10.15160/1826-803X/1288
Il presente saggio si occupa di una serie di temi presenti nell’Elettra sofoclea, molti dei quali ricorrono nel Filottete e nell’Edipo a Colono, tutte tragedie probabilmente risalenti all’ultimo decennio di vita di Sofocle. Tali temi trattano di donne ardite e coraggiose; di un’aristocrazia che finisce con il corrompersi; di governi dannosi e tirannici; della superiorità delle leggi divine su quelle umane e cittadine; di famiglie disgregate; di azioni (soprattutto cospiratorie) rispetto a discorsi spesso ingannevoli; di parole che cambiano il loro significato; di confusione in merito agli status sociali; di piaceri viziati; di immorale avidità; di critica ai sofisti; di giuramenti violati. Fatta eccezione per le donne e l’aristocrazia, tutti questi temi ricorrono in Tucidide, e in particolare nella sua descrizione della peste di Atene e della guerra civile a Corcira. Dal momento che tanto Sofocle quanto Tucidide erano aristocratici antidemocratici, la mia conclusione è che i temi condivisi dai due autori riflettono le comuni critiche della nobiltà rispetto a un’età giudicata moralmente corrotta.
application/pdf
1826-803X
1288
it
Robert W. Wallace
Sezione di Lettere
Thucydides
<I>The World Gone Wrong: Sophokles’ </I>Electra
Text.Serial.Journal
https://annali.unife.it/lettere
Teatro
2016-11-30
2016-11-30
2016-11-30
2022-01-24
53-77
AOLF
Robert W. Wallace
2016/11/30
10.15160/1826-803X/1288
53
1826-803X
Thucydides
it
77
<I>The World Gone Wrong: Sophokles’ </I>Electra
https://annali.unife.it/lettere/article/download/1288/1080
                                    ROBERT W. WALLACE


        The World Gone Wrong: Sophokles’ Electra

                                                                                      for Giulio Guidorizzi*



Although a funerary epigram attributed to the Hellenistic epigrammatist Dioskorides (Gr.
Anth. 7.37) calls Electra and Antigone «the top» (akron) among Sophokles’ plays, and
Electra together with Ajax and Oedipus1 comprised Sophokles’ famous “Byzantine triad”,
modern readers have not always been enthusiastic about this play. Kamerbeek (1974, vii)
confessed his dislike. The Budé’s Mazon (Dain 1958, 133) remarked that Sophokles saw in
Aeschylus' Oresteia only «a pretext to deploy his virtuosity without putting into it much
of himself». Fewer scholars have worked on Electra than on Sophokles’ other plays
(Woodard 1964, 163), and those who do so, typically debate what would seem the
extraordinary question whether Orestes and Elektra were justified in killing their mother
with no moral qualms. As with Shakespeare's King John, uncertainty over Electra's moral
stance may have contributed to the play’s lack of popularity. In a fine essay Matthew
Wright (2005, 172) calls it «not surprising» that «with their penchant for ambiguity and
unanswered questions», many late twentieth-century critics (and Wright himself) prefer
a “dark” view of this drama. I also think it dark, although not from a taste for ambiguity.
Most of the scholars Wright lists think the play dark or light, rather than ambiguous. All
three late plays of Sophokles are morally dark2. Sophokles’ meanings are often not

* First presented on November 10, 2015 at Sophocles Day III in Ferrara, this essay is dedicated to Giulio
Guidorizzi, in gratitude for his excellent work on Sophokles and our friendly scholarly collaborations over
many years. Many thanks also to Angela Andrisano for organizing a productive and friendly conference,
and to Laura Pepe for translating my abstract.
1 In four passages (11.5, 15.10, 16.11, 26.12) Aristotle's Poetics calls Sophokles’ prior Oedipus play Oedipus.

As others too have suggested, it seems that Hellenistic scholars first called it Oedipus the Tyrant to
distinguish it from OC. I follow Aristotle, also because Oedipus only briefly behaves like (and is called:
hence the Hellenistic title) a tyrant in the play. See below on the turannos formula. I also follow the
convention of Latinizing book titles but keeping in Greek all but the most common personal names. Hence,
Electra but Elektra.
2 Most recent scholars date El. sometime in the 410s, near Phil. and OC. For SEGAL (1981, 291), Phil. (of 409)

and OC (of 406) «were written probably within a decade of the Electra». Francis DUNN (2012, 107) observes
that Electra is «often placed in the same general time period as Phil. and OC […] If we assume that Electra
was produced a few years before Philoctetes […]» MARCH (2001) dates El. c. 413-10. On the dispute over the
The World Gone Wrong: Sophokles’ Electra                                       AOFL XI (2016), 1, 54-77


immediately obvious: for example whether we are to admire or dislike Antigone’s
Antigone, or whether at the end of Philoctetes Neoptolemos still deceives Philoktetes. On
the most obvious level such complexities give his audiences something to think about. At
least in most cases, reflection and other passages will show his meaning. Although
Antigone is sometimes incoherent (Blundell 1989) and even subversive (Sourvinou-
Inwood 1989), it was Sophokles’ masterstroke that she is proved right3. In Electra, the
remorseless killing of their mother by Klytemnestra’s children is a moral horror. Elektra's
mourning through much of the play is probably another reason why some dislike it.
However, Sophokles was ever a restless innovator. In contrasting ways his protagonists
are all imperfect, each with unattractive qualities, complicating their dramas in
interesting ways. From start to finish, Electra depicts a world gone wrong.
   In a mostly successful career spanning some 64 years, Sophokles is said to have written
either 123 or 113 plays, in total length equal to some fifteen or sixteen Iliads, possibly
more or less on a rhythm of four new plays every other year for Athens' two dramatic
festivals4. Perhaps in part because of his relentless writing schedule, many of his plays
share story patterns and themes, although his dramatic skills were such that many of
these similarities have passed unnoticed. In one notable example, the plots of the four
earlier plays are similar. In Ajax, probably of 444 as I shall argue elsewhere, Ajax was
cheated of his prize and so tried to destroy the Greek army and its leaders. He failed and
kills himself. The principal characters debate and finally grant him an honorable burial. In
Antigone of 442, Polyneikes, cheated of his throne, attacked and tried to destroy his own
city, and was killed. The play's characters debate and finally grant him an honorable
burial, although Antigone and Haimon die. In Women of Trachis, which I date c. 438,
Herakles destroyed the town of Oechalia also through uncontrollable emotion (lust for a
woman), leading to his and his wife’s deaths. In the last part of the play he arranges for
the disposal of his own body. In Oedipus which I date c. 434, Oedipus causes the deaths of
many fellow Thebans along with their crops and livestock, and through uncontrollable

priority of Sophokles’ or Euripides’ Electra, see the bibliography at VON STADTEN («Gnomon» XLVIII 1976,
752f.). I agree with many that Sophokles’ Electra responded to Euripides’, as (see below) his Phaidra did to
Euripides’ first Hippolytos.
3 See generally EASTERLING 1977, and on Antigone, my Sophokles’ Lucky Day: Antigone, in WALLACE (2013,

