Comic and Tragic License in Euripides' "Orestes"

Author(s): Francis M. Dunn

Source: Classical Antiquity , Oct., 1989, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Oct., 1989), pp. 238-251
Published by: University of California Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25010907

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25010907?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Classical Antiquity

This content downloaded from

185.253.161.67 on Thu, 22 Sep 2022 21:08:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FRANCIS M. DUNN

Comic and Tragic License

in Euripides' Orestes

It all comes to the same thing anyway; comic and tragic are merely two aspects of
the same situation, and I have now reached the stage where I find it hard to
distinguish one from the other.
Eugene Ionesco

EURIPIDES' Orestes is well known for its disconcerting variations and contra
dictions, as summarized in Arrowsmith's introduction: "Tragic in tone, melodra
matic in incident and technique, by sudden wrenching turns savage, tender,
grotesque, and even comic... the Orestes has long been an unpopular and
neglected play."' What is the reason for these bewildering shifts? What, if any, is
the method to this madness? It is not enough to observe that such variety makes
an exciting spectacle, and it is only a partial answer to note that the play's
confusion mirrors the situation in Athens in 408 B.c.2 I shall argue instead that
there is a consistent dramatic purpose to the contradictions in Orestes, a purpose

1. W. Arrowsmith, "Introduction to Orestes," in Euripides IV, ed. Grene and Lattimore (Chi
cago, 1958), 106; cf. C. W. Willink, ed., Euripides' Orestes (Oxford, 1986) xxii. For a partial list of
scholarship on Orestes, see Willink, xi-xviii. I follow Murray's text (Oxford, 1913), except where
noted.
2. On spectacular effects in Orestes, see esp. W. G. Arnott, "Tension, Frustration, and Sur
prise: A Study of Theatrical Techniques in Some Scenes of Euripides' Orestes," Antichthon 17 (1983)
13-28. On reflection of events in Athens, see esp. W. Burkert, "Die Absurditat der Gewalt und das
Ende der Tragodie: Euripides' Orestes," A&A 20 (1974) 97-109; and 0. Longo, "Proposte di lettura
per l'Oreste di Euripide," Maia 27 (1975) 265-87. Less convincing is the thesis that the confusion
conceals a dialectical argument about justice, in C. Eucken, "Das Rechtsproblem im euripideischen
Orest," MH 43 (1986) 155-68.

? 1989 BY THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

This content downloaded from

185.253.161.67 on Thu, 22 Sep 2022 21:08:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
DUNN: Comic and Tragic License in Euripides' Orestes 239

that can best be discerned in the tension between silence and speech, and in the
accompanying confusion of the tragic with the comic. This paper will present two
distinct but related arguments. First, the events in the play follow a course of
increasing license, from silence to unbridled speech and to the brink of criminal
action; second, these related forms of license involve a mixture of tragic and
comic tone, a mixture that is completely blurred in the finale of the play. I shall
explain more fully how these arguments are related, before tracing their develop
ment in the course of the drama.
The tension between silence and speech involves, on the one hand, an inabil
ity to speak suggesting helplessness and inhibition and, on the other hand, an
unbridled or reckless speech suggesting power and freedom from inhibition. As
Orestes and Electra move from silence to unbridled speech they not only acquire
power but also overcome inhibitions and violate tabu. Their words and actions
will therefore seem either tragic or comic depending upon the consequences:
license checked or punished represents the hybris leading to catastrophe so
common in tragedy, while license unchecked and unpunished represents the
audacity and the immunity from consequences typical of comedy. The action of
Orestes is fairly simple: from silence and helplessness to unbridled speech and
(almost) to reckless deeds, the three companions follow a course of ever
increasing license; the two extremes are the silence of Orestes for the first 210
lines of the play, and his arrogant threats to Menelaus in the finale. The conse
quences of this action, however, are ambiguous. In the first half of the play,
Orestes speaks out with impunity but always in fear of the outcome, creating an
uneasy mixture of comic and tragic tone. In the second half the consequences are
uncertain, as the license becomes so great that the audience is unable to foresee
either success or failure for the conspirators, and unable to distinguish the comic
from the tragic.
In this tragicomic plot of increasing license, speech is prominent for several
reasons. The first is dramatic: speech may take the place of actions that are tabu
upon the stage. In portraying blasphemy, for example, the tragedian cannot
depict violence to an altar or a priest, but he can show Oedipus verbally threaten
ing and insulting Teiresias. Orestes, however, threatens to overstep these
bounds. The plot to cut Hermione's neck and burn down the palace is almost
enacted before our eyes; by portraying unbridled speech that almost overturns
the prohibitions of the theater, Euripides suggests a degree of license that threat
ens to overturn the prohibitions of society. Other reasons reflect the significance
of speech in Athenian society. Religious ritual frequently enjoined holy silence
with a command, e(tciuCLiTE, that forbade tabu or inauspicious speech; unbridled
speech may therefore be not only rude but blasphemous (as in the case of
Tantalus). The new field of rhetoric also drew attention to the persuasive power
of speech, and to the moral relativism of words. Logical and persuasive argu
ments could be used to support a reprehensible position, employing speech in a
socially unacceptable manner (as Orestes does). Finally, freedom of speech or

