Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:32:09.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Destruction of Limits in Sophokles' Elektra

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Richard Seaford
Richard Seaford
Affiliation:
The University of Exeter
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Greek tragedy is full of rituals perverted by intra-familial conflict. To mention some examples from the house of Atreus: the funeral bath and the funeral covering, normally administered to a man's corpse by his wife as an expression of ɸιλία, have in Aeschylus' Oresteia become instruments in the killing of Agamemnon; the pouring of libations at the tomb, normally a θελκτήριον for the dead, becomes in the Choephoroi an occasion for his arousal; Euripides has Klytaimnestra ‘sacrificed’ while performing the sacrifice for her (fictitious) newly born grandchild. On the important question of why it is that tragedians pervert ritual I hope to shed some light in future publications. The purpose of this paper is to examine the radical form taken by the perversion of mourning in Sophokles' Elektra.

In the first decade of this century the comparative anthropologists Hertz and van Gennep discovered as a widespread feature of the period of mourning its character as participation in the transitional state of the recently dead, to be ended by the incorporation of the dead person into his or her proper destination and the reincorporation of the mourners into the flow of everyday social life. The mourning relatives in a sense share the condition of the dead.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , December 1985 , pp. 315 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Seaford, R., ‘The Last Bath of Agamemnon’, CQ 34 (1984), 247–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 E.g. E. IT 166; Cho. 42–5; cf. Cho. 87ff., 132, 456, etc.; for funerary ritual stirring up feelings of revenge against outsiders see Alexiou, M., The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition (Cambridge, 1974), 21–2Google Scholar.

3 E. El. 1125, 1133, 1141–4.

4 Hertz, R., Death and the Right Hand (trans. R., and Needham, C., London, 1960)Google Scholar; van Gennep, A., The Rites of Passage (trans. Vizedom, M. B. and Caffee, G. L., London, 1960), ch. 8Google Scholar; a recent assessment is Huntingdon, R. and Metcalf, P., Celebrations of Death (Cambridge, 1979)Google Scholar.

5 Danforth, L. M., The Death Rituals of Rural Greece (Princeton, 1982), esp. 54–6, 60–1,140–1Google Scholar. For the concept of ‘liminality’ see e.g. Turner, V., The Forest of Symbols (1967), 93–111Google Scholar; Danforth, 35–7.

6 See esp. Polites, N., Laographika Symmeikta, iii (1931), 323–6Google Scholar, and Alexiou, op. cit. n. 2, whose treatment demonstrates continuity rather than mere similarity, both in the basic pattern of the ritual and in numerous (though not all) details, and illuminates the tenacity of the tradition in ritual and lament even in periods of historical and religious change.

7 Alexiou, op. cit. n. 2, 8, 31, 46, 59, 109f.

8 Fr. 101 Rose, ap. Athen. 675a; see further Parker, R., Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion (Oxford, 1983), 64Google Scholar. S. El. 847 τ⋯ν ⋯ν πένθει (of the dead) assimilates their state to the mourners.

9 Danforth, op. cit. n. 5, 54; Parker, op. cit. n. 8, 37; Alexiou, op. cit. n. 2, 8; etc.

10 Harpokration and Suda s.v. τριακάς Pollux 1.66; Plut. Lyc. 27, Mor. 297a; cf. Lys. 1.14.

11 Op. cit. n. 8, 60; he quotes Il. 23.49–53; but it should also be remembered that the period of mourning/exclusion from shrines or festivals (Parker, 37, 65 n. 110) does not necessarily end with the funeral.

12 1085–6: σὺ πάγκλαυτον αἰ⋯να κοιν⋯ν εἵλου. Many have suspected κοιν⋯ν. But (1) Consider what precedes. The song moves from the theme of (birds') care for parents (or ‘family solidarity’, Kells) to the dead Ag. (whether or not we read πατρ⋯ς in 1075) and the lamenting El. as εὔπατρις (1081, with a secondary reference to her loyalty to her father). All this facilitates the sense ‘in common with your dead father’ in 1085. (2) κοινός is frequent of suffering (e.g. Aj. 267), of sharing in death (e.g. Aj. 577), and of kinship (e.g. OC 533–5). But much more significant is that in Soph. the senses may be combined to express the shared death of kin (Ant. 57, 146, 546; cf. 1, 202), even by El. herself fifty lines later (1135 τύμβου πατρώιου κοιν⋯ν εἰληχὼς μέρος). (3) The idea of association with the dead father is what we might expect (n. 8 above), and indeed has already been expressed recently by El. (986 συμπόνει πατρί).

13 αἰών means her whole span of life: cf. e.g. S. Trach. 2; also A. Cho. 442 (see below n. 18).

