¹ Apollo and institutions with which he is associated are alluded to throughout the play, including vv. 6, 32 ff., 49, 82, 634 ft, 682, 1264, 1376 ff., 1424 f..

² The only study specifically devoted to it is Case, J. ‘Apollo and the Erinyes in the Electro of Sophocles’, CR 16(1902), 195–200.Google ScholarElliger, W. ‘Sophokles und Apollon’, in Synusia. Festgabe für W. Schadewaldt, edd. von Flashar, H. and Gaiser, K. (Pfüllingen 1965), 79–109,Google Scholar has some interesting discussion but omits entirely consideration of El. She recognizes how fundamental Apollo is for Sophoklean tragedy (105).

³ Abbott, E. ‘The Theology and Ethics of Sophocles’, in Hellenica, ed. Abbott, E. (New York 1971 [orig. pub. 1880]), 33.Google Scholar

⁴ See Case (above, n. 2), 197: ‘Apollo’s influence underlies the play and, as in Aeschylus, his part is justified’. She believes that Sophokles goes further than Aischylos and Euripides:‘… with him there is no admission of any counter claim.’ The justification of Apollo‘… is in Sophocles tacitly assumed’. This is pretty much R.C. Jebb’s view in his edition of the play (Cambridge 1894).

⁵ Sheppard, J.T. ‘The Tragedy of Electra according to Sophocles’, CQ 12 (1918), 80–8;CrossRefGoogle Scholar id., ‘Electra, A Defence of Sophocles’, CR 41 (1927), 2–9; id., ‘Electra Again’, ibid., 163–5; Kells, J.H.Sophocles: Electra (Cambridge 1973).Google ScholarCf. Johansen, H.F. ‘Die Electra des Sophokles’, CI. & Med. 25 (1964), 8–32.Google Scholar

⁶ ‘Zur Elektra des Sophokles’, Hermes 106 (1978), 284–300, at 293. Cf. Opstelten, J.C.Sophocles and Greek Pessimism (Amsterdam 1952), 57 and n. I.Google ScholarPace Gellie, G.H.Sophocles: A Reading (Melbourne 1972).Google Scholar While he recognizes that Elektra is the central figure in the play ( 106,129), yet ‘the play remains a play about matricide’ (106). Erbse believes that since the play is set in the heroic period and not in Sophokles’ own day, the playwright is not condoning the revenge and certainly not the matricide. Sophokles has simply accepted such elements in the saga because it allows him to develop his portrayal of Elektra and to praise her unshakeable loyalty (293). But this is a dubious argument designed to save Sophokles’ reputation as a pious man. To say that he placed the action of his plays in the past so he is not seen to condone immoral actions means that we cannot say what he approved of either. And besides, it was very much the exception for a tragic playwright to draw on a contemporary situation for his plot, even if allusions to recent incidents should be eligible for incorporation.

⁷ On the centrality of the matricide in Aesch. Cho. and Eur. El. in contrast to Sophokles’ treatment, see Diller, H. ‘Göttliches und menschliches Wissen bei Sophokles’, in Gottheit und Mensch in der Tragödie des Sophokles (Darmstadt 1963), 1–4.Google Scholar As in O.T., the protagonist in El. thoroughly dominates the action both by the size of her speaking role and in the amount of time she is on stage. Elektra’s part is over two-fifths of all the verses spoken (661 out of 1510), and is more than four times the size of the next largest role (Orestes, with 162). Though Oidipous is in the limelight for so much of the duration of O.T., yet Elektra is present for an even greater period. Once she makes her entry at 86 she remains on stage until the very end of the play except for the very brief third stasimon of fourteen lines (1384 ff.). Thus she is absent from the stage for only one hundred verses of the entire drama.