7-22). On the ending of Philoctetes, see CALDER (1971, 153-74), that Neoptolemos remains corrupt. So also
WOODRUFF (2012, 136f.).
4 See MÜLLER (1984, 60-77). The math is pretty close, even disregarding the vicissitudes of a busy life: four

plays every other year for some 62 years yields 124 plays.
Wallace                                                                  AOFL XI (2016), 1, 55-77


emotion (anger: 806-12) the death of his father. In the play his wife kills herself and he
contemplates killing himself, in the end insisting on being banished from Thebes. At the
start of these plays, the world of the protagonist – Ajax, Antigone, Deianeira, Herakles,
and Oedipus – is about to explode. By contrast, all three protagonists in the late plays
(Elektra, Philoktetes, and OC’s Oedipus) have endured a seeming eternity of suffering
which they are about to end.
    In addition to story patterns, many themes and ideas recur in these plays. In Helping
Friends and Harming Enemies. A Study in Sophocles and Greek Ethics, Mary Whitlock
Blundell traces Sophokles’ critique of an important Greek ethical principle through five of
the seven plays (the theme occurs in all seven plays, as she notes). Other recurring
themes and ideas include time and change; ignorance passing into knowledge, especially
self-knowledge; fate and personal responsibility; the gods; and the power of hate (Aj., Tr.,
El., Phil., OC).
    My current Sophokles project focuses on a different group of major, related, and
mostly unnoticed themes. The four earlier plays share a cluster of these themes, all
relevant to the years when they were written5. Among these is the aristocracy, who
deserve respect provided they behave well, a main theme of Ajax. (For one example of
many, at 1344f. Odysseus tells Agamemnon that it is dikaion to bury Ajax because he was
a nobleman, esthlos). This theme recurs in Women of Trachis, for example with the noble
Iole (307-28), and in Antigone, but only in one passage (37f.) where Antigone tells Ismene
that she, Ismene, will soon show if she is «eugenês by nature, or kakê from esthloi».
Ahead of aristocracy, the main theme of Antigone is the worthiness and courage of
women, earlier a subtheme in Ajax’s Tekmessa, as it will be in Women of Trachis and
probably Phaidra of the later 430s, against Euripides’ scandalous first Hippolytos which
portrayed Phaidra as very wicked. Other themes in the early plays are city officials who
begin well but become irrational and tyrannical (Aj., Ant., Oed.); a “generation gap”
between an irrational older generation and the reasonable young (Ant., Tr., Oed.); divine
laws superior to city laws (Aj., Ant., Oed.); and slaves who merit sympathy (Aj., Tr., Oed.).
    These themes recur in the late plays as well, although as we shall see, from the
perspective of their different era they have sometimes been transformed. A cluster of new


5For a fuller exposition of these themes in Ant., see my Sophokles’ Lucky Day: Antigone (WALLACE 2013),
and, for Ajax, WALLACE (2010, 137-54).
The World Gone Wrong: Sophokles’ Electra                           AOFL XI (2016), 1, 56-77


themes, all of them dark, recur in El., Phil. and OC. After tracing these themes in El., I
shall consider why Sophokles brought these ideas together for a play of the later 410s,
and draw conclusions from the appearance of most of these same ideas especially in
Thucydides.
  First, bold and courageous women return as a major theme in El., a play which often
echoes Antigone, not least in their protagonists’ central motivator, respect for the dead. In
Sophokles’ early plays female protagonists may be problematic – Antigone, Deianeira,
probably Phaidra – but they are superior to their male counterparts Kreon, Herakles,
possibly Theseus, compare also Ajax with the virtuous Tekmessa. Elektra dominates
Electra, she's on stage some 93% of the time, and delivers some 43% of the lines. In
character she too is mostly superior to the men of her play and especially to her brother
Orestes, except in the play’s final 184 lines when she joins him in killing their mother and
Aigisthos (1326-1510).
  The problem with Elektra – and to a significantly lesser extent with Antigone also – is
that she is at best only sometimes admirable. In the first 937 lines of the play, she also
seems to be what my students call a “drama queen”, self-centered, self-absorbed,
explosively emotional and irrational, often viewing the world in absolutes. Through two-
thirds of the play, Electra mixes incessant mourning, despair, and anger, with intelligent
and passionate debate. As Segal has noted (1981, 250), we first meet Elektra as «a cry
from inside [...] a helpless voice of lamentation trapped in the interior of the palace (77-
79)». While praying for her brother’s return and for the gods of the dead to avenge her
father’s death (109-18: the prologue’s plot summation), she comes on stage lamenting and
says she will never cease doing so (86-120), a view which the chorus confirms (121-27).
They ask her why she continually laments, but Elektra refuses to stop (132-36). The
Chorus responds that prayers and laments are ineffective, they cannot raise Agamemnon
from the dead (137-44). Electra replies that only a fool forgets dead parents; she
appreciates Niobe and the nightingale who lament (145-52). Yes, but like Antigone, could
she not do something? The chorus notes that she is far more mournful than her siblings
and that Orestes will come (153-63). Elektra then describes her situation, with no husband
or children (echoing Antigone), and only deceptive messages from Orestes. The chorus
tells her to trust in Zeus (176) and curb her «overpainful anger and hate» (177). Elektra
repeats that she lacks children and a husband, and notes that she lives as a stranger in her
father’s house, wearing poor clothes and eating alone (187-92). The chorus describes
Wallace                                                           AOFL XI (2016), 1, 57-77


Agamemnon’s murder by dolos (193-200: dolos [line 37] will also lead to the murders of
Klytemnestra and Aigisthos). Electra recalls, and prays to Zeus to punish his killers (201-
12). The chorus says her wretched state is of her own making, don’t fight with the
dunatoi (213-20). Elektra’s speech from 221 is darker. «I have been forced to do terrible
things in the midst of terrible things, I know my anger (orga) does not escape me, but
amid terrible things I will not stop my calamitous ways». From 237 she argues
intelligently and passionately that one must not forget, and in defense of aidôs and
eusebeia. The chorus agrees with her: «you win» (253). From 254 to 309 Elektra gives a
further, intelligent, passionate, sometimes furious analysis of her mourning over many
years, also mentioning her noble rank («violence forces me to do these things, forgive me,
for a woman who is well-born, eugenês»: 256f.), with the «abusive» Klytemnestra, the
cowardly Aigisthos and Orestes who promises but never acts. «In such a state, it is
possible oute sophronein out’ eusebein: not to be temperate [traditionally an aristocratic
virtue] or pious. But amid the evils there is a great necessity also to practice evils» (306-
309). As Hugh Lloyd-Jones observes in his Loeb edition of the play (1994, 3f.), «she herself
is aware that she has become a monster of hatred and resentment, though she pleads that
she has been made one by her situation and the oppression of her enemies».
  Elektra now converses with the chorus (310-28), again somewhat repetitively (for
example, compare 303-305 and 317-19). Chrysothemis comes on stage carrying burial
offerings, explaining why she herself had not rebelled. Elektra attacks her for cowardice
and kakotês, «baseness» in not helping to avenge her dead father (341-68). In the
following 30 lines of passionate stichomythia (376-415), Elektra is clear-headed and
determined, argumentative, and not just mournful. Chrysothemis is far more practical-
minded and less principled, to the point of paradox («if one must live free, those in power
must be obeyed in everything»: 339-40), to which Elektra defends her principled
mourning in honor of the dead. Chrysothemis reveals that if Elektra does not stop
mourning, they will send her away to a cave (374-82), another echo of Antigone. Elektra
says: bring it on, she’s happy to die. They discuss Klytemnestra’s dream that Agamemnon
came back to rule, because of which Chrysothemis is bringing Klytemnestra’s offerings
for Agamemnon’s tomb. Elektra again prevails. Also at the chorus’ insistence (464f.),
Chrysothemis agrees not to place those offerings on the tomb but items supplied by
Elektra, provided Elektra does not mention it. Her words, however, are ominous. Her
stress on doing (dran), erga, and silence (466-69) foreshadow the corrupt world of Orestes
The World Gone Wrong: Sophokles’ Electra                                      AOFL XI (2016), 1, 58-77


