Open Research Online The Open University’s repository of research publications and other research outputs Choral Authoritativeness in Sophocles Thesis How to cite: Post, Doris Juliane Elisabeth (2018). Choral Authoritativeness in Sophocles. PhD thesis The Open University. For guidance on citations see FAQs. c 2017 The Author https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Version: Version of Record Link(s) to article on publisher’s website: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21954/ou.ro.0000d683 Copyright and Moral Rights for the articles on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. For more information on Open Research Online’s data policy on reuse of materials please consult the policies page. oro.open.ac.uk Doris Juliane Elisabeth Post BEd, BA (Hons), MA Choral Authoritativeness in Sophocles Submitted for the award of PhD The Open University: School of Art History, Classical Studies, English & Creative Writing, Music November 2017 2 Abstract The ‘authority’ of the chorus in Greek tragedy has been a matter of discussion for a very long time. The word authority, however, has two distinct meanings: it can refer to the status of the chorus within the dramatic world and to the truthfulness or reliability of the choral discourse. To avoid this confusion, I use the term authoritativeness in this thesis to indicate the extent to which we can trust what the chorus are saying, chanting, or singing. In chapter 1, I establish a number of textual and linguistic markers which suggest whether a choral discourse can potentially be regarded as authoritative. One important factor is identifying where the chorus operate as a stage figure and where qua chorus. The subsequent chapters are taken up by case studies in which I closely analyse the language and context of the chorus’s utterances in three of Sophocles’ seven extant tragedies. I have chosen the Philoctetes, the Antigone, and the Electra because, in each, the chorus is used in a different way. Altogether, my analysis shows how Sophocles constantly experiments with the use of the choral voice: some markers raise the expectations that choral comments and judgements can be taken as a reliable guide for an interpretation of the action. At the same time, however, different devices undermine this potential authoritativeness, making the precise meaning of the discourse ambiguous or multivalent and contributing to the continuing disagreements on the precise interpretation of the tragedies. 3 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my three supervisors, Dr James Robson, Dr Elton Barker, and Dr Laura Swift. Each contributed in their own and very personal way to the completion of this thesis. James first suggested I look at Michael Silk’s work on choral authority and at some of the scholarly writing on Greek comedy. This provided a springboard for my thinking on choral authoritativeness. He also led the supervision sessions with great humour, making them a safe environment for criticism. Elton added Simon Goldhill to my reading list. Moreover, he tirelessly pointed out inconsistencies in my submissions and helped me improve the framing, sign-posting, and concision of my writing. Last but not least, Laura suggested new areas of research based on her vast knowledge of the Greek chorus and of epic, lyric, and tragic poetry in general. Her personal kindness also nursed me through periods of self-doubt and stress. All three patiently read my often rambling essays and made incisive and constructive comments which showed both their expertise and enthusiasm for the subject. I could not have completed this thesis without them. 4 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 7 CHAPTER 1: THE AUTHORITATIVENESS OF THE CHORUS INTRODUCTION 14 1. MODES OF COMMUNICATION: PLATO’S MIMESIS AND DIEGESIS 20 Example 1: The first stasimon of the Trachiniae 22 2. GÉRARD GENETTE: VOICES AND LEVELS OF COMMUNICATION 32 i. The first and second level of communication and the 32 meta-diegetic voice ii. The third level of communication and the 34 extra-diegetic voice Example 2: The second stasimon of the Antigone 34 3. AMBIGUITY OF CHORAL AUTHORITATIVENESS i. Ambiguity of the level of communication 48 ii. Double-voiced discourse 50 Example 3: The first stasimon of the Oedipus Tyrannus 50 iii. Dialogic overtones 54 Example 4: The parodos of the Ajax 54 (horizontal dialogic overtones) Example 5: Menelaus’ rhēsis 57 (vertical dialogic overtones) CHAPTER 2: CHORAL AUTHORITATIVENESS IN THE PHILOCTETES Introduction 62 1. The parodos 65 2. Two lyric interludes 73 i. The strophe 75 ii. The antistrophe 77 5 3. The stasimon 80 4. The lyric dialogue 90 5. The kommos 101 6. The exodus and the final choral comment 111 7. Conclusion 116 CHAPTER 3: CHORAL VOICES IN THE ANTIGONE Introduction 121 1. The parodos 124 2. The first stasimon 132 3. The