14 Od. 11.72–3; Il. 23.71; etc.

15 μασχαλισμός (see n. 18 below) was an attempt to control the ghost. On the victim's anger see now Parker, op. cit. n. 8, ch. 4.

16 See E. El. 289, 323–31; for A. and S. see below.

17 A. Cho. 519; S. El. 442–3.

18 See n. 15 above; Ag. 1553–4, Cho. 429–39 (of which the continuation, ἔπρασσε δ' ἄπερνιν ὧδε θάπτει, | μόρον κτίσαι μωμένα | ἄɸερτον αἰ⋯νι σ⋯ι, seems to imply that the dishonour done to Ag. was intended to produce a lifetime (αἰών, see n. 13 above) of lamentation for his surviving children); 444–50.

19 Cho. 315ff., 324–7, 332ff., etc.

20 (445–6) i.e. to cleanse herself, with the implication also that this was the only funeral bath Ag. got. For the possibility of the water in which the mourners washed being offered to the dead see Parker, op. cit. n. 8, 36 n. 15.

21 It is true that Ag. has a tomb, which implies that he was buried. But cf. E. El. 289 (burial denied) with e.g. 323 (his tomb). The story needs a tomb. The question does not arise of whether Elektra was prevented from performing the rites (cf. A. Cho. 444–50).

22 Danforth, op. cit. n. 5, 135. Cf. Achilles and Patroklos.

23 IG xii. 5.593 = SIG 3 1218 = LSCG 97; cf. Harpokr. and Suda s.v. τριακάς Pollux 1.66.

24 Phot. s.v. καθέδρα; Lex. Rh., in Anekd. Bekk. 268, 19ff.; Rohde, E., Psyche (trans. 1925), 195 n. 86Google Scholar.

25 Kells ad loc.; cf. S. El. 203; Od. 4.531–5; Eustath. (ad Od., p. 1507) says that Soph. meant by Ἀγαμέμνονος δαίς a (yearly) celebration.

26 There were e.g. monthly sacrifices to Herakles in fifth-century Attica: Polemon ap. Athen. 234e; cult of Agamemnon: Roscher, , Lex. Myth. i. 96Google Scholar. For (later) monthly celebrations or sacrifices see D. L. 10.18; Gow on Theocr. 17.127; Wissowa, in Hermes 37 (1902), 157–9Google Scholar.

27 Lysias 1.14: ἔδοξε…τ⋯ πρόσωπον ⋯ψιμυθι⋯σθαι, το⋯ ⋯δελɸο⋯ τεθνε⋯τος οὔπω τριάκονθ' ⋯μέρας.

28 Kaibel reads ⋯ν κατηρεɸεῖ | χθον⋯ς στέγηι τ⋯σδ' ⋯κτ⋯ς, i.e. ⋯κτ⋯ς τ⋯σδε (στέγης), ‘not in the palace but underground’.

29 S. Ant. 885–6; cf. 888 εἴτ' ⋯ν τοιαύτηι ζ⋯σα τυμβεύειν στέγηι, 774–80, etc. Houses sealed off when death imminent? (Men. Asp. 466ff.; Parker, op. cit. n. 8, 35 n. 10).

30 Obviously a wedding could not be held in mourning; less obvious is the idea that contact with death might endanger the female reproductive processes: Parker, op. cit. n. 8, 53; some evidence for fasting: Parker, 36 n. 16, and Il. 24.612–13; torn clothes: e.g. Sokolowski, F., Lois Sacrées d'Asie Mineure (1955), n. 16Google Scholar.

31 Sokolowski, op. cit. n. 30, n. 16; Alexiou, op. cit. n. 2, 17.

32 Ant. 804, 947 (see below), Trach. 913, OT 195. On the chthonic and bridal associations of θάλαμος generally see Vernant, J. P. in Myth and Thought among the Greeks (1983), 149Google Scholar.

33 (and of the wedding with death): see e.g. Alexiou, M. and Dronke, P. in Studi Medievali 12.2 (1971), 819–63Google Scholar.

34 Cf. also e.g. E. Su. 1021–2…χρ⋯τα χρωτ⋯ πέλας θεμένα, | Φερσεɸονείας ἥξω θαλάμους; Simonides' οὐκ ⋯πιδὼν νύμɸεια λέχη κατέβην τ⋯ν ἄɸυκτον | Γόργιππος ξανθ⋯ς Φερσεɸόνης θάλαμον (xxxi Page, 406–7); Vernant, as cited in n. 32.