and the Pedagogue, just as her fear that she will «dare (tolmêsein) a bitter (pikran)
attempt» (470f.) echoes Orestes’ final comment to Aigisthos that his death too must be
pikron (1504).
    After a chorus, Klytemnestra enters (516). Although she is despised by both Marsh and
Finglass (who calls her «almost totally villainous», 2007, 4), she is not unsympathetic, as
already with her dream (so, e.g., Segal 1981, 260-62). She gives a fine speech, where Felix
Budelmann (2000, 71) says «she emerges as a thought-provoking character who, in the
midst of a rhetorical argument, has the depth of a real-life person». She defends killing
Agamemnon for having killed their daughter. Elektra responds (558-609), in a second
hard-hitting, intelligent debate between two women. This time, however, the chorus says
they are not yet certain if she, while «breathing rage», is just (610-11)6. Anger is always a
dangerous emotion; and Elektra has not convinced them, as she had earlier convinced
Chrysothemis. This debate is followed again by rapid exchanges (612-34), mostly on a
central theme of the play, words and deeds. Klytemnestra says that Elektra will «go to
every ergon of shame.” Elektra responds that «I do (prassô)» inappropriate things,
«because your hate and your erga force me to do (dran) these things violently.
Disgraceful pragmata are taught by disgraceful pragmata». Klytemnestra responds, «O
vile and shameless, I and my words and my erga make you talk too much». Elektra: «It is
you who talk, not I. For you do the ergon. The erga find the words» (612-25).
Klytemnestra prays to Apollo that she live out her life in safety – a prayer we know will
not be answered, as Apollo has already sent Orestes to kill her.
    At 680 the Pedagogue arrives, and both women hear his false story.
    At 766-87, Klytemnestra expresses maternal grief at the death of her son. «A mother
cannot hate the child she bore». Again she is sympathetic. She says he threatened her and
so she lived in fear, but Elektra is worse, day by day draining her lifeblood. Now she
might have peace. She says to the Pedagogue that his coming will be good, if he can stop
Elektra’s poluglossos boê (798).
    Alone with the chorus, Elektra sinks into despair (804-70). Now Chrysothemis arrives
with the happy news of finding Orestes’ offerings on Agamemnon’s tomb. Elektra
convinces her that Orestes is actually dead (Elektra is of course wrong). This inspires her


6On their reference to Elektra, see Segal 1982. With no MS support Kells and Kamerbeck believe the lines
refer to Klytemnestra, missing Sophokles’ point.
Wallace                                                                    AOFL XI (2016), 1, 59-77


plan (938 to 1057) that the two women kill Aigisthos. She does not mention Klytemnestra,
and says that Aigisthos killed Agamemnon with his own hand [955-57], Homer’s version,
although in my view incorrectly some have read this as duplicity to win Chrysothemis’
support. Always intransigeant, Elektra now becomes even bolder, much like Antigone.
She tells Chrysothemis that she, Chrysothemis, will now have a husband and regain her
freedom (970). Citizens and foreigners alike will honor them for their andreia (manly
courage). She gives a great speech in praise of the two women.
    Like Ismene, Chrysothemis responds that she is a woman weaker than men, and they
will get into trouble if people hear what she has said. Check your orgê, learn to yield to
hoi kratountes (1011, 1014). The chorus says, obey! There is no better kerdos for a man
than pronoia or a nous sophos (1015-6). Elektra responds: I’ll do it myself. The sisters again
argue bitterly in stichomythia (1023-54)7. There follows a choral ode praising Elektra
(1058-97). As often, the chorus’ joy at this stage will prove mistaken.
    Orestes arrives, in disguise and pretending to carry an urn with Orestes’ ashes. Electra
announces that it is time for more mourning (1116) and goes into it (1126-70). The chorus
begs her, «do not groan too much» (1172) and I for one agreed, now nearly at the end of
the play. The truth emerges, and Elektra follows Orestes: «Since you have come to us in
such a fashion, you yourself rule (arch’), as there is thumos in you» (1318f.). In 1242
Orestes says that Ares lives in women too. Through the rest of the play Elektra now
changes, she becomes a conspirator, she commands silence (1398). The stabbing is quick!
Elektra calls out to Orestes, «If you have strength, again!» (1415). When Aigisthos arrives,
the chorus says to Elektra, «whisper a few words into his ear, and he’ll be unaware»
(1438). Elektra lies to him. Aigisthos commands silence, so there is irony in 1464f., when
she says she has finally learned to agree with the more powerful. When Aigisthos
confronts death, Elektra refuses to allow him to speak one word. «Kill him as quickly as
you can».
    What do we conclude about Sophokles on Elektra? Through two-thirds of the play,
Elektra engages in lamentation for the dead. As Giulio Guidorizzi discussed in his
presentation on Sophokles Day III, her emotions would resonate strongly with an
Athenian public who had suffered tens of thousands of casualties – fathers, sons, and


7Some scholars including Lloyd-Jones attribute the last five lines of dialogue (1050-4) to the fragmentary
Phaidra. They fit Electra perfectly.
The World Gone Wrong: Sophokles’ Electra                                         AOFL XI (2016), 1, 60-77


brothers – over some two decades in the Peloponnesian War. Richard Seaford (1985) and
Helene Foley in Female Acts in Greek Tragedy (2000, 151ff.) ponder the implications of
Elektra’s obsessive lamentation in the light of women’s major public role in mourning,
something women can do – although in men’s eyes perhaps best if not to excess8. Rachel
Kitzinger (1991) skillfully analyses Elektra’s argumentation in the first half of the play
although almost entirely in a positive light9, downplaying Sophokles’ indications that she
is already morally compromised. Her many declarations to that effect (221-24, 256f., 306-
309, 621), Sophokles’ ambiguous portrait of her from the start, and his evident sympathy
for Klytemnestra, should be more directly confronted. Elektra then has her moment of
glory, when she decides to take vengeance on Aigisthos herself, becoming brave like
Antigone, although she has been deceived by her brother’s lies. Finally, when her brother
materializes, she becomes an amoral killer, going silent and conspiratorial like him. I had
mentioned the “generation gap” in Sophokles’ earlier plays: elders go out of control, while
the young remain sensible and reasonable. Something like the opposite happens in El. We
will return to these themes shortly.
    In addition to women, reflections on aristocracy continue to be important in El., but
differently from before, and differently for Orestes and Elektra – except at the end. In line
129 Elektra calls the chorus genethla gennaiôn, «a race of noble ladies». In 257 Elektra
calls herself eugenês, while Klytemnestra is logoisi gennaia (287), «noble in words» or (we
would say) «in name only»10. Class words echo again at 365-67, when Elektra says to
Chrysothemis that instead of being called the daughter of the best (aristos) father of all,
she will be called the daughter of her mother, and thus to most people appear kakê, which
can mean base-born. When she hears of Orestes’ supposed death, she calls on the aid of
«eupatridai [an old word for nobles] of the same stock [koinotokoi]» (859). Elektra’s
nobility then blossoms when she rises to the challenge of killing Aigisthos (in this section
she does not speak of killing her mother). She exclaims to Chrysothemis, «everyone loves
to look to ta chrêsta (noble things), o philê, be persuaded, toil for your father, struggle for

