DOLOS AND DIKE IN SOPHOKLES'' ELEKTRA pot

DOLOS AND DIKE IN SOPHOKLES' ELEKTRA

MNEMOSYNE

BIBLIOTHEGA CLASSICA BATAVA

COLLEGERUNT

H. PINKSTER • H. W. PLEKET

C.J. RUIJGH • D.M. SCHENKEVELD . PH. SCHRIJVERS

BIBLIOTHECAE FASCICULOS EDENDOS CURAVIT

C.J. RUIJGH, KLASSIEK SEMINARIUM, OUDE TURFMARKT 129, AMSTERDAM

SUPPLEMENTUM DUCENTESIMUM DECIMUM NONUM

LEONA MACLEOD

DOLOS AND DIKE IN SOPHOKLES' ELEKTRA

DOLOS AND DIKE

IN

SOPHOKLES' ELEKTRA

BY

LEONA MACLEOD

BRILL

LEIDEN • BOSTON • KOLN

2001

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

MacLeod, Leona.

Dolos and Dike in Sophokles' Elektra / by Leona MacLeod.

p. cm. — (Mnemosyne, bibliotheca classica Batava.

Supplementum, ISSN 0169-8958; 219)

Originally presented as author's thesis (Ph. D)—Dalhousie University.

Includes bibliographical references (p.) and index.

ISBN 9004118985 (alk. paper)

I. Sophocles. Electra. 2. Electra (Greek mythology) in literature. I. Title.

II. Series.

PA4413.E5 M33 2001

882'.01—dc21 2001025589

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufhahme

[Mnemosyne / Supplementum]

Mnemosyne : bibliotheca classica Batava. Supplementum. - Leiden ;

Boston ; Koln : Brill

Friiher Schriftenreihe

Teilw. u.d.T.: Mnemosyne / Supplements

Reihe Supplementum zu: Mnemosyne

219. MacLeod, Leona : Dolos and Dike in Sophokles ' Elektra

Dolos and Dike in Sophokles ' Elektra / by Leona MacLeod. - Leiden ;

Boston; Koln: Brill, 2001

(Mnemosyne : Supplementum ; 219)

ISBN 90-04-11898-5

ISSN 0169-8958

ISBN 9004118985

© Copyright 2001 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,

mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written

permission from the publisher.

Authorisation to photocopy items for internal or personal

useis granted by Brill provided that

the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright

Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910

Danvers 01923, USA.

Fees are subject to change.

PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

CONTENTS

Abbreviations

Preface

Introduction

0.1 The Legend in Poetry

0.2 Scholarship and Sophokles' Elektra

Chapter One Prologos: Orestes and Elektra

1.1 Preliminary Remarks

1.2 The Paidagogos and Orestes

1.3 Elektra's Monody

Chapter Two Elektra and the Chorus:

The Foundations of the Community

2.1 Preliminary Remarks

2.2 The Status and Function of the Chorus

2.3 The Parodos

2.4 The Theme of Aidos

Chapter Three Elektra and Chrysothemis I:

The Sophron Citizen vs Female Sophrosyne

3.1 Preliminary Remarks

3.2 Sophron Thinking versus Female Sophrosyne

3.3 The Dream of Klytaimnestra

3.4 Ritual Activity

Chapter Four Elektra and Klytaimnestra:

Dike versus Dike?

4.1 Preliminary Remarks

4.2 Dike

4.3 The Theme of Aidos

4.4 Ritual Activity

Chapter Five The 'Death' of Orestes

5.1 Preliminary Remarks

5.2 The Messenger Speech

5.3 Hybris, Aidos, and Nemesis

5.4 Elektra and the Chorus: The kommos

vii

ix

1

1

4

21

21

23

39

41

41

42

44

48

61

61

62

70

73

79

79

82

90

102

107

107

112

127

132

VI CONTENTS

Chapter Six Elektra and Chrysothemis II:

Civic Andreia and Female Sophrosyne 135

6.1 Preliminary Remarks 135

6.2 Elektra and the Persuasion of Chrysothemis 137

6.3 Elektra's Plan 140

Chapter Seven Elektra and Orestes:

Reunion and Vengeance 153

7.1 Preliminary Remarks 153

7.2 The Reunion 154

7.3 The Alliance 162

7.4 The Vengeance 166

Conclusion 185

Bibliography 189

Glossary of Terms 199

General Index 201

Index of Passages 204

ABBREVIATIONS AND EDITIONS

The following abbreviations are used in the bibliography:

A & A Antike und Abendland

AC Ada Classica

AJP American Journal of Philology

BICS Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of

London

BCH Bulletin de Correspondence Hellenique

BMCR Bryn Mawr Classical Review

CA Classical Antiquity

CJ Classical Journal

C & M Classica & Mediaevalia

CP Classical Philology

CQ Classical Quarterly

CR Classical Review

CW Classical World

G & R Greece and Rome

GRBS Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies

HSCP Harvard Studies in Classical Philology

ICS Illinois Classical Studies

JASO Journal of the Anthropological Society of Oxford

JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies

MH Museum Helveticum

PCPS Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society

RIDA Revue Internationale des droits de I'Antiquite

RhM Rheinisches Museum

SO Symbolae Osloenses

TAPA Transactions of the American Philological Association

WS Wiener Studien

UCPCP University of California Publications in Classical Philology

YCS Tale Classical Studies

TR Yale Review

viii ABBREVIATIONS AND EDITIONS

In addition the following abbreviations have been employed in the

notes. Where there is a reference to a scholar (without date), it is

to the relevant OCT or other named edition.

Campbell L. Campbell, L. ed. 1881. The Plays and Fragments

of Sophocles Vol. II. Oxford. Reprinted 1969.

Jebb R.C. Jebb. 1907. Sophocles: The Plays and Fragments

Vol. VI Elektra. Cambridge.

Kaibel G. Kaibel. 1911. Elektra. Leipzig.

Kamerbeek J.C. Kamerbeek. 1974. The Plays of Sophokles.

Commentaries, Part V: The Elektra. Leiden.

Kells J.H. Kells. 1973. Sophocles' Electra. Cambridge.

L-J & W H. Lloyd-Jones and N.G. Wilson. 1990. Sophoclis

Fabulae. Oxford.

L-J & W2

H. Lloyd-Jones and N.G. Wilson. 1990. Sophoclea:

Studies on the Text of Sophocles. Oxford.

LSJ H.G. Liddell, R. Scott, and H. Stuart-Jones. 1955.

A Greek-English Lexicon (9th edition). Oxford

OCT Oxford Classical Texts

Pearson A.C. Pearson. 1928. Sophoclis Fabulae. Oxford.

Radt S. Radt. (ed.) 1985. Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta.

Vol. III: Aeschylus. 1977. Vol. IV: Sophocles.

Gottingen.

West M.L. West. 1972. Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum

Cantati. Vol. 2. Oxford.

PREFACE

This study of the Elektra was originally a doctoral thesis prepared at

Dalhousie University in Halifax, and accordingly, it owes much to

the help and advice of many who read it and commented upon it

at various stages. In particular thanks are due to the members of

my thesis committee, Dennis House, Patrick Atherton, and Patricia

Calkin, all of whom saved me from numerous errors. Special thanks

as well are due to Desmond Conacher for his criticism and advice.

The greatest debt, however, I owe to Professor Rainer Friedrich,

who taught me as a graduate student, and has been unflagging in

his support of me. I have benefited immensely from his scholarship,

criticism, and advice, as has this study. Finally I would like to thank

the external reader for EJ. Brill for his careful reading and sugges￾tions. Any mistakes which remain are, of course, mine.

Unless otherwise indicated, the translations in this book are my

own. They are entirely utilitarian and have no pretensions to either

elegance or literary merit. I have transliterated the most important

Greek terms, usually in their lexicon form, and I have left unmarked

the long vowels in the transliterations, primarily for aesthetic rea￾sons. My initial aim was to transliterate the Greek names directly,

but as this procedure produced the expected problems, I have fol￾lowed the Latinized forms in some cases. Thus the careful reader

will note some inconsistencies here.

The text used for Sophokles' Elektra is that of Lloyd-Jones and

Wilson, 1990, Sophoclis Fabulae, Oxford.

