,QWKH)RRWSULQWVRI$HVFK\OXV5HFRJQLWLRQ$OOXVLRQ DQG0HWDSRHWLFVLQ(XULSLGHV Isabelle Torrance American Journal of Philology, Volume 132, Number 2 (Whole Number 526), Summer 2011, pp. 177-204 (Article) Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press DOI: 10.1353/ajp.2011.0012 For additional information about this article http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ajp/summary/v132/132.2.torrance.html Access provided by Harvard University (18 Aug 2014 12:51 GMT) AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY IN THE FOOTPRINTS OF AESCHYLUS: RECOGNITION, ALLUSION, AND METAPOETICS IN EURIPIDES ISABELLE TORRANCE Abstract. It is well known that Euripides responds to Aeschylus in several of his plays, most notably in Electra. In this article I suggest a new reading of the recognition scene in Euripides’ Electra, comparing also the recognition sequence in Iphigenia among the Taurians, which alludes to the same Aeschylean model. I argue that through their allusions to Aeschylus, both scenes can be read as metapoetic reflections on the constraints and conventions of dramatic composi- tion. The issue, therefore, is not one of criticism of or homage to Aeschylus (or Homer), as scholars have generally held. Rather I argue that Euripides presents his audience with an invitation to recognize and appreciate the poetic chal- lenges of composing a dramatic performance, through metaphor, word-play and metapoetic suggestions. The poetic self-consciousness present in both scenes underlines the poet’s awareness that he is following in the footsteps of mighty poetic predecessors. EURIPIDES AND THE ORESTEIA OF THE SURVIVING EURIPIDEAN TRAGEDIES, four are related to the subject matter of Aeschylus’ Oresteia and respond to it in significant ways: Electra, Iphigenia among the Taurians, Orestes, Iphigenia in Aulis. It seems probable, if not certain, that Euripides saw the Oresteia per- formed in 458 B.C.E. as a young man, and probable also that he attended re-performances of the trilogy after Aeschylus’ death in 456 B.C.E.1 In 1 Most scholars assume that the Oresteia was re-performed in the 420s; see Newiger 1961, 427–30, and see also Revermann 2006, 66–87, on re-performance culture in fifth-century American Journal of Philology 132 (2011) 177–204 © 2011 by The Johns Hopkins University Press 178 ISABELLE torrance Electra Euripides presents his boldest allusions to the Oresteia, and also his most controversial. The recognition tokens from Aeschylus’ Liba- tion Bearers are famously evoked only to be rejected, and though some scholars sought to excise the allusions as inauthentic, it seems clear that the scene is genuine.2 It also fits into a broader pattern of allusions to the Oresteia at other important junctures in Electra, and throughout Euripides’ other Atreid plays. There remains significant debate, however, as to the function of such allusions. For some, perhaps influenced by the Aristophanic caricature in Frogs, Euripides is criticizing his predecessor and attempting to present himself as the superior, or at least more novel, poet.3 For others, Euripides is paying homage to the great tragedian.4 In this article I argue that Euripides’ engagement with Aeschylus has a deeper dramatic function in provoking recognition of Euripidean tragedy as a sophisticated poetic composition. Winnington-Ingram (2003, 51) was suggestive in this context when he discussed Euripides’ allusions to Aeschylus as “not malice so much as an exhibition of cleverness . If Aeschylus was fair game, so too were the stage conventions. .” For Winnington-Ingram, however, the issue remained one of “scor[ing] points at the expense of the archaic technique of the older poet,” a suggestion which, as I argue, does not give enough consideration to the metapoetic complexities of Euripidean drama. Athens. Biles 2007 has recently challenged the notion that Aeschylean dramas were re- performed posthumously at the City Dionysia, although he accepts (210–11) that there was a general culture of re-performance in fifth-century Athens and suggests that the Rural Dionysia may have had a role in “keeping Aeschylus alive.” 2 Fraenkel 1950, vol. III, 815–26, revived the argument that lines 518–44 of Euripides’ Electra were interpolated. Bain 1977, West 1980, Basta Donzelli 1980, and Kovacs 1989 all raised objections to the authenticity of specific passages within this scene. Lloyd-Jones 1961, Bond 1974, Davies 1998, and Gallagher 2003, however, all show persuasively that the scene is not interpolated and is dramatically relevant, even necessary. Wright 2008, 121–22, detects a reference to the recognition scene of Euripides’ Electra at Orestes 233–34, which gives further weight to arguments for authenticity. Since this is not the place to rehash linguistic and dramatic arguments, the reader is referred to the work of the aforementioned scholars. 