Euripides and the Tragic Tradition
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
(XULSLGHVDQGWKH7UDJLF7UDGLWLRQ Anne Norris Michelini Published by University of Wisconsin Press For additional information about this book http://muse.jhu.edu/books/9780299107635 Access provided by Harvard University (20 Aug 2014 10:46 GMT) 7 Elektra: The "Low" Style This first part of this chapter will concentrate upon the problems of genre raised by Elektra's personality and her sham marriage. The second will con cern aspects of the play that fit better in the mainstream of its tradition, the relation between Elektra and Orestes and the vengeance plot that they jointly perpetrate. These divisions correspond roughly to two segments that can be marked off by the notorious scene of recognition, a point at which the tension between this Elektra and its tradition reaches a climax. The initial delay of the recognition scene permits a sustained focus on the country setting and its dominant figures, first the farmer husband of Elektra and next the old tutor, now a mountain herdsman. After the recognition, the vengeance plot proceeds relatively directly to its ends, with the focus shifting to confronta tions between the siblings and their two adversaries. The fact that this ana lytic scheme requires me to postpone discussion of the first dialogue between Elektra and Orestes indicates that the play itself is in no real sense more bipartite than other dramas of recognition (anagnorisis) and conspiracy (mechanema). The themes of the second half are already present in the first, just as the themes of the first half find their interpretation and development in the events of the second. I. Anti-traditional Aspects I.A. REALISM AND COMIC TONE Elektra makes a uniquely striking use of certain techniques that appear in a more subtle and fugitive way in other plays. The concentration of these qualities apparently derives from this play's relation to previous treatments of 181 182 Part II: Four Plays Oresteia motifs. In this instance the attitude of combativeness that the inno vating artist takes in relation to his tradition is exaggerated, so that this conflict tends to be the major determinant of the course of the play, both in the negative and in the positive sense. The result for this play is a homogene ous stylistic quality rare in Euripides' work. G. H. Gellie has pointed out that the matter-of-fact and circumstantial approach to dramatic events, typical of Euripidean style, is more marked than usual in this play.) Careful explanations provide circumstantial grounds for every event, even those that do not seem to require this support: we would readily believe that the day of Hera's festival approaches, without assurances that the message has been brought to this remote area by a milk-drinking, mountain-climbing Mykenaian.2 Gellie has suggested that this punctilious ness reflects changing tastes in a mass audience. 3 But this same audience enjoyed work of Sophokles that lacked this trait; and other Euripidean plays presumed not to be very far in date from Elektra are relatively vague about details.4 This circumstantial precision is another part of the Euripidean tech niques that diminish audience credulity and absorption in dramatic reality. 5 The more circumstantial are the explanations offered by the play, the more the question of reality moves to the fore and the more the dramatic mimesis of reality becomes problematic. The' 'realism" of Elektra cannot be treated apart from the play's vigorous attack on tragic literary norms. Its untragic or anti tragic stance has continued to confuse and irritate its critics up to the present day. This play challenges the basic split between the "laughable" (geloion) and the "serious" (spoudaion), an opposition that has a strong social and I. 1981, see p. 4, on the play's "obsession with realistic evidence," which reaches a peak in the token scene, but is evident in many other places. Against such a view of Elektra, see Vogler (1967,34). 2. Gellie (1981, 3). 3. •• A large popular audience will ... use its everyday experience of the behavior of men and women to check on what the dramatist offers to its credence" (6). G. also adds that Euripides, far from "succumbing to the temptation of popular writing," is in fact "dramatising the prob lem" and displaying it as a "kind of game." He remarks that the play has "the flavor of the experimental" (7 - 8). These observations seem to me to be on the mark and to catch well the individual quality of this play. 4. E.g.,/phigeneia Among the Taurians. Neither the entrance of the chorus, nor the first exit and reentrance of Iphigeneia, are compellingly motivated. Sophokles' Elektra. referred to hereafter as Elektra (2), displays a similar lack of concern for precise motivation; see U. v. Wilamowitz (1883, 215). 