt at personal consolation and an effort to influence the society in which they lived. The primary works to be considered in dealing with this hypothesis are SophoclesÆ Oedipus cycle, the Platonic dialogues that are usually grouped as ôthe last days of Socrates,ö the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, and CapellanusÆ The Art of Courtly Love.
As a first pass, one might propose that the hypothesis seems to be true for all the authors except Sophocles. PlatoÆs dislike of Athenian democracy, which had executed his beloved teacher, Socrates, is well-known. His two longest works, the Republic and the Laws, which both deal with issues of government (among other things), are attempts to create a plan for a better system of government than existed in Periclean Athens.
One might have supposed that a Roman emperor would have had little to be unhappy about, and perhaps that was so for other emperors. However, Marcus Aurelius seems to have been a fairly unhappy man. His Meditations read much like the sort of daily inspirational reading that is now popular in ôrecoveryö programs and that people use to overcome their depression. In fact, some people now do use the Meditations in precisely that way.
CapellanusÆ Art of Courtly Love is in a way that strangest of the writings considered here. As its editor comments, the third book completely contradicts the first two. One would need to find a plausible explanation for this bifurcated attitude in order to offer an assessment of CapellanusÆ own views of his times. Still, one can see that there is much he is deeply troubled by.
However, why would Sophocles have been unsatisfied with his life? He was both per...