8 Cf. PELLICCIA (2009, 36): «There is a good deal of evidence that unrestrained female lamentation was
regarded by Greeks as a socially disruptive force, and Sophocles’ audience may have found Electra’s words
menacing».
9 On p. 301 Kitzinger summarizes a major conclusion: «From the end of the prologue until the paidagogos’s

speech … [Elektra] creates an understanding of human justice as the expression of a harmony between
feeling, thought, language, and action».
10 In Aj. 1020 Teuker had used a similar phrase, doulos logoisi, and later in El. 1217 Orestes «is Orestes only

in logos».
Wallace                                                            AOFL XI (2016), 1, 61-77


your brother, rescue me from kakoi/a, rescue yourself, knowing this, that to live
disgracefully (aischrôs) is disgraceful for the well-born (kalôs)» (986-89). At 1081-97 the
chorus praises her for being ready to die in order «to kill the twin Erinys», a curious
double-single, referring to the pair Klytemnestra Aigisthos who killed the killer
Agamemnon. «Who could be thus eupatris? None of the agathoi would wish to live kakôs
(basely) [the chorus here sound like Ajax, Aj. 479f.] and disgrace their good fame (eukleia)
dying namelessly, child, child, as you too have chosen the common lot of mourning,
casting off what is not kalon to carry two things in one logos: to be called a sopha and
arista daughter». Once Elektra sides with Orestes, however, she is not called noble again.
   The chorus also praises Orestes as eupatris (162), «of noble father», and as born esthlos
(322), so as to help his philoi (an irony, as he will kill his mother). But Orestes never
behaves nobly, and even after his identity is revealed, he too is not called noble again.
   A third recurrent theme in Sophokles is the abusive ruler, a pattern reinforced by a
formulaic word order, stratêgos, then kratos or archê, then turannos. Electra begins (line 1)
with Agamemnon strategêsas, a general (something line 36 stresses Orestes is not). In line
220 the chorus tells Elektra she must not fight with hoi dunatoi, at 264 Elektra laments «I
am ruled by» (archomai) her father’s murderers, in 339f. Chrysothemis says, «if I must
live free (eleuthera), hoi kratountes must be listened to in everything», and in 396 she tells
Elektra «to yield to hoi kratountes». Elektra replies that she will never yield to them
(hupeikathein 360, cf. Aj. 668). Chrysothemis later repeats that she should yield (eikathein)
to hoi kratountes (1014). At 521f. Klytemnestra complains that Elektra says «I rule»
(archô) unjustly. In her debate with Klytemnestra (628-33) Elektra rebukes her mother,
«You see? You let me say what I please, and then you are carried away into anger (orga).
You do not know how to listen», a tyrant’s vice. Klytemnestra responds, «I have
permitted you to say all you will», not something tyrants say (and so positive for her),
and Elektra responds (632), «Do not blame my mouth (stoma), as I will say no more».
After Klytemnestra prays to Apollo, the Pedagogue comes in, asking for the house of the
turannos Aigisthos (661). Then, seeing Klytemnestra, he says she has the look of a
turannos (664). The chorus later refers to the ruling house as despotai (764); when Orestes
is finally revealed Elektra says, «now only with difficulty have I had my mouth set free»
(1256, cf. 1257); at the end of the play when Aigisthos thinks he will see Orestes’ corpse,
he says that anyone who had «empty hopes» about Orestes «now may accept my bit
[stomia emá, compare Ant. 477, Aj. 1253f.] and not need violent chastisement from me to
The World Gone Wrong: Sophokles’ Electra                                      AOFL XI (2016), 1, 62-77


teach him sense» (1460-63). Compare a similar series of words in Ajax: the Atreidai are
introduced as strategoi (49); then they are basileis (188, 390); then archontes (668); finally,
Agamemnon calls himself a turannos (1349-50). In Antigone, Kreon is first a stratêgos (8),
then a magistrate en telei (67); at 173 Kreon says he has all the kratê and thronous and
«you will never understand a person’s qualities until you see him en archais and nomois»
(177); in 669 he again refers to himself as an archôn; then he says he rules the city for
himself (736); at 1056 Teiresias says of Kreon, «the race bred of tyrants loves base gain»;
and at 1169 the messenger says that Kreon lives in the pomp of a tyrant. Similar patterns
recur in Tr. and Oed. These parallels should rule out Haslam’s proposal (1975, 149f. and
166f.), contested by Lloyd-Jones and Wilson (1990, 42) but supported by Finglass (2007, ad
loc.), that El. 1 (Agamemnon stratêgêsas) is interpolated.
     A fourth theme is the superiority of gods' laws to human or polis laws, the justice of
which El. calls into question. In 579-83, in response to Klytemnestra’s defense that
Agamemnon killed Iphigeneia to help Menelaus, Elektra says, «was that a reason for him
to die at your hands? By what nomos? Watch out that in laying down this nomos for
mortals, you are not laying down pain and repentance for yourself. For if we kill one man
in retaliation for another, you would be the first to die if you meet justice (dikê)». Segal
(1981, 252) rightly compares with this the final dialogue lines of the play (1505-1507,
which Kamerbeek disliked and Finglass athetized11) where Orestes again refers to this
savage human talio, while taking Aigisthos off to be killed: «there must be at once this
justice for all, / whoever would wish to act outside the laws (pera tôn nomôn), / to kill».
The Greek is curious: kteinein «to kill» oddly positioned and in the active voice. In these
two passages Segal, Blundell and others have found a central moral message of the play.
Segal (1981, 252) wrote, «What emerges is the inadequacy of a society whose system of
justice rests on blood-vengeance, for here the avengers run the risk of coming to the same
level as the criminals». In her last sentence on El., Blundell (1989, 183) concludes, «the
murders are indeed just, according to the talio, but the talio is a grim and problematic
form of justice».



11 Finglass here follows Dindorf and Dawe. LLOYD-JONES – WILSON (1990, 77) defend the lines «on the
score of style [and] language», and rightly observe, «the general effect of the dialogue is to suggest that
things are continuing as usual in the house of Atreus, and these lines make their contribution to that
effect».
Wallace                                                                      AOFL XI (2016), 1, 63-77


     By contrast, in 1041-43 the newly emboldened and aristocratic Elektra says that
Chrysothemis’ are laws of expediency, not to do something that is just if it harms you,
«rules by which I would not want to live». At 1095-97, in praise of Elektra, the Chorus
follows up, singing of «the greatest nomima which came into existence, on account of
these winning the best things (arista) by your piety toward Zeus». Similarly, in Ant. 450-
55 Antigone champions «the unwritten and unshakeable nomima of the gods», as
Odysseus does in Aj. 1343f. and the chorus at Oed. 865f.
     Most of the new themes in El. recur in the final two plays, dividing Sophokles’ seven
plays into two groups.
     First, fractured families. Families are fractured in the four earlier plays – Ajax, Kreon,
Herakles, Oedipus – but mostly do not want to be. In El., family members are vicious to
each other. The opening of El. first indicates the fracture, with two separate prologues
preceding the chorus’ parodos, a device Sophokles borrowed from Euripides’ Electra12.
First, Orestes, Pylades and the Pedagogue enter, plot to murder Klytemnestra and
Aigisthos, then exit, hearing someone («Elektra?») groan in mourning (77). In Aeschylus'
Choephoroi, Orestes, Pylades, and Elektra all meet, but in Sophokles the Pedagogue says
not to wait, they must get on and do (dran) their plan. Elektra now enters singing an aria,
calling for revenge and her brother’s return. She later stresses that Orestes has long
promised to come, but never does. Every message he sends is deceptive. «Always he
longs, but longing he does not think it right to appear». The comment is ironic – the
audience knows that Orestes has now come – and a painful observation on Orestes' many
false statements to his sister. The Pedagogue’s long message that Orestes is dead is one
big lie. When Orestes finally enters in disguise, he tells his sister another false story that
he carries an urn with Orestes' ashes. He knows who she is, but persists in his false story,
causing Elektra much unnecessary weeping and mourning. At one point he hesitates
(1174f.): «What shall I say, where of helpless words do I go? I cannot rule my tongue».
Still, for twenty more lines he does not identify himself. As for the rest of her family,
Elektra hates her mother who sleeps with her father's murderer, «if mother I must call
her, she who sleeps with him» (271-74). «A mother she is called, but she is nothing equal
to a mother» (1194). Wright (2005, 181-85) is excellent on the terrible, perverted relations