5. Consider, e.g., the difficulty Elektra has in recognizing the messenger who brings the news of Aigisthos' death (765-66; Gellie [1981,4]). The effect is simply to make the audience recognize that messengers bringing good or bad news are almost never questioned on the tragic stage. Elektra: The "Low" Style 183 psychological basis.6 For some modem as for ancient critics, tragedy embo dies the idea of literature that will be "serious," that is, literature that is worthy of study and admiration, literature that is culturally important, and literature that will engage its audience in a profound way.? The class com ponent in these literary notions has frequently been deplored but seldom analyzed.8 "Serious" literature seems to deal with persons of a very high and unquestioned social rank, even when such figures are socially obsolete, as they were in fifth-century Athens; and the serious treatment of ordinary or middle-class literary protagonists has from time to time appeared problematic even to modem sensibilities.9 It is a paradox of human psychology that the interior view of the self seems to correspond best to a grandiose fantasy. Identification is stronger with the hero of myth, usually a very powerful per son, who may be gifted as well with special physical or mental prowess, than with familiar figures more like ourselves. The gulf between this interior world and that in which we have our social existence reproduces the basic genre distinction between the serious and the comic. In the theory of comedy developed by Henri Bergson and amplified by Arthur Koestler, the basic function of humor is to produce conformity to norms and to rebuke those who lack social awareness. \0 The comic mood is 6. Poet. I 449blO, 24; see Chap. 2, above. On the concept of the spoudaion, see Gigon (1981, 4.10), who argues that Aristoteles used this word in his writings on ethics to convey "social qualities" that come just short of the ethical, i.e., to approximate the pre-Platonic mean ings of agathos detailed by Adkins (1960). See the discussion of Jones (1962, 56 - 57): in the Poetics, "Aristotle has in mind a generalised, aristocratic, ancient and practical ideal of human excellence ... " The word, with its natural opposition to geloion, seems ideally formed, how ever, to convey an aesthetic concept. ? For the German theory in this area, see Szondi ([ 1956] 1977, I ff.). American critics were particularly interested in these topics in the fifties and sixties-see Myers (1956), Olson (1961), Brereton (1968), Heilman (1968), Sewall ([1959] 1980), States (1971); more recently Schwarz (1978) and Reiss (1980). 8. But see Auerbach (1946) on failed attempts to write tragedy about bourgeois characters (389ff.). French classical tragedy offers the best example of the strict definition of a "high" art form (329 - 32); references to any aspect of daily life are excluded (337). Cf. J. Gould (1978, 48ff.) on the discarding of everyday life in Greek tragedy. 9. Arthur Miller complains of these presuppositions in the introduction to his Collected Plays (1957, 31-33). See Brereton (1968, 18-19); Olson (1961, 154-55) remarks on the results when art sinks to the level of the "person of ordinary morality," and comments (245) on the incompatibility of the full range of tragedy with "ordinary" people and situations. 10. The famous treatise of H. Bergson (1912) is the locus classicus for this subject. B. was obsessed, however, with a definition of the comic that depended on "mechanistic" qualities in the comic object. Koestler (1964, Chap. 1) corrected Bergson by emphasizing the viewpoint of the laugher and his attitude toward what he ridicules. Bergson had pointed out correctly that "insensibilite" is characteristic of the humorous mood and that emotive sympathy destroys the possibility of laughter: "Et il y en a un [art] aussi de decourager notre sympathie au moment precis ou elle pourrait s'offrir" (143). Decharme ([1893]1906,257) was aware of this quality in Euripides. 184 Part II: Four Plays thus inimical to the internal focus of the grandiose or idealizing mode; and its natural victims are often persons who have an inflated and socially inap propriate view of themselves. To avoid being the butt of the joke one must be alert to the environment and its alterations, so that the mood of humor is, by definition, discontinuous and disorienting. It is the sudden intrusion of the circumambient world of the "everyday" and of the image of the self or oth ers, as seen from the outside and without emotive identification, II that creates the explosive force of laughter. The firmness of the generic line between tears and laughter is preserved by genre etiquette, such as the tendency of "high" or "serious" art to use vocabulary and circumstances that are remote from everyday life. Bj0rck has described the relation of the special language of high poetry to ordinary language as one of "prophylaxis," the purging of certain elements that must be avoided, of the language of the "everyday."12 The association of "seri ous" art with exotic settings and styles helps to screen out the disruptive sig nals of the familiar, the everyday, the particular.