This page intentionally left blank

INTRODUCTION

Sophokles' Elektra deals with an old and familiar legend: the return

and revenge of Orestes. It was a story mentioned by Homer, treated

by lyric poets, and forming the basis of numerous tragedies. While

Homer was able to avoid treating the morally questionable act of

matricide, by fifth century this aspect of the legend had become so

firmly established that no poet could omit it. As Aristotle says, Orestes

always kills Klytaimnestra. And so he does in Sophokles' version,

but in at least one important respect, his treatment represents a rad￾ical departure from his dramatic counterparts. In this version, and

only in this version, there is no hesitation, no suggestion of remorse,

and no punishment in store for the killers. Orestes and Elektra in

Sophokles' play appear to get away with murder. That his Elektra

seems to ignore the moral implications of the matricide has made

it the most controversial and difficult play to interpret.1

In this respect,

the existence of Aischylos' Oresteia and Euripides' Elektra have accen￾tuated the problematical nature of Sophokles' tragedy: neither author

downplays the horror or criminality of the deed so that we are left

with no doubt how either poet wishes us to view the vengeance.

Sophokles' play, by contrast, appears to maintain a disconcerting

silence on the matricide.

0.1 The Legend in Poetry

From the sources, it would appear that Homer was the only one to

avoid all mention of the matricide.2

Whether he was working from

1

For an overview of the various treatments of this legend, see the introductions

of Jebb and Kamerbeek; Garvie 1986: ix-xxvi; March 1987: 99-170; Easterling

1989: 10-16; Gantz 1993: 676-686. See McDonald 1994: 103-126 for a compar￾ison of Sophokles' play and later operatic treatments. The question of the priority

of Sophokles' play is not one which will be addressed here. For different views on

the vexatious dates of these two plays, see Jebb's introduction (lii-lviii); Owen 1936:

145-157; Denniston 1939: xxxiii-xxxix; Whitman 1951: 51-55; Dale 1969: 227-229;

Kamerbeek; Winnington-Ingram 1980: 342-343.

2

There is no explicit mention of how Klytaimnestra met her end. Instead we

2 INTRODUCTION

a different tradition or was aware of the killing of Klytaimnestra but

simply chose to ignore it, is uncertain, but clearly matricide does not

fit in with his portrayal of Orestes' revenge as a heroic deed wor￾thy of everlasting glory.3

The tale of Agamemnon's homecoming and

murder at the hands of Aigisthos and the subsequent revenge of

Orestes is not consistently presented in the Odyssey, but is referred

to intermittently, with the House of Atreus operating as a contrast￾ing parallel to Odysseus and his family.4

It is first alluded to in Zeus'

speech in the divine assembly which sets off the epic action (Od.

1.32 43) when Aigisthos' fate serves to illustrate Zeus' theodicy: man

is responsible for suffering beyond his due and cannot blame the

gods for it.5

Aigisthos, who was warned by the gods not to kill

Agamemnon and marry Klytaimnestra, persisted in his "reckless folly"

and perished as a result. The story is referred to again when Athena,

in the guise of Mentes, holds up Orestes' deed as a model of heroic

action and filial devotion in an effort to stimulate Telemachos to

take up his responsibilities to his oikos: "Have you not heard of the

glory (kleos) great Orestes won among all men when he killed his

father's murderer . . .?", Athena asks Telemachos. "Be bold, you also,

so that in generations to come, men may praise you" (1.298—302).

Later Telemachos hears the story from Nestor (3.193-98) and then

again from Menelaos (4.514—47).6

Each time the story ends with the

mention of the revenge of Orestes, and each time it functions for

Telemachos as a paradigm of heroic action and proper behaviour

befitting a son. Throughout the epic the act is presented in a morally

have the rather elusive comment that after Orestes killed Aigisthos, he celebrated

both their deaths:

3

Garvie 1986: xii mentions three possibilities: that there is a single tradition and

Homer suppresses details immaterial to his purpose; that he actually invents details

to suit his purpose; that they were different versions of the legend available and

Homer simply chooses to suit his purpose.

4

The legend of Orestes is referred to a number of times in the Odyssey: 1.35-43,

298-302; 3.193-8, 251-2, 256-75, 303-10; 4.92, 514-547; 11.428-434, 452-3;

23.383; 24.97, 199-201.

5

For studies on how the legend of Orestes is treated by Homer, see D'Arms

and Hulley 1946: 207-213; Gould 1983: 32-45; Alden 1987: 129-137.

6

It is also related by the ghost of Agamemnon to Odysseus during his trip to

the Underworld in Book 11 (423-434 and 451-453), but here the revenge of Orestes

is not mentioned for the obvious reason that Agamemnon does not know the out￾come of the story.