3 Euripidean allusions to Aeschylus are often referred to as “parody” with negative connotations of criticism (e.g., Bond 1974, Hammond 1984), but cf. Rose 1993 who stresses the complexity of parody and shows that it is more than a tool for either ridicule or homage, and Dentith 2000, 17–19, who discusses how parody as a literary device does not necessarily direct its polemic against the parodied text. 4 E.g., Wolff 1992, 329, and cf. Collard 1975, on Supp. 846–56. IN THE FOOTPRINTS OF AESCHYLUS 179 REJECTING RECOGNITION, REJECTING CONVENTION: ELECTRA The crux of the enigma in Electra’s rationalizations of Aeschylean rec- ognition tokens is that her arguments are problematic in several ways, and events show that she is mistaken. Although she rejects them, the lock of hair and the footprint at Agamemnon’s tomb do turn out to indicate Orestes’ return. What, then, is Euripides doing? If he is criticiz- ing Aeschylus’ tokens as unrealistic, why does his own character present problematic arguments with erroneous conclusions? If he is trying to present a new and better way of producing a recognition scene, then why does he revert to an even older recognition trope—the Odyssean scar? If he is parodying Aeschylus, then why are Aeschylus’ tokens ultimately validated? I suggest that if we read the scene as a metapoetic commen- tary that is a self-conscious invitation to reflect on the conventions of dramatic production, these questions are no longer important. It is not so much Aeschylus who is a target of parody; rather, it is poetic convention which is brought under scrutiny. Electra has a complex role in the recognition sequence but she seems incapable of interpreting the signs in accordance with poetic convention. Not only does she refuse to acknowledge the potential significance of the lock of hair and footprint, she also fails to notice Orestes’ scar although she had been present during the fall that caused it.5 On a Saussurean semiological reading, Electra’s inability to interpret such signs renders her in some ways socially dysfunctional in nature. Not only is she dys- functional as a woman and wife, living in an unconsummated marriage,6 she is also incapable of functioning effectively within the microcosm of the tragic recognition scene.7 During the recognition sequence, Electra is ironically unable to recognize dramatic conventions. Similarly, after the murder of Aegisthus, Electra laments that there are no messengers at precisely the moment when tragic convention calls for a messenger (El. 5 On the issue of Electra’s failure to interpret signs, see also Gallagher 2003, esp. 402–4. Gellie 1981, 4, summarizes several ways in which Electra “tends to get things wrong”: e.g., she initially thinks Orestes and Pylades are thieves; she interprets the victory cry after Aegisthus’ murder as a cry of defeat; she fails to recognize Clytemnestra’s arriving retinue. For Gellie, these errors are part of Electra’s self-delusion. 6 On Electra’s problematic social status, see Zeitlin 2003a. 7 Cf. Goldhill 1986, 84–85, who has linked the sociological importance of recognizing signs and relationships to the prominence of recognition-driven plots in Greek tragedy. 180 ISABELLE torrance 759). When the messenger appears forthwith (761), Electra’s inability to recognize dramatic convention is once again underlined. Electra’s semiological ineptitude during the recognition scene is linked to the flawed logic she puts forward in her dismissal of the rec- ognition tokens. When asked to compare the color of her hair to that of the lock left at the tomb (520–21), Electra responds (a) that she cannot imagine brave Orestes coming back in stealth (524–26) and (b) that her hair is combed and feminine and so cannot be like her brother’s (537–38). There are obvious problems with her arguments. If Orestes is an exile with a bounty on his head (33), how else should he come back with any chance of success except by stealth (as he does in all versions of this episode)? Secondly, how can Electra now claim to have feminine combed hair when she has previously complained about her hair being filthy (184) and cropped (148, cf. 108)? The incongruity between Electra’s claim about her hair and her actual appearance would have been all the more apparent to a theatre audience.8 Indeed, the audience has seen Orestes and his hair and would be in a position to judge whether or not his hair would resemble his sister’s.9 Later in the scene, the Old Man asks Electra if there is a piece of weaving which she might recognize, a weaving, he says, in which he spirited Orestes away from death (El. 540). The Old Man’s question is strange. If he is the one who saved Orestes, why is he unaware that there was no piece of weaving as Electra emphatically explains? The reference to a piece of weaving is so obviously contrived that it stands in itself as a metaphor for this scene’s intertextuality with Aeschylus.