⁸ E.g. Opstelten (above, n. 6), 55; Elliger (above, n. 2), 105 believes that in Phil. and El. ‘the divine is pushed to the periphery of the action’. To von Fritz, K. Apollo in this play is ’ganz unwesentlich’ (Antike und Moderne Tragödie [Berlin 1962], 139).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Cf. Lesley, A. ‘Sophokles und das Humane’, in Gottheit und Mensch … (above, n. 7), 74.Google Scholar The absence of a character from the stage for lengthy periods does not make him of no account and certainly does not mean he will be forgotten by audience or other characters if the playwright devises it so. This is certainly true of Orestes in this play, who is absent for a thousand verses after his prologos entry until he returns as the disguised urn-bearer. Surely in Ajax we are not intended to forget Athene as soon as the prologos is over. And in Trach. Herakles is continually being talked about and so we are not unaware of him although he does not appear on stage until three-quarters of the drama has been played through. The same may be said of a character who never actually appears on stage: if he is talked about enough he will be in our minds and our attention will be drawn to consider that individual’s function for the play. This applies not only to various deities in Soph, (e.g. Apollo in El. and in O.T.), but also to such people as the dead Agamemnon in El. There is a ‘presence–, an impact that such individuals have on what is occurring on stage.

⁹ Adams, S.M.Sophocles the Playwright (Toronto 1957; repr. 1967), 58–9.Google Scholar

¹⁰ The visit to his father’s tomb to make offerings there is something else that Orestes does at the god’s behest (ώς έφίετ,ο, 51).

¹¹ CR 41 (1927), 4 (above, n. 5).

¹² Adams, S.M. ‘The Sophoclean Orestes’, CR 47 (1933), 209 n. 1.Google Scholar

¹³ Cf. Stevens, P.T. ‘Sophocles: Electra, Doom or Triumph?’, G & R 25 (1978), 113.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Sandbach, F.H. ‘Sophocles, Electra 77–85’, PCPS 203 (1977), 71–3,Google Scholar suggests that 80–5 should be reallocated, 80–1 forming a continuation of the Paidagogos’ words at 78–9, and 82–5 being spoken by Orestes. I am unable to detect in Sophokles’ delineation of the old attendant the ‘sinister’ figure which Kells perceives (Commentary, 210). While he undoubtedly urges Orestes on to his task, it is a misapprehension of his role to suggest, as Kells does (ad 1343, 1344 f.), that the Paidagogos is in some way manipulating his impressionable young charge. We should not be unmindful of what would have been so obvious to Sophokles’ original audience that it did not need stressing, namely that Orestes is the kyrios of the oikos returning to regain his rightful patrimony, while the Paidagogos is his slave (note 2 3 where he is called a πρόσπολος). The latte is unique in tragedy for his three entries at widely-spaced intervals (1,660,1326). After his final exit at 1375 — i.e. before either killing takes place — he is forgotten for the rest of the drama; for this actor must shortly make his appearance as Aigisthos (1442).

¹⁵ Erbse (above, n. 6) is certainly correct to urge (292) that δίκη means more than simply the lex talionis.

¹⁶ Another example of this is the two screams from Klytaimestra as she is struck (1415 f.). They cannot be viewed as other than a conscious verbal borrowing from Aesch. Ag. 1343, 1345. Johansen’s view (above, n. 5) is persuasive (26), that the slaughter of Agamemnon is being recalled and the punishment being meted out to his wife who murdered him is being shown to be entirely appropriate. It is the operation of the lex talionis to the letter. Again, when Orestes insists on killing Aigisthos in the same place where the latter slew Agamemnon (1495 f.), he is not acting out of mere flippant whim. We may compare the last event in Herodotos’ narrative: by no means is it an arbitrarily-chosen incident which leaves his work to tail off on an anti-climactic note. For when Xanthippos has the Persian governor Artayktes killed for sacrilege, he has the execution carried out at the headland where Xerxes had yoked the Hellespont and crossed into Europe to invade Hellas (9.120.4). In some sense, then, Artayktes is being made to die in the King’s place since the Greeks did not manage to catch the latter. This notion was not uncommon at other periods in antiquity. It was a Roman juristic opinion that ‘notorious robbers (famosi latrones) should be crucified if possible at the scene of their misdeeds’ (Hengel, M.Crucifixion [London 1977], 48Google Scholar).