(3.309-10).

INTRODUCTION 3

unambiguous fashion and its purpose is plain: just as Orestes avenged

his father's murder and won glory and fame, so should Telemachos

too assume his duty to his father and oikos. Any mention of the mat￾ricide would obviously destroy the parallels Homer wishes to draw

between the members of the two families, and in this sense, the

poet's silence is hardly surprising.7

What Homer fails to mention for the sake of representing Orestes'

vengeance as heroic deed is precisely what the tragedians use to

probe the problematic nature of revenge justice. Recognizing that

the tragic essence of the story lies in the matricide, the dramatists

make it the central issue. In the Oresteia, Aischylos focuses on the

conflicting rights of competing claims to justice with the matricide

presented as a necessary link in the chain of events leading to the

establishment of a public form of justice based upon rational law.

As necessary and justified as it is, Aischylos does not shy away from

showing the horror and the criminal nature of the matricide. Despite

the convergence of divine command, filial obligation, and his own

wish to reclaim his patrimony, Orestes still hesitates when the moment

comes. Urged on by the reminder of Apollo's words, Orestes brings

himself to kill his mother, but he is fully aware that the justice which

he extracts is at the same time a crime: "You killed whom you

should not", he tells his mother, "now suffer what you should not"

(Ch. 930). The Furies' pursuit of Orestes brings home the full hor￾ror of the crime and it requires a divinely instituted law court to

acquit him of the stain of matricide.

Euripides takes a radically different approach to the legend with

his portrayal of the matricide as an act of brutal violence. We see

the barbaric nature of the whole affair through the psychologically

devastating effect it has upon the offspring. Not only does Euripides

question the morality of the human protagonists who would com￾mit such a deed, but that of a god who would give such an order.

"[Klytaimnestra's] punishment is just—but you did not work in jus￾tice", the Dioskouroi tell Orestes; "as for Apollo ... he is wise but

7

When we consider the function of the Oresteia story as a mythological parallel,

his silence is not surprising, for the matricide is an issue completely irrelevant for

Odysseus and his family. Mentioning it would destroy the parallels the poet wishes

to draw between members of the two families, as Telemachos can hardly win fame

as Orestes did by killing his mother, Penelope. More to the point, matricide is

hardly a heroic deed, worthy of kleos.

4 INTRODUCTION

he gave you unwise bidding" (El. 1244-46). For one poet, the prob￾lematic nature of the vengeance gives rise to the formation of a new

type of justice: the public justice of the polis; for the other, the

vengeance seems only to suggest its moral impossibility; both poets

require divinities to absolve Orestes and neither is indifferent to the

morally repellent nature of the matricide nor are their characters

unaware of the criminality of their action.

In Sophokles' Elektra, however, no divinity appears on stage to

effect a resolution, the explicit condemnation appears to be absent,

and the avengers themselves show a disconcerting lack of awareness

of the criminal nature of the deed. Instead Orestes speaks vaguely

of winning glory by killing his enemies; mother and daughter hurl

charges of shameful behaviour at one another; everyone claims to

be acting in accordance with justice and no one mentions the mat￾ricide. The failure of Sophokles to bring about a clear resolution as

Aischylos does, or condemn the deed outright, as Euripides does, is

largely the cause of the controversy surrounding the play. Scholars

have yet to come to an agreement over how precisely we are to

understand the poet's attitude towards the matricide and the nature

of the justice it represents, if indeed it does represent justice.

0.2 Scholarship and Sophokles' Elektra

Sophokles' Elektra is almost universally admired for its flawless dra￾matic structure and its exquisite technique, but its intense emotion￾alism and ambiguous ending often leave readers puzzled and disturbed.

Grene expresses the ambivalent response of many critics to this

tragedy with his judgement that it is "perhaps the best-constructed

and most unpleasant play that Sophocles wrote."8

The Elektra has

generated such disparate responses and widely divergent interpreta￾tions that it has acquired the dubious status of a "problem play".

Commentators cannot even agree on the overall mood of the play:

one finds the pervading tone relentlessly sombre and dark, while

another thinks it cheerfully bright and optimistic. Woodard may claim

that Elektra offers "critics fewer toeholds"9

than any other Sophoclean

8

Grene 1957: 124.

9

Woodard 1964: 163.