12Other Euripidean elements in the play include Orestes' recognition by a token, the signet ring, indicating
that he is alive.
The World Gone Wrong: Sophokles’ Electra                            AOFL XI (2016), 1, 64-77


between Elektra and her mother. From the start Orestes and later Elektra go to kill their
mother with no moral qualms or hesitation. Oedipus has equally tortured relations with
his relative Kreon in OC.
   A second new theme is conspiracy. Electra opens with a devious plot by Orestes and
his Pedagogue to kill Orestes' mother and her paramour, a plot which they carry out in
secrecy in the rest of the play. Conspiracies recur in Philoctetes (to trick Philoktetes into
coming to Troy), and by Kreon in OC (to trick Oedipus into following him back toward
Thebes).
   A third new theme is speedy action and no talking. In his opening speech, the
Pedagogue says ti chrê dran en tachei bouleuteon, «it must be quickly decided what must
be done (dran), it is no kairos to hesitate, but the akmê for deeds (erga)». Kairos, the
critical moment, is a leitmotif in El. No hesitation, and no talking. Right after he
acknowledges to Elektra who he is, Orestes commands silence (1236, 1238) lest anyone
hear, at 1259 he says this is not the kairos. Elektra does not want to be silent, but at 1288
Orestes commands, no talking, it is time for action. Elektra continues to explain
everything (1307-21), and Orestes again commands silence. The Pedagogue comes out
rebuking them sharply for speaking in public: «fools and madmen!» (1326). Talk is
dangerous, it is time for action. Elektra bursts again into passion when the Pedagogue is
identified. He replies to her, «that seems to me enough», now is the kairos erdein. At 1372
Orestes insists, no more lengthy words: and they go to kill Klytemnestra. At the very end,
Orestes says to Aigisthos, «you speak much in reply, go» inside to be killed (1501).
   Fourth, when people do talk, they often lie. In lines 44 and 50 Orestes gives the
Pedagogue «your logos», «your muthos», which is false. In 56 he says they will «hide a
sweet phatis with logos». As we have noted, Elektra says that every message from Orestes
led to disappointment (169f.). At 319 she says «he says he will come, but phaskôn [often
with a suggestio falsi] he does nothing of what he says». At 357 she says that her sister
Chrysothemis says she hates Klytemnestra and Aigisthos, but she hates only en logôi. At
666 the Pedagogue enters, «bearing sweet logoi» for Klytemnestra. He announces the
death of Orestes in a long speech (680-763) which is fiction. Later Orestes in disguise also
tells a big lie (1098-1215), even as Elektra suffers anguish right before him, finally telling
her that the urn supposedly with his ashes is not Orestes except «tricked out in words»,
logoî (1217). When Elektra asks him what he means, with painful irony he replies, «I say
nothing false» (1220).
Wallace                                                                        AOFL XI (2016), 1, 65-77


     Fifth, in El. words lose or change their meaning, notably in designating noble and
slave. In his opening response to the slave Pedagogue, Orestes calls him philtatê andrôn
prospolôn, «dearest of men attendants» (23). Philos designates a friend or relative, a fine
word; anêr, man, is also fine. These words are incongruously juxtaposed with “attendant”
and then esthlos, «noble» (24) but only es hêmas, «towards us», like a hippos eugenês a
«horse nobly-born» (25). How can a slave tutor be called philos, esthlos, and eugenês?
«Even when he is old, in terrible circumstances [en toisi deinois] he had not lost his spirit,
but his ear stands erect».
     A sixth, related new theme is confusion over social status. The slave Pedagogue is
bossy and self-important. He speaks first in the play, using the pronoun egô (11) which
elsewhere in Sophokles is a sign of vanity13; then three verbs in the first person, «I
carried, I saved, I raised» (13). He addresses the young nobleman Pylades too familiarly as
philtatê xenôn, «dearest of foreigners». He then orders that they move fast. He plays the
role that Pylades should play, but Pylades says not one word in this play. Later, when
Orestes makes himself known to Elektra and they talk, the Pedagogue comes out on stage
and (as we have noted) rebukes them harshly for speaking where they might be
overheard: «Fools and madmen, you senseless people!» (1326), «I (egô) was watching»
(1331), «I took care of» (1334), «Now get rid of your long speeches» (1335). This is no way
for slaves to talk to their elite masters. Then, on recognizing the Pedagogue, Elektra says
«Greetings my father, for I seem to see my father in you, greetings, and know that you
more than any other person I have hated and loved most in one day» (1361f.), calling this
slave her father and stressing the fluid ambiguity of philos and echthros. Sophokles
invokes a similar confusion over the status of Elektra. Shortly after Orestes' opening
speech to the Pegagogue, they hear Elektra groaning. The Pedagogue thinks it is one of
the prospoloi (servants), while Orestes says it surely is Elektra. According to the MSS, the
Pedagogue insists14 that they hurry on, rather than discovering the truth. By contrast,


13 See e.g. Oedipus in Oed. 224-45: «I order» anyone with knowledge «to reveal everything to me (emoi) […]
and not to be silent, to gar kerdos telô 'go, for I (egô) will pay the gain [a reward] […] But if you [Thebans]
are silent or someone thrusts away my word [to protect someone], what I shall do from these things it is
necessary to hear from me, tauta chrê kluein emou. I forbid (apaudô) this man whoever he is from this land,
where I (egô) hold the kratê and thronous». He says their land is polluted, «as the Pythian oracle of the god
has just now revealed to me» (actually, to Kreon). «I (egô) am such an ally to the god and to the dead man».
14 On no MS authority, some editors give these lines to Orestes, according to SANDBACH (1977) because it is

inappropriate for the Pedagogue to include himself in the pouring of libations for Agamemnon. That
however was Sophokles’ point.
The World Gone Wrong: Sophokles’ Electra                            AOFL XI (2016), 1, 66-77