This content downloaded from

185.253.161.67 on Thu, 22 Sep 2022 21:08:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
240 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume 8/No. 2/October 1989

jraQgqoia was a prerogative of the democratic assembly in which Athenians

took great pride,3 but it also gave free reign to the violent upheaval of this
period. Orestes is the first work to portray this freedom of speech as a negative
and dangerous license (as in the &tanigS naQQKoia of the demagogue, 905).4
Silence is mentioned more often in Orestes than in any other surviving play
of Euripides,5 while uninhibited speech is also a prominent theme. The move
ment from silence to unbridled speech represents ever-increasing license, with
connotations of blasphemy, moral duplicity, and political turmoil. But such li
cense also suggests the comic hero, whose verbal license includes both indecent
language and ridicule of political figures and religious institutions, and whose
license in action is exemplified by Peisetairos's overthrow of the gods.6 By the
end of the play, comic and tragic can no longer be distinguished, giving Orestes
the disconcerting qualities we associate with tragicomedy.7

The play begins with a speech by Electra, recounting the past misfortunes of
her family and describing the present situation. She begins uncertainly (d6' eie~liv
EiJog, 1; ; Xe?youol, 5,8; 6 xkELv6g, ei 6b xEtVO;g, 17), and as she fills in the
unpleasant details, she repeatedly hesitates between speech and silence. She is
reluctant to speak of Atreus's rivalry with Thyestes (Ti TagQiq' avaRexTQfloaoa0a
te 6iL; 14), yet briefly mentions the unspeakable deed (15), and passes over the
other details in silence (rg; yat e'v tEOO) oLyX) TVXag, 16). She likewise alludes to
her mother's adultery without actually mentioning it ()v 6' iexTLt, JaQ0LEvq X.eyEtv
/ o06 xcXkov, 26f.), and hesitates before accusing Apollo of injustice (28f.). Finally,
her fear of naming her brother's tormentors is not enough to prevent her from
doing so (6votaideiv ya? al6oi)[taL Oeag / E'evC6a(g;, 37f.).8 The first half of
Electra's prologue speech, in which she describes her family history (1-38), is thus
marked by her uncertain reluctance to speak of this past.9 The second half of her
speech (39-70) describes the situation at the beginning of the play, in which the

