20 PROCEEDINGS OF THE Here is something clear and distinctive in shape; it is unmistakable, resembles a bipennis of Roman (and even Carian) type, and is triangular in general shape. The change from scutulo to scutulae would be almost inevitable since medical terminology appears to have dropped scutula in favour of scapulae, and copyists of the Byzantine period, convinced that bipennis must be a weapon of Greek shape, naturally thought of a familiar quadrilateral shape. If these suggestions for interpretation and emendation are accepted, Tacitus' description of Britain becomes comprehensible, consistent, and not very far from the truth. It also assumes that Livy and Fabius Rusticus knew of the writers who called it triangular, and that the latter at least was in tune with the literary fashion of his own day. More than this we can hardly assume from our knowledge of his work. W. K. LACEY THE 'ELECTRA' OF SOPHOCLES: PROLEGOMENA TO AN INTERPRETATION1 The play has given rise to diverse interpretations. The greatest divergence of opinion is about the attitude of Sophocles to the matricidal vengeance. At one extreme we have a robust Homeric Sophocles, untroubled by the squeamishness of Aeschylus; at the other, an Aeschylean sensitiveness to the moral implications of the vengeance and a presumption that the Furies are only waiting for the play to end to begin their pursuit of Orestes. Adherents of the former view can point to certain epic features which Sophocles has introduced, but the constant reminiscences of the Oresteia are far more striking. This paper assumes (what will be in part substantiated) that Sophocles wrote with the Oresteia constantly in mind2 and expected the better- educated among his audience to be reminded of it. It will be concerned particularly with the Sophoclean treatment of the Furies and will suggest that this is of funda- mental importance to the interpretation of the play. Though nothing is said about a pursuit of Orestes by the Furies of his mother, Sophocles does not, as one writer has put it,3 omit the Furies. The word 'Epiws occurs four times in the play. At 112 Electra prays, among other chthonian powers, to the 'EpivuEs; at 276 she states that Clytemnestra, when she sleeps with Aegisthus, fears no 'Epivus. At 491 the Chorus sing of the coming of the 'Epivus; at 1080 they sing that Electra is prepared to die 5i5uuotv eAoOcx' 'Epiwiv.4 In addition, a reference to is universally admitted at 1388, where the Chorus describe the avengers as KUVES.5 (This is followed by TEAOOCT' ctpai at 1417.) If Sophocles had wished 1 This paper appears in a slightly shortened version. 1 Cf. Headlam in G. Thomson, The Oresteia of Aeschylus, 11, 217; J. T. Sheppard in C.R. xii, 2-9. 3 C. H. Whitman, Sophocles, 161. 4 The implications of referring to Clytemnestra and Aegisthus in this way are worth con- sideration. 5 In the Oresteia the Erinyes are hounds only in relation to their pursuit of Orestes. At 846 ff., when Electra refers to Alcmaeon, could the audience fail to remember that he—the counterpart of Orestes—was pursued by Furies? CAMBRIDGE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY 21 to write a supposedly epic version of the story, he should have scrupulously avoided a theme so closely associated by his predecessor with blood-guilt incurred by Orestes. By using this theme (as by all the innumerable reminiscences of the Oresteia), he insists, on the contrary, on placing himself in a relationship to Aeschylus and raises the question: did he accept or reject or modify the standpoint of the earlier dramatist? This would be true, if the above-mentioned passages stood alone. I shall endeavour to show that the theme of the Furies is in fact developed by Sophocles in close relation to the thought of Aeschylus. Erinyes (in the singular or in the plural) are prominent throughout the Oresteia, not merely in the Eumenides.1 In the earlier plays of the trilogy they are represented as carrying out the punitive justice of Zeus. In the Choephori the divine powers, Olympian and chthonian—Zeus, Apollo and the Furies—all converge to bring about the matricidal vengeance. It is not until the third play that conflict arises between the Olympians and the chthonians, between new and old gods, which is finally resolved by the persuasions of Athena. The justice which the Erinyes exercise (as Aeschylus constantly insists) on behalf of Zeus is vindictive. They administer the lex taliords, most clearly formulated at Cho. 3096°. They are mainly (though not exclusively) concerned with bloodshed; and in that connexion they are the presiding deities of the vendetta or blood-feud. They work through human agencies: Clytemnestra, Aegisthus and Orestes are all (expressly or by implication) performing the function of Erinyes, when they carry out their acts of