throughout the play aristocratic Elektra is said to be a slave or to be treated as a slave
(189-92) where she is serving as a waitress to Klytemnestra and Aigisthos; at 814 and 1192
she says she must douleuein again in her mother’s or father’s killers’ house.
   Seventh, pleasure, hêdonê. Wright (2005) shows how consistently pleasure (and also
joy, chara) is shown to be perverted. In line 286 Elektra complains that she is not allowed
to feel as much hêdonê in lamentation as her thumos wants. In 871-73, Chrysothemis re-
enters proclaiming «By hêdonê to you, most dear (philtatê), I am pursued (diôkomai) […]
for I bring pleasures (hêdonas) and relief» from Elektra's troubles, as she has found a lock
of hair that signals Orestes' presence. On the curious verb diôkomai Wright suggests
(2005, 180), «perhaps hounding her (with the slightest hint of the Erinyes?)». At 891
Elektra tells Chrysothemis to speak, «if for you there is some hêdonê in the logos». After
Chrysothemis tells of finding Orestes' hair, Elektra ridicules her, and she replies, «Do I
not say these things toward hêdonê?» (921). Elektra would think that a false pleasure. At
1153f., Elektra addresses the urn: «our mother who is no mother is crazed (mainetai) with
hêdonê», at news of Orestes’ death, another strange choice of verb. Later, Elektra herself
experiences hêdonê. At 1271f., Orestes says he hesitates to check Elektra's rejoicing, but
fears she has been conquered (nikan) by hêdonê, again a strangely negative expression.
She replies, «don't deprive me of the hêdonê of your face» (1277), although he does not
really care about her. She adds, «these hêdonai I gained from you» (1302). In the final
lines of the drama (1503 – I am happy to add this to Wright’s discussion), Orestes says to
Aigisthos, «so that you not die kath' hêdonên, I have to see that this tastes bitter for you».
Hêdonê again is an ironic paradox: to die according to pleasure.
   El.’s seven dark new themes are reinforced by three points mentioned only in this
play, not in Phil. or OC, but equally dark.
   First in the prologue comes greed for profit (kerdos) on the part of the future matricide.
In plotting his conspiracy, Orestes says that no word is base (kakon) if it leads to kerdos;
he will become archeploutos, «master of the wealth» of his household. By contrast, on
hearing the «news» of Orestes’ death, Klytemnestra asks (766-68) whether this is happy
news or «terrible but profitable» (deina men, kerdê de)? She decides, «my state is painful,
if I save my life by evils». Here again Klytemnestra contrasts favorably with Orestes, the
older better than the younger generation.
Wallace                                                                           AOFL XI (2016), 1, 67-77


      Second: dark trends characterized intellectual developments during the Peloponnesian
War15. After saying «no word with profit is bad», Orestes remarks, «Often before now I
have seen even hoi sophoi by logos falsely dying. Then, when they come home again, they
are held in greater honor» (62-64). As Finglass observes (2007, ad loc.), Greek tradition
includes various shaman-like figures who disappear and then reappear, notably in
Herodotus, but none of these deliberately spread lies about disappearing. It is unclear if
these shamans were or could be called sophoi. Craik (1980) did not pick up the El. passage,
but shows that hostility to sophists is attested in Phil. and OC, while in earlier plays the
word sophos is positive (Aj. 581 of a doctor, 783 of the seer Kalchas, 1091 of wise men, and
1374 of wise Odysseus). In Phil. 423, sopha, wise things, are good, but in line 99 rhetores
are bad.
      Third and finally, violating oaths. In line 47 Orestes instructs the Pedagogue to tell his
false story on oath, in any case not something that Apollo ordered him to do.


Why did Sophokles bring together these ten new themes for a play of the later 410s?
Writing in this same period, Thucydides and in one instance Ps.-Xenophon, both anti-
democratic upper-class Athenians like Sophokles, closely echo the concerns expressed in
Sophokles’ late plays. Our ten new themes all recur in Thucydides, notably (but not only)
in his description of social collapse during the plague at Athens (430-426 BC), and then in
virtually every line of his description (III 82f.) of stasis in Corcyra and elsewhere in and
after 427, with horrors he calls characteristic of their time. Except on two themes (women
and the aristocracy), Thucydides, Sophokles, and (on one point) Ps.-Xenophon thus reveal
what we may suppose to be a standard conservative Athenian understanding of Athens’
degeneration during the Peloponnesian War.
      First, fractured families. In III 82, 6 at Corcyra Thucydides says that «family ties were
weaker than to hetairetikon (faction), because factions were more ready to dare without
excuses». At III 81, 5 he says, «father killed son». At VI 85, 1, the Athenian democratic
politician Euphemos («Good-speaker») remarks, «To a tyrant man or a city having
power, nothing is unreasonable which is to its interest, nor is anyone a kinsman who




15   See my Plato’s sophists, intellectual history after 450, and Sokrates in WALLACE (2007, 215-37).
The World Gone Wrong: Sophokles’ Electra                                      AOFL XI (2016), 1, 68-77


cannot be relied upon; in every case one must be enemy or philos according to kairos, the
critical time»16.
     Second, murderous conspiracy. In III 82, 5 Thucyddes observes, «he who succeeded in
a plot (epibouleusas) was intelligent, and he who suspected one was even more clever».
At III 82, 8, he continues, «striving in every way to get the better of each other they dared
the most awful deeds, and sought revenges still more awful, not pursuing these within
the bounds of justice and what was advantageous to the city but limiting them, both sides
alike only by the moment’s hêdonê».
     Third, action not words was needed at critical moments. At III 83, 3 Thucydides says,
«Those of lesser intelligence usually won the day, for being afraid of their own defects
and the intelligence of their opponents, lest they be worsted in logoi […], they boldly
resorted to erga». Contrast Perikles in the Funeral Oration (II 40, 2f.): «We Athenians
decide public questions for ourselves […] in the belief that it is not debate that is a
hindrance to action, but rather not to be instructed by debate before the time comes for
action. We are most daring in action and yet at the same time most given to reflection
upon the ventures we mean to undertake». By contrast, after Perikles, Kleon complains
(III 37, 4) that clever people want to dominate discussions, and eventually bring ruin. «We
ought to act and not be so excited by cleverness and a contest of intelligence, as to advise
the masses contrary to our own judgment».
     Fourth, words change their meaning. According to Thuc. III 82, 4, at Corcyra «they
changed the customary meaning of words for deeds (erga), in the light of what they
thought was justified». (See also Plat. Resp. 560e-561a, for the soul of democratic man).
     Fifth, confusion over social status, in particular as to who was a slave and who a
citizen. Ps.-Xenophon (Ath. Pol. I 10f.) discusses how similar slaves and metics are to
citizens at Athens, in their lack of discipline, their appearance, their dress, and their
freedom of speech and conduct. «Slaves won’t step aside for you, and one may not strike
them». Some slaves live in luxury or even magnificence.
     Sixth, pleasure, hêdonê, which I have mentioned above under «Second, murderous
conspiracy» at Corcyra in III 82. In addition, in III 83 Thucydides says that people now
acted purely for the hêdonê of their faction. In the Funeral Oration, Thucydides has


16 See also IV 27, 4: kairos as «favorable opportunity»; also II 34 and IV 59, 3; and WILSON (1989, 147-51),
also noting parallels in Aj. and Phil.
Wallace                                                               AOFL XI (2016), 1, 69-77