3. Cf. Hipp. 422, Ion 672, 675, Pho. 391; discussion in R. J. Bonner, "Freedom of Speech," in
Aspects of Athenian Democracy (Berkeley, 1933) 67-85; and A. H. M. Jones, Athenian Democracy
(Oxford, 1957), 44. An earlier reference has passed unnoticed: Aesch. Persae 591-94.
4. Plato, Isocrates, and other fourth-century critics of democracy regarded apot(@lia as a
liability: see Bonner (previous note). In an earlier age, free speech was not called ;TaQro(ia, and was
not approved (e.g., Thersites in the Iliad).
5. There are nineteen occurrences of oiyI, oty6o, and o(tyc (to those given in Allen and Italie,
A Concordance to Euripides [Berkeley, 19541 add otra, 182), and twenty-two including otwOt/I and
oLTo(jiao. Words for noise also occur with unusual frequency in Or. (e.g., nine occurrences of xT-1jrT
and XTUJTO)).
6. Cf. C. H. Whitman, Aristophanes and the Comic Hero (Cambridge, Mass., 1964), 21-26.
7. The only other discussion of Or. as tragicomedy is H. E. Barnes, "Greek Tragicomedy," C(
60 (1964) 130. Barnes defines a tragicomedy as any drama containing one or more of three specific
elements (p. 128).
8. For EvUtRvibag of the mss. Murray prints Elue?vLi6tc.
9. Some editors find her hesitations too illogical. Thus Klinkenberg deletes 12-15 and Nauck
deletes 38, followed by di Benedetto (del. 15, 38) and Willink (del. 15; obel. 38).

This content downloaded from

185.253.161.67 on Thu, 22 Sep 2022 21:08:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
DUNN: Comic and Tragic License in Euripides' Orestes 241

characters are trapped in silence. As matricides, brother and sister are barred
from speaking to anyone in Argos (46-48; compare 428, 430), and this legal
restraint has a counterpart in the silence that madness imposes upon Orestes: he
sleeps wrapped in a cloak, and wakes only to run or weep (42-45).
The verbal impasse that Electra describes is dramatized by the opening
scene as a whole. The hero lies in a prominent position onstage and remains
there in silence for 210 lines: the prologue speaker was reluctant to speak, and
the protagonist cannot speak at all."' After an intervening scene with Helen (see
below), what follows is even more surprising. The chorus, as it enters, is silenced
by Electra, and is prevented from singing its parodos: O (qikXaTa yuvaLxes,
ovx U(p njio6l / XWcoi)Q , ALI VpoC?LTE, [Ti6' EAOT0 xTfrrog (136f.)." What follows
instead is a lyric exchange conducted partly in stage whispers as Electra repeat
edly urges silence. The verbal impasse with which the play began is almost made
complete with the silencing of the chorus, but now Orestes is awoken (211) and a
new stage of the drama begins. At first it is only noise, mad speech that reflects
Orestes' lack of control over himself and his situation; but later he will begin to
speak and to act more effectively.
Thus far, silence represents the political powerlessness of the two matricides,
as well as the emotional weakness of Electra and the physical weakness of her
brother, and their situation is dramatized by the verbal impasse that almost
brings the drama to a halt. In the middle of this scene, the outrageously tactless
Helen provides an amusing foil to the silence of Electra and Orestes. She cheer
fully asks how the old maid and the murderer are doing (71-74), and asks
Electra to make offerings to Clytemnestra in her place (94-96). Electra tactfully
suggests that Helen send Hermione instead, and only vents her anger once Helen
has gone (126-31). Helen has no reservations about speaking, and her freedom
of speech is amusing because she gets away with it: she remains naively oblivious
while Electra seethes in silence.
The darker side of free speech is suggested by the story of Tantalus. At the
beginning of the play Electra laments human suffering (1-3), and gives the
example of her ancestor Tantalus, who was punished because, in the company of
the gods, he kept an unbridled tongue (&x6XctaTov Eoxee ykooav, aioXioTqv
vooov, 10). This example should be a warning to Electra and Orestes, who are
trapped in silence and will soon attempt to speak out. The warning is especially
relevant because the crime of unbridled speech is placed at the beginning of the
sequence of crimes that destroyed the house of Atreus. Electra and Orestes are
therefore at an impasse: trapped in silence, they face almost certain death; yet if

10. Cf. Grube on the visual impasse: "[Orestes,] as it were, both is and yet is not before us; all
we see is a shapeless heap of blankets": G. M. A. Grube, The Drama of Euripides (London, 1941)
375.
11. On the amusing innovation, cf. H. D. F. Kitto, Greek Tragedy (London, 1961) 348; and R.
P. Winnington-Ingram, "Euripides: Poietes Sophos," Arethusa 2 (1969) 131. Murray and di Bene
detto delete 136-39, following Wilamowitz.