retaliatory justice. One act of retaliation leads to another in an apparently never-ending series. The shed blood demands its revenge on every occasion. Orestes, for whose punishment no human agent is forthcoming, is pursued by the Erinyes themselves. The complex issues of the Eumenides cannot be examined here. But the play ends with the persuasion and (in some sense) transformation of the Erinyes, who nevertheless remain stern and punitive, though they cease to operate through the primitive blood-feud. The significance of this final scene resides in the manifestation of persuasion (ir£i6cb) as a mode of the divine power. Previously the justice of Zeus had seemed to be essentially a matter of fMoc (cf. Agam. i82f.). The Erinyes operated violently—and, moreover, blindly, automatically, rigidly, com- pulsively. Here there is a link with Prom. 5i6f. TIS OUV dtv&yKns ferrivoioKoarpcxpos; The answer is: Moipcci Tpinopcpoi uvriuoves T' 'Epivues. This may be an important aspect of the Furies for Aeschylus. They represent the way in which the present and the future are inexorably determined by evil in the past. Only the great antithetical power of persuasion is capable of liberating mankind from this fatal and disastrous constraint. I have suggested elsewhere2 that, not only Aeschylus in the Oresteia, but also Sophocles in the Oedipus Coloneus saw the nature and operation of Furies in some such light as this. I shall now suggest that a similar set of ideas is developed in the Electra. It will be convenient to begin with the First Stasimon (473 ff.). The structure of the ode is very simple, the thought determined in the first instance by the ominous dream of Clytemnestra as interpreted by Electra. Strophe and anti- 1 Detailed references and argument will be found in J.H.S. LXXIV, 16ff. and Gnomon xxm, 414 ff. 1 J.H.S. LXXIV, i6ff. 22 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1 strophe form a self-contained whole. The strophe says: Justice (AIKCC) will come, and the antistrophe says: the Erinys will come (475 f., 489ff.)- The shift from Afoot to 'Epivus is mediated by the reference to the dead Agamemnon, who does not forget 2 (482 f.). That the 'Epiwis is qualified as TTOAUTTOUS KCCI iroAOxeip is a reminder that she will work through a plurality of human agents. Justice, carried out by a Fury or Furies. It is the Erinys that suggests the theme of the epode (5O4ff.). It is charac- teristic of Fury-justice that it tends to involve a succession of irovoi (505, 515): the descendants of Pelops were Fury-haunted since the curse of Myrtilus. One reason why Sophocles took the story back to Pelops was doubtless that it made the succession longer. oO Ti mo iAnrev (513^) suggests the question: will it stop now? This chorus, about Furies and their justice, is preceded (466 f.) by Chrysothemis saying that T6 SIKOCIOV is not a subject for dispute and followed by a wrangle between Electra and Clytemnestra as to where justice lies. The wrangle has a strong rhetorical flavour. Clytemnestra argues that she killed Agamemnon justly (528), because he had killed Iphigenia. In rebuttal, Electra sets out (554^) to reconcile the cases of Iphigenia and Agamemnon. We need not deny all sincerity to Clytemnestra's plea, but her tone is vulgar and forfeits sympathy. Neither is Electra's argumentation altogether satisfactory. In particular, she uses two arguments without perceiving their implications. (She is hoping for the return of Orestes to kill Clytemnestra: 603ff. is quite specific) (i) 558ff. TTcrrfpoc 9^5 KTETVOCI. ii% av | TOOTOU A6yos y&otT* &v odaylosv In, | err* oOv SiKotfcos SITE \yf\; On 558 Jebb writes: 'The sense of iraTepcc is relative to the speaker, and not (as would be more natural) to the subject of 911s.' Sophocles may have used this unusual turn to suggest what must in any case leap to the mind: uTyrepcc jcreTvoa. Justly or not, will that be an honourable thing to avow? (ii) 5776^ Granted the worst interpretation of Agamemnon's behaviour, was it right that he should die at Clytemnestra's hand? irofcp vopicp; | opoc TiQeiaot TOVSE T6V vouov PpoTois I uf| -rrfiua CTOCUTTJ KCCI UET&yvoiccv Ti0r|S. | el yap KTEVOUUEV SAAOV OCVT' SAAOV, au TOI | Trpcinri Oavois civ, d SIKTIS ye -n/yx&vois. The question (rroicp vduco;) is easily answered. By the law of retaliation; the law of Cho. 4ooff.;3 the law which the Furies administer, on which Electra and Orestes intend to act, and under which (if Electra is right) they will themselves be liable to retaliation. By making Electra use arguments to which she is not entitled, Sophocles keeps alive the theme of the Furies with which the preceding chorus dealt. But this is far from being the sole relevance of the Furies to this debate. In Clytemnestra's speech 528—51 form a self-contained whole (her argument about justice).