Perikles misrepresent the democratic ideal of «living as you like» by an extreme
antidemocratic perversion of that ideal. In Athens, Perikles says, people can «do
according to pleasure», dran kath’ hêdonên. Thucydides’ plague passage is often regarded
as the factual antilogy (the erga) to the Funeral Oration’s logoi. Just so, in the plague at II
53, 1, Thucydides says that people no longer concealed that they were acting kath’
hedonên.
   Seventh, greed. In the Corcyra passage (III 83, 1), Thucydides observes that «the cause
of all these troubles was the love of power operating through greed, pleonexia». Loyalty
was ensured not by fear of divine anger but by sharing in the rewards of crime. In III 38, 2
he uses the phrase, epairomenos by kerdos. At III 81, 4 he remarks that at Corcyra, «some
men, because money was owed to them, were killed by those who had borrowed it». In II
53, 3, he writes that «whatever was immediately sweet and profitable (kerdaleon) was
thought both honorable and expedient».
   Eighth, sophists and corrupt speech. This critique is everywhere implied in
Thucydides’ antilogies, full of falsehoods and deceptive language. In the Mitylenean
debate (III 38, 2-7) Kleon makes the point directly, comparing Athenian assembly-goers to
«spectators attending a performance by sophists».
   Ninth, false oaths. As in part I have quoted, at III 82, 6f. Thucydides writes,
      Their pledges (pisteis) to one another they confirmed not by divine law (theios nomos)
      as by common transgressions of the law… And if in any case oaths (horkoi) of
      reconcilement were exchanged, for the moment only were they binding, since either
      side had given them merely to meet the emergency, having at the time no other
      resource; but he who, when the opportunity offered and he found his enemy off his
      guard, was the first to pluck up courage, found his revenge sweeter because of the
      [i.e., violated] pledge than if he had openly attacked, and took into account not only
      the greater safety of such a course, but also that, by winning through deceit, he was
      gaining besides the prize for intelligence.


At the start of the war, oaths and the breaking of oaths still had force (II 5, 5-7). During
the plague (II 53, 4), Thucydides writes that «no fear of gods or law of men restrained
people, for seeing that all men were perishing alike, they judged that worshipping or not
was the same».
   Tenth, on obeying the laws. At II 37, 3, Perikles had said that the Athenians followed
both the laws and the unwritten laws of the gods (as in Sophokles’ Antigone). Then, in
The World Gone Wrong: Sophokles’ Electra                                             AOFL XI (2016), 1, 70-77


the Mytilenean debate (III 37, 3f.), a democratic perversion: Kleon says that «a city which
has inferior nomoi that are unmovable is better than one whose laws are good but
without authority […] Those who wish to seem wiser than the laws […] generally bring
their cities to ruin». Then a breakdown: in the Corcyra passage (III 82, 6) as we have seen,
Thucydides says that «factions were not entered into for the common good in conformity
with the prescribed laws, but for greed contrary to the established laws. Their pledges to
one another were confirmed not so much by divine law as by common transgression of
the law». As I have noted, Thucydides on the plague (II 53, 1) calls this a period of greater
lawlessness.
      On two points Sophokles and Thucydides differ. First, Thucydides says little about
women. Second, he does not directly acknowledge the political degeneration of the upper
classes, who after 429 abandoned democratic politics and retreated into private clubs
(hetaireiai), conspiring against the democracy. However, he does lament the
disappearance of a noble spirit. At Corcyra, «Fair words by opponents were received with
caution as to their actions, if these had the upper hand, and not with gennaiotês», a noble
spirit (III 82, 7). At III 83, in a wider frame, he laments «the simplicity which is so large an
element in a noble character (to gennaion) was laughed at and disappeared». But
Thucydides will not recognize the harm that the anti-democratic, philolaconian upper
classes did to Athens, in 415, in 411, and in 404 which he saw but would not write about.
He blames the masses, the democracy, and banausic demagogues for Athens’ troubles, not
the elite, who were culpable and after 404 virtually disappear.
      On the central issues of morality, Wright (2005, 172 n. 1) lists a number of «notable
‘light’ readings» of El. (Orestes and Elektra simply act justly in killing their mother), by J.
Schlegel, B. Anderson, A. Burnett, G. Kirkwood, R. Kitzinger17, R. Jebb, K. Reinhardt, P.T.
Stevens, C. Whitman, J. Marsh, and T.B.L. Webster, who later however apparently had
second thoughts18. David Konstan (2008) has defended a «light» reading of Electra,
concluding that the play may celebrate the overthrow of abusive usurpers of power as
happened in Athens in 411. Wright notes that «Gilbert Murray, under the influence of
Schlegel, went too far in this direction, describing the play, somewhat absurdly, as a
‘combination of matricide and good spirits’». Wright (2005, 172 n. 3) also lists various


17   I add that Kitzinger changes to a dark interpretation for the last third of the play.
18   See KELLS (1986, 153).
Wallace                                                                    AOFL XI (2016), 1, 71-77


«dark» interpretations, first by J. Sheppard in 1918 and 1927, then by H. Friis Johansen, J.
Kamerbeck, J. Kells, R. Minadeo, G. Ronnet, R. Winnington-Ingram, and R. Seaford,
although this list should also include C. Segal (1981), M. Blundell (1989), and Wright
himself. Also, Kells (1973, 2) and J.F. Davidson (1988, 45-72) think it unclear whether
Orestes and Elektra are justified in killing their mother. Finglass (2007) sees both positive
and negative points, although he seems to end up negative19.
     «I was compelled to terrible things in the midst of terrible things» (221). «Violence
forces me to do these things, forgive me, for a woman who is well-born » (256f.). «Evil
things necessarily give rise to evil things» (308f.). «Disgraceful things are taught by
disgraceful things» (621). My comments make clear what I think of morality in this play.
If Klytemnestra is complicated, Orestes remains throughout a cold-blooded killer, lying to
his sister over many years and in the play, and feeling no anguish about killing his
mother, in contrast to Aeschylus' Orestes in a play which Sophokles constantly echoes.
Encompassed by evil, his sister Elektra is and becomes like him. At 1328-30 the
Pedagogue asks them, «is there no inborn sense (nous engenês) in you, that you do not
recognize that you are not merely close to but in the greatest kaka?». Jebb, Lloyd-Jones,
Grene, and Raeburn all translate kaka «dangers», in the light of what the Pedagogue goes
on to say. But surely Sophokles meant the audience to hear something more ominous, as
in 308f. which repeats this phrase? On the central issue of family, Wright correctly
concludes (2005, 178), «This is a dark, terrible play about a dysfunctional family whose
relationships and emotional states are freakishly at odds with what ought to be the case».
As many other issues in this play confirm, Sophokles (and Thucydides) condemned the
mores of their age. Sophokles has misled many readers by portraying the terrible
behavior in this play as «the new normal». That in no way excuses it.
     At the start of this essay, I mentioned some scholars’ dissatisfaction with El. The play
may show several indications of haste. At line 47 Orestes instructs the Pedagogue to tell
his false story on oath. The Pedagogue never does so. In Chekhov’s famous dramatic
principle, «Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first
chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it

19 MACLEOD (2001) is a valiant effort to explicate Apollo’s dolos in pursuing just killings, and Elektra’s
aischron which yet is sanctioned by the ethical code of the polis, in upholding eusebeia and sôphrosynê
toward a dikê which restores order to oikos and polis. What is shameful can be just. (FINGLASS 2005
critiques one part of MacLeod’s thesis).
The World Gone Wrong: Sophokles’ Electra                                  AOFL XI (2016), 1, 72-77


absolutely must go off. If it’s not going to be fired, it shouldn’t be hanging there»20.
Sophokles may have forgotten to include the Pedagogue’s false oath.
     In addition, excessive mourning does not entirely «become» Elektra. Although she
frequently defends her mourning by argument, and as I have noted, all of Sophokles’
protagonists have problematic characters, the chorus and we get rather tired of hearing
her moan and groan, and also repeat herself, for example on not having a husband or
child. Right at the opening of her play, Antigone took immediate action. Emphasis may
not justify including two unnecessarily long deceptive stories, both addressed to Elektra,
first by the Pedagogue about Orestes’ death in a chariot race, then on the death of Orestes
by Orestes in disguise, although I take the point that both men otherwise stress the need
for action not words and hence their lengthy speeches are lying. Might Sophokles have
meant one of them to be cut or reduced, only then to proceed as the play itself was not
too long? If as I suspect OC is unfinished, what remained to be done was to reduce that
play’s excessive length.
     Yet unhappiness with this play has not been universal. In Word and Action (1979, 20f.),
Bernard Knox recalled,
       I once saw, in a small theater in Piraeus, a magnificent performance, in modern
       Greek, of Sophocles’ Electra. The audience was audibly and visibly in tears during
       Electra’s great speech over the urn which she thinks contains her brother’s ashes
       [1126-70] and was profoundly moved by the joy of the recognition scene [1171-1235].
       When, during the offstage murder of Clytemnestra by her son, Electra, left on stage,
       screamed to Orestes: “Strike her twice, if you have the strength” […], a well-dressed,
       middle-aged man sitting next to me (he looked rather like a bank manager) jumped
       to his feet and, applauding vigorously, shouted “Bravo! Bravo!”