This content downloaded from

185.253.161.67 on Thu, 22 Sep 2022 21:08:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
242 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume 8/No. 2/October 1989

they speak out they risk repeating the ancestral crime that has destroyed their
family. The cycle of licentious speech, like the cycle of hybris in Oresteia, threat
ens to continue indefinitely.
Euripides modifies the legendary material in two ways, both of which intro
duce the theme of free speech. He is the first author to describe Tantalus's crime
as free speaking (7-10),2 and twice states that Tantalus (rather than Pelops) is
the source of the family curse (7-10, 984-87); he reinforces this new version of
the myth by naming Tantalus more often in Orestes than in any other play (5,
347, 351, 813, 985, 1544). His second innovation is to associate fear of the
Eumenides not with their appearance, but with their name (37f., 408-10; con
trast bieva 6' 6o00aXktolg 6QaxcLv, Aesch. Eum. 34, and the simile of a painting,
50ff.); paradoxically, Orestes introduces this tabu only to break it repeatedly (38,
321, 836, 1650)-a license especially striking since the name otherwise appears
only twice in Greek tragedy (Soph. OC 42, 486).'3 Euripides' introduction of
criminal and tabu speech into the legend of Orestes is reinforced by mention of
Tantalus and the Eumenides throughout the play, as in the ode that follows this
scene (the Eumenides' vengeance against Orestes, 321, and the suffering of the
house of Tantalus, 347).

The prologue portrays the helplessness and speechlessness of Orestes and

Electra, and introduces the theme of criminal free speech; the following episode
portrays Orestes' attempt to escape from this situation. To do so, he must enlist
the support of Menelaus and counter the opposition of Tyndareus. Although
frustrated by the ambivalent Menelaus, and reduced to silence by the authority
of Tyndareus, he eventually succeeds in speaking freely-perhaps too freely.
Menelaus enters first, and although Electra and Orestes have placed their
hopes in him (241-46, 382-84), he shows little interest in their case; when
Orestes persists, he stalls with more and more questions (419-45) until rescued
by the arrival of Tyndareus. The father of Clytemnestra almost reduces Orestes
to silence. The young man is overcome by shame (459-61), and after his grandfa
ther's long and bitter speech (491-541), Orestes wrestles with his inability to
speak: do yEQov, iy(c TOtl JQo oE 6 E[tCaiv X?Y?Lv, 544; &aEXO'Tow 61 Tooli

12. On Euripides' original version, see RE s.v. "Tantalos"; on possible allusions to the teach
ings of Anaxagoras and Prodicus, see R. Scodel, "Tantalus and Anaxagoras," HSCP 88 (1984) 13
24; and C. W. Willink, "Prodikos, 'Meteorosophists' and the 'Tantalos' Paradigm," CQ n.s., 33
(1983) 25-33. O'Brien argues that the manner of Tantalus's punishment (fear of being crushed by a
rock) is reflected in Orestes' role as a criminal awaiting punishment: M. J. O'Brien, "Tantalus in
Euripides' Orestes," RhM 131 (1988) 30-45. However, he does not discuss the crime of Tantalus and
his responsibility for the family curse; nor does he note Euripides' innovation in describing the crime
as free speaking.
13. Hyp. Eum. may imply its mention in that play, but see A. L. Brown, "Eumenides in Greek
Tragedy," CQ, n.s., 34 (1984) 267-76. Mention of Tantalus and the Eumenides recurs primarily in
the lyric passages; on myth in the odes, cf. C. Fuqua, "The World of Myth in Euripides' Orestes,"
Traditio 34 (1978) 1-28.