35 Cf. e.g. n. 34, and A. Cho. 315–16, where Orestes speaks of the εὐναί of his dead father.

36 See Jenkins, I. in BICS 30 (1983), 142Google Scholar; Alexiou, op. cit. n. 2, 58, 120–2; etc.

37 Seaford in Hermes (forthcoming).

38 310–11. γυναῖκας in 311 is Triclinius' correction of γυμν⋯ς (though he left the δ⋯). Kovacs, D. in ‘Castor in Euripides' Electra (El. 307–13 and 1292–1307)’ in CQ 1985Google Scholar (I am grateful to the editors for showing me the proofs) reads ⋯ναίνομαι γ⋯ρ γυμν⋯ς οὖσα παρθένους (he also deletes 308, and reads Scaliger's Κάστορ(ε) ὥ in 312). But (1) He dismisses Zuntz' view that Tr. derived the correction from another MS, but without mentioning one of the two pillars of Zuntz' argument (see Zuntz 107, on El. 168). (2) More importantly, El. cannot mean by γυμνάς ‘without festal attire’. The examples K. gives of γυμνός meaning ‘something less than total nakedness’ all refer to the absence of an (outer) garment – a very different matter from poor quality of clothing. (The modern ‘I've nothing to wear’ is irrelevant.) And of course El. has just stated that she weaves her own πέπλοι (308). The corruption may have entered from 309. (3) It is not true that ‘lack of clothing was precisely the reason she gave the Chorus in 175–9 for declining their invitation’ to the festival. The reason she gave there was lamentation, to which she added (181ff.) the complaint that her clothes were unsuitable for the daughter of Agamemnon. And so the chorus' offer of fine clothes (189ff.) is of course not taken up. (4) It is not true that El.'s other complaints at 307ff. ‘describe real and not imaginary or self-inflicted injuries’. With 309 cf. 55–9. (5) K.'s objections to the sense of 311 underestimate the isolation inherent in El.'s position.

39 Hertz, op. cit. n. 4, 86; Danforth, op. cit. n. 5, passim.

40 E.g. Il. 24.549; El. 154, 289; Cic. Tusc. 3.79.

41 Plut. Lyk. 27; see also Alexiou, op. cit. n. 2, 16–17.

42 Cf. the pleasure of lamenting: E. Tro. 608–9, El. 125–6; A. PV 637–9; Alexiou, op. cit. n. 2, 230 n. 69.

43 Cf. e.g. E. Andr. 1102 ⋯σχάραις ⋯ɸέσταμεν (at Delphi), Su. 1009 τ⋯ν ἧς ⋯ɸέστηκας πέλας πυράν (of an anomalous situation, but perhaps employing a familiar phrase).

44 Cf. e.g. Hdt. 3.78; Thuc. 8.69.4.

45 Seaford, art. cit. n. 1, n. 41. For lamentation though it seems always to have been uncovered: cf. 1468 χαλ⋯τε π⋯ν κάλυμμα…, ὅπως κτλ. Notice the bitter ambiguity of προσηγορεῖν ɸίλως (1471): cf. art. cit. n. 1, n. 19.

46 Cf. e.g. Od. 3.259; A. Sept. 1020–1; E. El. 895–6.

47 χαρ⋯ι (Schaefer) is generally printed: but the MSS χαρ⋯ς appropriately (cf. 1311) emphasises her feeling of joy, reassures Or. (cf. 1309–10) that weeping will require no pretence, and intensifies the irony that Kl. will misinterpret her tears.

48 Cf. e.g. Il. 21.483–4 σ⋯ λέοντα γυναιξ⋯ | Ζεὺς θ⋯κεν, κα⋯ ἔδωκε κατακτάμεν ἥνκ' ⋯θέληισθα.

49 Cf. the Danaids rejecting marriage: …⋯δμ⋯τος (i.e. Artemis) ⋯δμήτα ῥύσιος γενέσθω (A. Su. 150). For the deity expressing state of swearer see e.g. Ziebarth, E., De iure iurando in iure Graec. quaest. (1892), 13Google Scholar. It is almost as if the γονα⋯ σωμάτων ⋯μο⋯ ɸιλτάτων (1233) sublimate El.'s need for children; cf. also Plut. Mor. 265a; Hsch. s.v. δεντερόποτμος.

50 αἶνος and ⋯ποιμώζειν, normally require a body: Seaford, art. cit. no. 1, nn. 51 and 52.

51 Seaford, art. cit. n. 1, n. 54.

52 Cf. e.g. Isaeus 2.36–7, 4.19, 4.26, 8.21–7, 9.4–5.

53 Cf. the point made in n. 18 above.

54 Cf. also 356, 833–6. Dead person as earth: Peek, , Griechische Vers-Inschriften 1702.2Google Scholar; E. fr. 757.7, Su. 531–6.

55 Danforth, op. cit. n. 5, 140.

56 See art. cit. n. 37 above.

57 I would like to thank Robert Parker for his helpful criticisms without incriminating him in my argument.