Notwithstanding Mazon's judgment that Sophokles did not «put much of himself» into
this play, the opposite is true, in powerful new ways. As for morality, Sophokles describes
a cold-blooded matricide but by no means endorses it. This is a nasty play for a nasty
time. To be repeated in Philoctetes.


Robert W. Wallace
Northwestern University

20 The internet commonly cites as the source of this remark S. Shchukin, Memoirs 1911, a book I cannot
trace. Also, none of the citations includes a page number.
Wallace                      AOFL XI (2016), 1, 73-77


Evanston, Illinois
rwallace@northwesterrn.edu
The World Gone Wrong: Sophokles’ Electra                             AOFL XI (2016), 1, 74-77


Bibliography

BLUNDELL 1989
M.W. Blundell, Helping Friends and Harming Enemies. A Study in Sophocles and Greek
Ethics, Cambridge.

BUDELMANN 2000
F. Budelmann, The Language of Sophocles. Communality, Communication and
Involvement, Cambridge.

CALDER 1963
W.M. Calder III, The end of Sophocles’ Electra, «GRBS» IV 213-16.

CALDER 1971
W.M. Calder III, Sophoclean Apologia: Philoctetes, «GRBS» XII 153-74.

CRAIK 1980
E.M. Craik, Sophokles and the sophists, «AC» XLIX 247-54.

DAIN 1958
A. Dain (éd.), Sophocles Tome II. Ajax - Oedipe Roi - Électre, trad. par P. Mazon, Paris.

DAVIDSON 1988
J.F. Davidson, Homer and Sophocles’ Electra, «BICS» XXXV 45-72.

DUNN 2012
F. Dunn, Electra, in K. Ormand (ed.), A Companion to Sophocles, Oxford, 98-110.

EASTERLING 1977
P. Easterling, Character in Sophocles, «G&R» XXIV 121-29.

FINGLASS 2005
P. Finglass, Is there a polis in Sophocles’ Electra?, «Phoenix» LIX 199-209.

FINGLASS 2007
P. Finglass, Sophocles Electra, Cambridge.

FOLEY 2000
H. Foley, Female Acts in Greek Tragedy, Princeton.
Wallace                                                              AOFL XI (2016), 1, 75-77


HASLAM 1975
M. Haslam, The authenticity of Euripides, Phoenissae 1-2 and Sophocles, Electra 1, «GRBS»
XVI 149-74.

JEBB 1894
R.C. Jebb, Sophocles: The Electra, Cambridge.

KAMERBEEK 1974
J.C. Kamerbeek, Sophocles, Electra, Leiden.

KELLS 1973
J.H. Kells, Sophocles Electra, Cambridge.

KELLS 1986
J.H. Kells, Sophocles Electra Revisited, in J.H. Betts et al. (eds.), Studies in Honour of T.B.L.
Webster, vol. I, Bristol, 153-60.

KITZINGER 1991
R. Kitzinger, Why mourning becomes Elektra, «CA» X 298-327.

KNOX 1979
B. Knox, Word and Action, Baltimore.

KONSTAN 2008
D. Konstan, Sophocles’ Electra as political allegory: a suggestion, «CP» CIII 77-80.

LLOYD-JONES 1994
H. Lloyd-Jones (ed. and trans.), Sophocles Electra. Ajax. Oedipus Tyrannus, Cambridge,
Mass.

LLOYD-JONES – WILSON 1990
H. Lloyd-Jones – N. Wilson, Sophoclea. Studies on the text of Sophocles, Oxford.

MACLEOD 2001
L. MacLeod, Dolos and Dike in Sophokles’ Elektra, Leiden.

MARCH 2001
J. March (ed. and trans.), Sophocles Electra, Warminster.
The World Gone Wrong: Sophokles’ Electra                             AOFL XI (2016), 1, 76-77


MÜLLER 1984
C.W. Müller, Zur Datierung des sophokleischen Ödipus, Wiesbaden.

ORMAND 2012
K. Ormand (ed.), A Companion to Sophocles, Oxford.

PELLICCIA 2009
H. Pelliccia, Review of P. Finglass, Sophocles Electra, «CR» LIX 34-38.

SANDBACH 1977
F.H. Sandbach, Sophocles, Electra 77-85, «PCPhS» XXIII 71-73.

SEAFORD 1985
R. Seaford, The Destruction of limits in Sophokles’ Elektra, «CQ» XXXV 315-23.

SEGAL 1966
C. Segal, The Electra of Sophocles, «TAPA» XCVII 473-545.

SEGAL 1981
C. Segal, Tragedy and Civilization: An interpretation of Sophocles. Cambridge, Mass.

SEGAL 1982
C. Segal, Sophocles Electra 610-11 again, «CP» LXXVII 133-36.

SHEPPARD 1918
J.T. Sheppard, The Tragedy of Electra according to Sophocles, «CQ» XII 80-83.

SHEPPARD 1927
J.T. Sheppard, Electra: a defense of Sophocles, «CR» XLI 2-9.

SOURVINOU-INWOOD 1989
C. Sourvinou-Inwood, Assumptions and the Creation of Meaning: Reading Sophocles’
Antigone, «JHS» CIX 134-48.

WALLACE 2007
R.W. Wallace, Plato’s sophists, intellectual history after 450, and Sokrates, in L.J. Samons II
(ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Pericles, Cambridge, 215-37.
Wallace                                                         AOFL XI (2016), 1, 77-77


WALLACE 2010
R.W. Wallace, Tecmessa’s legacy: valuing outsiders in Athens’ democracy, in I. Sluiter – R.
Rosen (eds.), Valuing Others in Classical Athens, Leiden, 137-54.

WALLACE 2013
R.W. Wallace, Sophokles’ Lucky Day: Antigone, «Erga/Logoi» I 7-22.

WILSON 1989
J.R. Wilson, Shifting and permanent philia in Thucydides, «G&R» XXXVI 147-51.

WOODARD 1964
T.M. Woodard, Electra by Sophocles: the dialectical design, «HSCP» LXVIII 163-205.

WOODARD 1965
T.M. Woodard, Electra by Sophocles: the dialectical design, «HSCP» LXX 195-233, 276-79.

WOODRUFF 2012
P. Woodruff, The Philoctetes of Sophocles, in K. Ormand (ed.), A Companion to Sophocles,
Oxford, 126-40.

WRIGHT 2005
M. Wright, The joy of Sophocles' Electra, «G&R» LII 172-94.
