Contents
1 / List of illustrations / Page 32 / Introduction / Page 4
3 / Women in Greek Tragedy / Page 6
4 / The Electra of Aeschylus / Page 16
5 / The Electra of Sophocles / Page 23
6 / The Electra of Euripides / Page 35
7 / Conclusion / Page 46
8 / Bibliography / Page 48
List of Illustrations
Figure 1
/ Paestan amphora by the Painter pf the Boston Orestes. Orestes and his companion Pylades meet his sister Electra at the tomb of their father Agamemnon. Furies with snakes await the outcome in the upper corners.[1]Figure 2 / Lekythos attributed to the Villa Giulia Painter, and depicting a seated woman. Made in Athens about 460 B.C.[2]
Figure 3 / Orestes killing my Clytemenestra
Figure 4 / Pelike by the Berlin Painter (?). Death of Aegisthus[3]
Figure 5 / Calyx crater by the Dokimasia Painter. Death of Agamemnon.[4]
Figure 6 / Cup by the Byrgos Painter, Clytemnestra.[5]
Introduction
Greek tragedy although written in Athens in the fifth century still has an extraordinarily wide influence and cultural prestige over Western culture today. Many surviving plays are still part of the theatrical repertoire. My interest in Greek tragedy is of the female and the importance that she held on the stage. There is only one myth, which is dealt with by the three great tragedians. This is the myth of the house of Atreus. This dissertation aims to investigate the female in Greek tragedy, with particular reference to the portrayal of the character of Electra by Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. I hope to provide an insight into the character of Electra in each tragedy and her role within the play. I have chosen to study Aeschylus’ Choephori, Sophocles’ Electra and Euripides’ Electra.
Tragedy has had a profound effect over literature of the past ages. The impact of these plays has been felt strongly in the twentieth century; the myth of the house of Atreus holds problematic questions even in the present day. We can see elements of these myths in Eugene O’Neill’s Mourning Becomes Electra (1931), T.S. Eliot’s The Family Reunion (1939), and Jean Paul Sarte’s Les Mouches (The Flies 1943.) This dissertation aims to discover what the female in Greek tragedy could offer to the audience. I aim to show how one myth could be interpreted to form three individual versions, and how this was done by the playwrights skill as a presenter of visual effects and how he interpreted different aspects of the myth.
The dissertation is divided into four sections. The first chapter is an introduction to the subject of women in Greek Tragedy. The second chapter introduces us to our first picture of Electra by Aeschylus. The third chapter deals with the character of Electra as elevated by Sophocles to show us a true tragic heroine. In the final chapter we see Euripides brilliant psychological study of Electra. I have decided to deal with the plays in this order, because I like to read the order of the plays as being Sophocles’ Electra before Euripides’. My reasoning behind my decision is that I feel that the character of Electra becomes the most involved in the killing of her mother, when she reaches her portrayal by Euripides. Therefore, the exploration of her character should end our discussions.
Women in Greek tragedy
“There is, in fact, no literature no art of any country in which women are more prominent, more important, more carefully studied and with more interest than in the tragedy, sculpture, and painting of fifth-century Athens.” Gomme. [6]
Fig 2.
Women appear prominently in ancient Greek Drama. Tragedy featured many of the most famous heroines of the Greek tradition in leading roles, and interest in women dominates much of old and new comedy. However, the dramatic conventions of the dramatic stage marked a distinction from ordinary social life. The dramatic stage was a realm of imagination, in which the dramatists could explore the ambiguities, tensions, and contradictions of the present-day polis and its ideals within the mythological plot of their play. In these plays, social, political, and religious issues were played out in family dramas, and tragic polarities.
Greek tragedy was written by men, performed by men and performed to men (by this, I mean predominantly to a male audience, as the other part of the audience would have been a small proportion that were not male citizens; such as slaves, metics, foreigners and maybe women), however, it seems that the male conflicts and issues were performed through these women.[7] Tragedy gives people the chance to imagine a world where the norms of everyday life are challenged. Tragedy did not reflect contemporary life; it reflected an imaginary world, one in which the powerful aristocrat played an important part. In this imaginary world the norms of society were distorted and inverted. This is why in tragedy women are portrayed in such a different way from what one sees in historical evidence. In fifth century Athens, women would have limited independence as they were seen as socially inferior to men. Tragedy turns this idea upside, and this is when the cultural norms are challenged. The women who deviate from this typical image are so powerful that they completely challenge the cultural norms within society. The disruptive female is something that would have caused the Athenian male citizens much anxiety. There are some female characters which do not violate these boundaries that are imposed upon women. However, those that are in the forefront of the action usually speak out in public and for their own benefit. These are the women that are the most interesting to the audience and the reader of Greek tragedy.
Helene Foley believes that women in these tragic plays are taking on two roles. Their first role is that they embody the female position in either domestic life within the family or within the city. These roles then offer themselves to explore the problematic issues that men wish to address indirectly, but not through the male character[8].