¹⁷ Apollo: 659; Helios: 825 f. The earliest certain equating of the two in Greek literature is Phaethon 224 f. See Diggle, J.Euripides: Phaethon (Cambridge 1970), 146–8.Google Scholar Cf. Woodard, T.M. ‘Electra by Sophocles: the Dialectical Design, II’ HSCP 70 (1965), 230 n. 52.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Cf. Minadeo, R.W. ‘Plot, Theme and Meaning in Sophocles’ Electra’, Cl. & Med. 28 (1967), 124.Google Scholar For Sophokles’ exploitation of a basically similar action to suit a very different context, see O.T. 911 ff. Jocasta prays to Apollo and her prayer is immediately ‘answered’ by the arrival of a messenger with news which, though at first allaying her fears, will in fact result in her death.

¹⁹ The dream’s import is not ambiguous, and Klytaimestra knows it (contra Letters, F.J.H.The Life and Work of Sophocles [London 1953], 250).Google Scholar But of course she cannot admit that it presages her downfall, and therefore euphemistically casts her prayer in such a way as to imply that its significance may be ambivalent (δισσών ονείρων, 645).

²⁰ The force of the unintended double meaning in Elektra’s first clause should not be missed.

²¹ Eur. Phaethon 224 f.; cf. Plato, Crat. 404 d, 405 e. See Fraenkel, E.Aeschylus: Agamemnon 3 (Oxford 1950), 492.Google Scholar For the Greeks puns on names were not mere flippant witticisms connecting two normally unrelated words or ideas; they ‘pointed to something deeply relevant’ (Dodds, E.R.Euripides: Bacchae² [Oxford 1960], 117).Google Scholar

²² Apart from Phil. no other Sophoklean play employs this verb with anything like the same frequency:Aj. (3), Ant. (2), Track. (2), O.T. (3),El. (13), Phil. (11), O.C. (2). By no means is a link with Apollo intended every time the verb is used (note for example Ant. 714, Trach. 1008). As with El., so in Phil. the majority of occurrences refer to the protagonist (311, 742, 745, 817, 923, 978, 1187, 1356). Yet, although an oracle has some importance for the story, Apollo is not in view in that drama. InEl., however, what allows us to link this word with Apollo is the prominence of his role for the play in other aspects apart from this usage.

²³ Apollo appears, then, to be rather more significant than Reinhardt, K. believed (Sophokles³ [Frankfurt-am-Main 1947] 147)Google Scholar though he is correct in suggesting (145) that Sophokles is not trying to proffer an interpretation of the story which is favourable to the god.

²⁴ The three main remaining occurrences of άπόλλυμι may receive passing comment. We should not try to push 26 too far: Orestes likens the Paidagogos to a horse which does not lose its thumos in danger. At 588 Elektra berates her mother for killing her father (έξαπώλεσας). Possibly no link with Apollo may be felt here because of the έξ- prefix. At 1137 Elektra is lamenting her brother’s death far away from his home and his sister (κακώς άπώλου). The use may be felt not inappropriate, perhaps, in that she believes Orestes died at Apollo’s games.

²⁵ Thus there is more to the play than a series of chance coincidences, as Ronnet, G. would have us believe (Sophocle, Poète tragique [Paris 1969], 325).Google Scholar To my mind Gellie (above, n. 6) includes a very balanced general discussion of the gods in Sophokles (245–60). Although he scarcely mentions El. in this chapter, he does allow that criticism of the gods may be present in certain passages of the extant seven tragedies.

²⁶ Commentary (above, n. 5), p. 220. Kells is right to say that attempts made to soften the force of what Elektra is saying are quite unconvincing. Jebb (above, n. 4) shows his discomfort at the words, but seeks to argue away their significance as ‘an isolated utterance at a moment of extreme tension’ (Intro. lii. n. 1).

²⁷ Kells, Intro. 7 f. Yet he gives too much weight to this passage for his understanding of the play as a whole.

²⁸ The most helpful recent discussion is Erbse (above, n. 6), 287 f..