This content downloaded from

185.253.161.67 on Thu, 22 Sep 2022 21:08:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
DUNN: Comic and Tragic License in Euripides' Orestes 243

kXyolotv EXJ0o6b)v / IT yiQatg Slaiv To o6v, o A' FXJTi1aOOceL o6you, 548f.;

EtctuTo6v, fyv ykyw I/ xaxCxg xEL?vriv, E?EQ@. Kw 5' 6' COw, 559f. When Orestes
finally finds the courage to speak, he seems to lose all shame. He begins with
parody of Aeschylus, mimicking Apollo's argument that only the father is a true
parent (551-56; cf. Eum. 657-61 and Schol. Or. 554), and lampooning the scene
in which Clytemnestra bares her breast (566-70; cf. Cho. 896-98).14 He then
turns against Tyndareus, blaming his grandfather for the deaths of Agamemnon
and Clytemnestra and for his own misfortune (585-87). Finally, he attacks
Apollo, challenging Tyndareus to kill the god, since it is he who has sinned
(595f.). Orestes knows no half measures; at once he goes from helpless silence to
completely unbridled speech. Tyndareus responds by trying to reimpose silence;
he rebukes Orestes for his boldness of speech (607), and blames Electra for
being an accomplice with her words (616-18). With remarkable prescience the
old man associates the free speech of Electra with the unbridled actions that will
follow: 'w og i6)flp?e 66td' av GaioTp JvQoi (621). Tyndareus then exits abruptly,
without allowing Orestes to speak in response.
If Tyndareus tries to silence Orestes, Menelaus is more ambivalent. With
Tyndareus gone, Orestes is determined to speak more fully (630f.), but
Menelaus dodges with a rhetorical comment on speech and silence:"'

OQ. [tui vvv JITEQCLVE TTRv 8O6xYoLv, &ak' ?Aoig

kXyouSg xoUoa;g jrQ6o0, I3ovU?kov T6TE.
ME. kFY'. * ? yaQ ei[tag- EOTl 6' O0 oiLytI kyov
XQeiooCov YVEVOLT' av. COTtl 6' o6 oyLr, kXoyog.
(636-39)
Orestes takes this as license to speak at length (640-79), but his license consists
even more in the liberties he takes with the conventions of friendship. Rather
than an exchange of favors he demands an exchange of crimes (646-47), and his
calculation of debts borders on the insolent as he offers to accept one day's help
in repayment for the Trojan War, and promises not to demand Hermione's life
in exchange for his sister's (655-59). Menelaus seems oblivious to the insult; he
responds by pleading powerlessness (688ff.) and blandly moralizing (696-703,
706-9). The new-found license of Orestes has both comic and tragic overtones.
His attack against Tyndareus has a bitter humor, but his grandfather's stern
response forebodes tragic consequences. His speech to Menelaus, on the other
hand, is comic because it seems he can insult his spineless uncle with impunity.
Yet comic license will not save Orestes' life or improve his situation in Argos,
and he therefore still has reason to fear a tragic outcome: o'itol, jTQo6beo0at,
XOVXET' eoilV ?kXjL6?Eg, / 6Ootl TQaLt61Levog OavaQTov 'AQyeiwv ()pyw (722f.).

14. For a fuller discussion of parody in Or., see A. Olivieri, "Dell'Oreste di Euripide," RFIC 28
(1900) 228-36.
15. On the characterization of Menelaus, see N. A. Greenberg, "Euripides' Orestes: An Inter
pretation," HSCP 66 (1962) 168; and di Benedetto ad loc.

This content downloaded from

185.253.161.67 on Thu, 22 Sep 2022 21:08:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
244 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume 8/No. 2/October 1989

At this very moment Pylades enters and learns of the desperate situation.
His entrance is startling; he arrives on the run (726) and immediately escalates
the pace of the dialogue to frantic tetrameters (pi 6abe; Jorg EXEct; Ti J3TQooeLg,
oikXTa9' qkixwv itaoi; 732).16 This reversal of the traditionally silent role of
Pylades accompanies Orestes' own change from silence to speech. After describ
ing his "betrayal" by Menelaus, Orestes tells Pylades that he faces death and
learns that his friend is in similar straits. The situation again seems hopeless,
until Orestes suddenly finds new hope:

OQ. 6EIOVv OL jokkol, xacxovyoVs oTav EXOycIt JrTooTctLag.