second stasimon 139 4. The third stasimon 146 5. The first kommos 152 6. The fourth stasimon 156 7. The fifth stasimon 163 8. The second kommos 170 9. Conclusion and final choral comment 172 CHAPTER 4: AMBIGUITY IN THE ELECTRA Introduction 178 1. Electra’s monody 182 2. The parodos 189 3. The first episode and the first stasimon 196 4. The second episode and the kommos 205 5. The third episode and the second stasimon 212 6. The fourth episode and the third stasimon 219 7. The lyric exchange 227 8. The exodus and the final choral comment 236 9. Conclusion 243 6 CONCLUSION 248 BIBLIOGRAPHY 266 Introduction 7 INTRODUCTION In Sophocles’ plays, stage figures from different backgrounds face extreme situations which oblige them to make momentous decisions: at one end of the spectrum, in the Antigone, a king and mature man has to judge whether he is justified in imposing the death penalty on his niece in order to maintain this royal authority; at the other end, in the Electra, a young woman without any political power must decide whether behaving disrespectfully towards her mother and plotting her death in order to avenge her father’s murder is truly a sign of piety. As we can see from just two examples of Sophocles’ extant oeuvre, the poet’s tragedies deal with morally and ethically challenging questions. In the course of the action, resolute individuals are often pitched against each other, against their families, and the wider society. The presentation of the conflict, however, is not weighted towards a particular reading: while each protagonist refuses to yield to the demands of those around them, the play’s discourse subtly examines the merits and demerits of the different options. This makes Sophocles’ drama intellectually stimulating and encourages each spectator constantly to re-assess their response, not only during the performance but also beyond the ending of the play. The chorus play an important role in this examination of the issues: in the episodes, the chorus leader interacts directly with the protagonists, commenting on their speeches, sometimes even attempting to influence their conduct. In the odes, on the other hand, the full group step back from their stage persona and reflect on the action in song and dance, evaluating it in a more lyrical and poetic manner. This initially makes it sound as though their discourse is meant to provide an authoritative guide to the interpretation of the events unfolding on stage It soon becomes clear, however, that judgements made by the choreutai are not always trustworthy. Sometimes spectators know more Introduction 8 than the chorus do, either from the myth on which the action is based or from information gleaned in earlier scenes during which the chorus were not present. At other times, there is something odd about the wording itself: some utterances are inconsistent with the chorus’s earlier words, there may be a sense that there is more to their statements than the surface meaning suggests, and some choral passages are so oblique that the precise meaning becomes ambiguous, making the discourse multivalent. The language, then, is of great importance if we want to decide whether we can trust what the chorus are telling us or, to put it differently, whether their utterances are authoritative. A number of scholars have discussed what they call the ‘authority’ of the group and have commented on how it affects the choral voice in Greek tragedy in general terms but they have not always defined what they mean by authority or have assumed that there is a correlation between status and authority.1 The socio-political background of the group, however, does not guarantee that their comments and judgements can be taken as a reliable guide to the interpretation of a particular scene or of the tragedy as a whole. In this thesis, I shall, therefore, use the term authoritativeness rather than authority to assess the credibility of a discourse. Moreover, instead of proposing a general theory about ‘the chorus’, I shall closely analyse the precise wording and context of utterances in each of my chosen plays to identify comments that can potentially be regarded as trustworthy. In chapter 1, I shall give a brief survey of other scholars’ work on the Greek chorus. I shall then define in more detail what I mean by authoritativeness and establish a number of textual and linguistic markers which suggest that a chorus’s discourse can potentially be regarded as trustworthy. One important factor will be identifying where the chorus 1 See, for instance, Gould, 1996 and Goldhill, 1996. Introduction 9 operate as a stage figure and where qua chorus. This will involve adapting Plato’s analysis of the modes of communication (mimesis and diegesis) and Genette’s model of the different levels on which a discourse can take place (intra-diegetic, meta-diegetic, extra-diegetic).