²⁹ If εί is taken as conditional, the words may be said with a confident or a doubtful tone of voice. My own reading of the situation is that Orestes remains confident of the divine sanction, but uses the conditional as a pious and prudent way of referring to Apollo’s oracle: man should not be too presumptuous. I am out of sympathy with those who are unwilling to detect any ambiguity here, e.g. Jebb ad 1425; cf. Denniston, J.D.Euripides: Electra (Oxford 1939; repr. 1968), xxiv.Google Scholar But neither do I find myself in accord with those who emphasize the ambiguity, e.g. Kirkwood, G.M.A Study of Sophoclean Drama (Ithaca 1958), 241 n. 22;Google Scholar Kells (above, n. 5) ad 1424 f.; Kamerbeek, J.C.The Plays of Sophocles. V. The Electra (Leiden 1974), ad 1424 f..Google Scholar

³⁰ Protagonist: Elektra; Deuteragonist: Orestes and Klytaimestra, Tritagonist: Paidagogos, Chrysothemis and Aigisthos. No other allocation of parts is possible, assuming — as I think we must — that the same actor will retain the role of the Paidagogos throughout. Chrysothemis’ part could be added to the Deuteragonist’s load; but that would make the third actor’s job disproportionately light.

³¹ So Kitto, H.D.F.Sophocles, Dramatist and Philosopher (Oxford 1958), 28.Google Scholar It was clearly not Sophokles’ intention to deny the tradition of the continuation of the working out of the curse upon the family, and upon Orestes now in particular. But Orestes is victorious at present, and these problems are only hinted at in a general way ( 1497 f.; cf. 10, 504 ff.). For the play’s interest is not primarily focussed on him; to raise the question of his future would inevitably distract our attention from Elektra’s tragedy. It is thus a convenient point in the myth for Sophokles to round off his play. Orestes has triumphed, and the curse has been worked out to yet a further stage. That is as much as involves Elektra closely; for the next victim of the curse is to be Orestes.

³² Thus we should reject the view of Bremer, J.M.Hamartia (Amsterdam 1969), 168,Google Scholar about the role of the gods in the play. He says: ‘To be sure, the gods are mentioned in the Electra, but only incidentally as the powers which accompany and approve of Orestes’ revenge; they do not enter the sophisticated human intrigue.’

³³ Sheppard, J.T.The Wisdom of Sophocles (London 1947), 18.Google Scholar

³⁴ Lloyd-Jones, H.Intro, to the translation of Reinhardt (above, n. 23) by Harvey, H.&D. (Oxford 1979), 23.Google Scholar

³⁵ See Parke, H.W. and Wormell, D.E.W.The Delphic Oracle 1 (Oxford 1956), 188–93.Google Scholar

³⁶ For example Owen, A.S.Euripides: Ion (Oxford 1939), 21;Google Scholar Parke and Wormell, 193;Parke, H.W.Greek Oracles (London 1967), 109.Google Scholar Cf. Kells (above, n. 5), Intro. 4.

³⁷ Consistency of plot construction and character portrayal in Sophokles is not skin-deep, but has a richness of texture and thoroughness of design which we rarely appreciate to the full. It is because his plays are built upon so firm and coherent a base that cracks are very rarely noticeable in the polished exterior, which is the performance that the audience watches. Now, the playwright cannot expect the spectator to pick up every allusion and link it with others; yet those links are there and will yield themselves up to a close reading. This is not the place to pursue at length the question whether Sophokles wrote for a readership. It is a subject almost never raised seriously because it is assumed to involve an anachronistic way of looking at ancient drama. See, however, Harvey, F.D. ‘Literacy in the Athenian Democracy’, REG. 79 (1966), 585–635, esp. 585 f., and 601 ff..CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁸ Vickers, B.Towards Greek Tragedy (London 1973), 565;Google Scholar but I think Vickers has exaggerated it somewhat. Because Sophokles is not as explicit as Euripides does not constitute an argument that such sentiments are entirely absent from the former’s work. For there is no reason why Euripides should be taken as the yardstick of what constitutes explicit criticism. It would be erroneous to think that anything less overt would necessarily be missed by the audience. And certainly, Sophokles can incorporate a terrifying and destructive Apollo into a play when he chooses. In the Niobe the god helps his sister as she shoots down the cowering Niobid girls. See Barrett, W.S. in Carden, R.The Papyrus Fragments of Sophocles (Berlin 1974), 171 ff..Google Scholar