It has hitherto been generally held that the
Electra
of Sophocles belongs to an earlier date than its Euripidean
namesake. A contrary view is however maintained by v. Wilamowitz,
who further thinks that the
Electra of Euripides was
the stimulus which moved Sophocles to treat the subject
1. Certain
relations (the able critic contends) exist between the two plays
which show that one of them was influenced by the other, and a
closer scrutiny proves that the play of Euripides was the original.
I propose to examine this view.
The first resemblance to which the critic points is between
The openings of the two
plays compared. |
the openings of the two dramas. In the
Euripidean prologue Orestes appears and speaks (vv.
82—111). Then Electra sings a monody (112—166);
and she is presently joined by the Chorus (167). In the Sophoclean
prologue also Orestes appears; then there is a monody for Electra
(86—120); and she is joined by the Chorus (121). Such a
coincidence, it is argued, cannot be accidental. And there is
internal evidence that Euripides was the model. For, with him, the
appearance of Orestes at that early moment is necessary; while, with
Sophocles, there is no reason why Orestes should be seen until he is
ready to enter the house. Again, the Chorus of Euripides have a
motive for their visit; they invite Electra to a festival. But the
Sophoclean Chorus come without any special cause. Nor has Sophocles
the reason of Euripides for composing his Chorus of persons external
to the palace; indeed, it is hard to see how such persons could have
established such intimacy with Electra, who was almost a prisoner.
In reply to this argument I wish to point out, first, that the
likeness between the two openings, in the particular points just
noticed, is immeasurably less striking than the general contrast.
The play of Sophocles begins with a dialogue between the old man and
Orestes, after which they and Pylades leave the scene. Electra then
comes forth and sings her monody. Euripides opens with a speech by
the farmer, who next has a dialogue with Electra. They depart.
Orestes enters with Pylades, to whom he makes a speech. Presently he
sees a slave, as he thinks—
i.e. Electra—approaching. He and Pylades draw
aside; and Electra then sings her monody. Is it not manifest that,
so far, the openings are fundamentally different? But, it will be
said, the Parodos, at least, is, in each play, shared between
Electra and the Chorus; is not this suspicious? Even here the
contrast is stronger than the likeness. The Sophoclean Parodos is a
long ode of 129 verses, containing a discussion of Electra's wrongs
and hopes, and of the course which she ought to pursue. The
Euripidean Parodos consists of only 35 verses. The maidens briefly
invite Electra, and she declines.
It seems to me, then, that the openings of the two plays entirely
fail to support the critic's major premiss, viz., that one of them
must have been imitated from the other. But let us assume, for the
sake of argument, that such imitation could be proved. Is it true
that internal evidence points to Sophocles as the imitator? His
Orestes, we are told, has no reason for appearing at the house
before he is prepared to enter it. In defending a dramatist on such
a point, it suffices, I suppose, to show that the action is natural
and probable; we are not required to prove that it is necessary.
Orestes and his companions have just arrived, and have hidden the
urn somewhere near the house: the time is day-break. Is it strange
that they should reconnoitre the ground on which they will soon have
to act, or that the old man should point out the chief features of
the scene? As to the poet's motive, that is evident. His invention
of the double embassy from Phocis was a novelty, and he wished to
give a clue to it at the outset, since the spectator, who is thus in
the secret, will enjoy the play more. Again, it is said that
Sophocles bewrays his model when he composes his Chorus of persons
external to the house. A desire to vary from Aeschylus would account
for this as easily as a desire to copy Euripides; but why should not
the poet's motive have been independent of both? The free-born women
of Mycenae are exponents of the public goodwill towards the rightful
heir. But how, we are asked, had they become friends of Electra?
Chrysothemis and Clytaemnestra tell us, it may be answered, that
Electra frequently passed beyond the doors. Lastly, it is objected
that the Chorus come to Electra without a definite reason. Is there
not reason enough in their purpose of consoling and counselling
her,—the purpose which she gratefully acknowledges?
Thus, even if the openings of the two plays could justly be regarded
as showing a debt of either to the other, still there would be no
presumption that Sophocles was the debtor.
Relation of Electra to
Clytaemnestra. |
A further argument is, however, adduced in
support of the view which we are discussing. Both Sophocles and
Euripides bring Electra into controversy with Clytaemnestra. In the
play of Euripides, the tenor of this controversy is such as to
mitigate the odiousness of Clytaemnestra, and to emphasise the
hardness of Electra. This was what Euripides meant to do. The aim of
Sophocles was the opposite, to concentrate our sympathy upon
Electra. But, says Prof. v. Wilamowitz, Sophocles has involuntarily
given the advantage in dignity and self-command to Clytaemnestra;
and this shows that he has (unskilfully) imitated Euripides. Is it
true that the Clytaemnestra of Sophocles appears to more advantage
than his Electra? Every reader must judge for himself; I should not
have said so, nor, indeed, do I find it easy to understand how any
one could receive that impression. But, even if this were granted,
the inference of an imitation would still be unwarranted, since the
controversies in the two plays respectively differ both in topics
and in style.
Finally, let us consider the more general ground upon which
Argument from general
probability. |
it is argued that Sophocles was stimulated
to write his
Electra by the work of Euripides. The
Euripidean
Electra is certainly a play which
Sophocles would have viewed with repugnance. He would have thought
that both the divine and the human persons were degraded. The
earlier scenes, with their homely realism, approximate, in fact, to
the stamp of the Middle Comedy. The whole treatment is a negation of
that ideal art to which Sophocles had devoted his life. It is
perfectly conceivable that such a piece should have roused him to
make a protest,—to show how the theme could once more be
nobly treated, as Aeschylus long ago had treated it, and yet without
raising the moral and religious problem of the
Choephori. But is such a hypothesis
more
probable than the converse? Suppose that the Sophoclean
Electra was the earlier of the two. Is it not
equally conceivable that Euripides should have been stirred to
protest against the calm condonation of matricide? Might he not have
wished to show how the subject could be handled without ignoring, as
Sophocles does, this aspect of the vengeance, and also without
refraining from criticism on the solution propounded by Aeschylus?
This, in my belief, is what Euripides actually did wish to do. But
assume for a moment that the other theory is right, and that the
Euripidean
Electra was the earlier. Then, surely,
when Euripides had just been renewing the impression left by
Aeschylus,—that matricide, though enjoined by a god,
brings a fearful stain,—Sophocles would have chosen a
peculiarly unfortunate moment for inviting Athenians to admire the
unruffled equanimity of his Orestes.
I
cannot, then, see any valid reason for supposing that Euripides
preceded Sophocles in treating this subject. On the other hand, the
new line taken by Euripides is the more intelligible if he had
before him the pieces of both the elder dramatists
2.
The
Electra of Sophocles is one of his later
plays. |
