No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Sophocles, Electra 610–111
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
That both parts of the sentence refer to the same person is now generally agreed; it is not so much that a change of subject would be, as the commentators are wont to say, ‘un-Sophoclean’, but simply that it would be awkward and clumsy. But to whom do the lines refer?
D. B. Gregor (C.R. lxiv [1950], 87–8) argues for Clytaemnestra, but despite the apparent force of some of his arguments (e.g. that the clause refers to Clytaemnestra because it is she who picks up Electra, in 616, picks up Clytaemnestra's of 615; but could still be Electra's) I cannot agree. He adds too that the reference to echoes the motif of Electra's speech, but it is just as much the motif of Clytaemnestra's speech, in fact more so. Finally, the first part of the sentence, it is true, could be asserted by the chorus on the strength of some such gesture as the heaving of the bosom, but I cannot see how they could then deduce that Clytaemnestra ‘no longer cares whether justice is on her side’
Information
- Type
- Shorter Notes
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1975
References
page 310 note 1 The root δik- occurs 4 times in her speech (521, 528, 538, 551) as opposed to 3 in Electra's (560, 561, 583); and v. infra.
page 310 note 2 I can find no other examples in Sophocles of a chorus making only one utterance in a scene, and giving no other indication of their presence or interest in the proceedings. The closest parallels would appear to be the choral utterances at O.T. 404 and Phil. 317, but neither occurs in such a compact scene as this in Electra, and both have the chorus saying, at the transition from the previous scene, words to the effect of ’here comes so-and-so’ (0.T. 297, Phil. 210), thus indicating that they will be listening in on what follows.
page 311 note 1 Such quasi-soliloquies are especially common in Euripides, cf. Hipp. 616 f., part of which is ’addressed to empty air’ (Barrett), and again 916 f., where Theseus, though conscious of Hippolytus' presence, nevertheless ignores him and ’utters his condemnation as though speaking to himself’ (Barrett), esp. 943–5, where he refers to him explicitly in the third person, in language similar to that of El. 613–613.
page 311 note 2 I cite a small variety of examples to show the different patterns and formulations that are possible: O. T. 543 f., simple two line and one-line parallelisms; O. T. 726 f., variations of simple parallelism and definite 2–1 and 1–2 patterns; O.T. 1178 f., four-line parallelism; Ant. 726 f., two-line, one-line and four-line parallelisms.
- 1
- Cited by