Greek Tragedy has held much importance into the exploration of women’s lives in fifth century Athens. Scholars such as A.W. Gomme and his followers relied primarily on evidence from Classical tragedy, and they believed that the heroines were modelled on fifth century Athenian women. From this they believed that women were well respected and had much independence and freedom. There are other scholars such as W.K. Lacey who reject this theory entirely and do not believe these heroines represent the norm. However, there are some scholars who seem to hold both views on a certain level such as Victor Ehrenberg who believed that Euripides’ presentation of women was a true picture of women in classical Athens rather than Sophocles’ and Aeschylus’ presentations.[9]
Before one can start to look at how these tragic heroines were portrayed on stage, one needs to look at what the status of Athenian women in Athens was at the time when these plays were being performed. A strong compulsion of women in fifth century Athens was the obligations to both family and state. Women were seen as a tool for the purpose of reproduction: to bear a legitimate son the Athenian male citizen needed to have a wife. It was the duty of citizen women to their polis to produce legitimate heirs for the oikoi. Pericles’ funeral oration that was delivered one year after the Peloponnesian War encouraged women to bear more children as there was a shortage of males due to the war. Pericles said that, “Those of you who are still of an age to have children must be stout-hearted in the hope of having other sons: for you as individuals, the new children will help you forget those who are more; and for the city there will be a double benefit, deliverance from shortage of men, and a source of safety, since men who do not contribute children and so run the same risks as the others cannot be fair or just in their deliberations.”[10] This speech shows the importance of women to the state of Athens and their duty that they owed to the oikoi.
An interesting discussion of a woman’s role can be found in Xenophon’s dialogues, which feature Socrates and Ischomachus discussing household management. “It is important then, when the provisions are brought into the home, for someone to keep them safe and do the work of the household. A home is required for the rearing of infant children, and a home is required for making food out of the harvest. Similarly, a home is required for the making of clothing from wool.”[11] These were some of the activities that Athenian women had full involvement in; it was seen as the duty of a woman to stick to the role that was described. Women were excluded from the political life of their city. This meant that they were not allowed to attend assemblies, or serve on juries.[12] The education of women was very limited, and due to this they would not have even have been capable of playing an active role in the political life of their city. For a male citizen to have a legitimate heir, he needed a citizen wife. But this is somewhat a contradiction in terms, as women were not registered at birth as citizens. The women of fifth century Athens were excluded from political life; however, they were deeply involved in the religious aspects of city life. Women were priestesses of many important cults, and female religious involvement was imperative to the city.[13] Greek tragedy focuses on the female life in the oikos and their daily involvement in religious activities.
From historical sources, such as Xenophon’s Oeconomicus, we tend to have evidence that concerns the women that were considered respectable by Athenian society; these were the upper and middle class women. This class of women spent their time indoors it seems with other women and their main activities consisted of household affairs. Women tended to only come out of the house for events such as religious festivals; even menial tasks such as the fetching of food and water would have been carried out by household slaves.
Their role in the oikos was one of their most important functions. These were the roles that women were known for (reproduction and the oikos); therefore, these roles are easily targeted to be used in tragedies. After all they are real situations but with a difference. The female shown here has her own characteristics such as independence that was not normally allowed. The independence that these women were given is often shown later on in the play to be a mistake and the cause of their downfall.
Women were always under the supervision of their kurios, so the kurios played an important role in all of their decisions. This rule does not tend to apply to many tragic females; they often make decisions without the supervision of a guardian, and repeatedly go against male authority.[14] This is seen as disobedience of the cultural norm, however many of these acts of disobedience are concerned with domestic rather than public life, of course there are many that are not.
Images that we are given of women’s personal characteristics were that they were silent and secluded. Sarah Pomeroy discusses this point, and then asks, “Then how are we to account for the forceful heroines of tragedy and comedy?”[15] A good example for this silence and seclusion that women had to suffer is found in the character of Andromache in Euripides’ Trojan Women. “I aimed at a fine reputation and got more than my share of good fortune. For everything that has been found proper for a woman I did in Hector’s house. First, here-whether women deserve to be blamed for it or not-since for what causes women a bad reputation is not remaining inside, I put aside my desire (for going out), and remained within the house. I did not bring women’s bragging talk into the house, and since I had my intelligence as a good teacher I was self-sufficient. I offered my husband a silent tongue and a calm appearance.”[16] One now has to ask the question, what made the great tragedians of Athens portray women as forceful, strong, domineering and intelligent women?
There has been much deliberation over the relationship between contemporary women and dramatic female characters. Some scholars believed that the dramatist had to portray strong characters and he took his characters from the mythological past, these were already known to him and had been given a prominent role by mythology. There is a view held by some scholars that he chose to portray a female character as they were a more dramatically effective device. [17] Another theory is that he chose to portray strong women known to him by acquaintance.
Psychoanalysis has been used to try and ascertain why the dramatist chose to depict strong heroines. Philip Slater uses this to analyse the experience of young boys in classical Athens. He believed that a young Athenian boy spent his early years in the company of his mother and female slaves. His father was not one of the main figures in his life, as he was often away. His mother was very hostile to the fact that his father was away from the house each day so, therefore she would either transfer her anger of the disappearance of her husband to her son, or she would give the attention that she would have given to her husband, to her son. Therefore, the boy would see his mother as an emotionally charged figure. This figure then transcended into the dominant female figures that were presented in their plays. The dramatist chose the myths from the Bronze Age as they were the most interesting and he then could exercise the conflicts that he has seen within his mother’s personality and his own.[18] There are problems with this theory. There is evidence that the fathers were distant from their children. However in new comedy we actually see a close relationship between fathers and children so this is contradictory. It could be said that the modern idea of the ‘commuting father’ has influenced Slater’s views of antiquity. These opinions cannot help us in our picture of the Athenian wife, but it does give us a plausible insight into the playwright’s mind.