Flu. &ak' orav XQrro kuc; ? oXoJL, XQroYTa Povkeiovov ' &ai.
OQ. . ??v. xotvov XkYELV XQri. Hv. Tivo & avayCxaiov JeQt;
OQ. Ei X?7YO01 a&(Toov e6dbov . . .
(772-75)
The seemingly irrelevant arguments against and for democracy prompt Orestes
to consider the persuasive power of speech in the democratic assembly. His new
hope accelerates the dialogue from single to half lines; the friends agree to
choose speech rather than silence (OQ. akk' vonrrlJcacg oLcOJTf xcaTOavo; [Iv.
6Elki6 TO6E, 777), and they leave for the assembly extolling friendship. The two
halves of this episode are parallel, in that Orestes twice decides that the only
escape from his helpless situation is to speak out; the scene with Tyndareus and
Menelaus has a less than favorable outcome, and the plan to address the assem
bly is no more promising. The chief difference is that Orestes now has an ally,
and will feel confident enough to speak even more freely than before.

Following a second stasimon on the calamities of the royal house-the stain

upon Tantalus's descendants (813) and the punishment exacted by the Eumen
ides (836)-a messenger reports on those who spoke before the assembly: the
two-faced Talthybius followed by the moderate Diomedes, and the violent dema
gogue followed by the honest farmer. The symmetry is calculated: the violent
bluster of the demagogue (&avrQ TtSg &aQO@6yXcjOOS... 0oQo13p T?E ri'vvo
x&HataOL naggqoia, 903-5) is answered by the generosity of the farmer; unbri
dled speech is answered by words of praise, and the fate of Orestes hangs in the
balance. A weighty silence follows in anticipation of the vote, but Orestes unex
pectedly breaks this silence to speak in his own defense (931f.).17 To the people,
Orestes speaks even more recklessly than he did to his uncle and his grandfather;
he says that he killed his mother as much for the Argives' sake as for his father's
(934f.), and he tells his audience that they might as well drop dead if they are

16. On "the frequent references to running, leaping and rushing," see E. Rawson, "Aspects of
Euripides' Orestes," Arethusa 5 (1972) 156. On reversal of Pylades' silent role, cf. F. J. Nisetich,
"The Silencing of Pylades (Orestes 1591-92)," AJP 107 (1986) 46-54.
17. Cf. Greenberg (supra. n. 15) 180-81. Wecklein deletes part of the following speech (938
42), and Willink the whole (932-42).

This content downloaded from

185.253.161.67 on Thu, 22 Sep 2022 21:08:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
DUNN: Comic and Tragic License in Euripides' Orestes 245

going to let a woman murder her husband with impunity (935-37). The farmer's
praise is now undone, and the reckless speech of Orestes, as before, fails to
deliver him from his helpless situation.18 This time there is no humor in Orestes'
license-at most an uneasy amusement at his audacity, which soon gives way to
Electra's sad lament (960-1011). Electra sings of Tantalus and the curse upon
her family (985ff.), and it seems the curse has been accomplished: following his
unbridled speech, Orestes is on the verge of death (1018-21). At this low point,
the lifeless appearance of Orestes recalls the prologue, and the fear of the chorus
that he was dead (208-10).
In the next scene the situation is reversed. Orestes is resolved to take his life,
but his despair has a comic outcome. His lugubrious determination is first inter
rupted by Electra, who seems to weaken his resolve and insists on dying with him
(1037ff.). Now accompanied by his sister, he again bids farewell to life, only to
be interrupted by Pylades, who also demands to die with him, and makes a
resounding plea for a triple suicide (1086-91). Finally, this new resolve is inter
rupted by Pylades himself: EJrtE 6& xaT0avotic[t0', xoe XvoiVO kXoyoVg / EXFOo[tEV,
Wg av MevEwco; o6vIvoUrUvX (1098f.). The conspiracy to die is an amusing
failure, and is at once replaced by a grand comic scheme: Pylades imagines the
trio bamboozling Helen with a secret smile (1123) and being made national
heroes for the murder of a woman (1132-52), while Orestes goes farther, wish
ing they might not only punish their enemies but also live themselves. When
Orestes checks his idle words (6 poUkoFtaL y?a6, Ri6iv xcai 6i6 ox[tct / JcTTrVOLo t
to0oti; a&atYavW( TEvQaL ()QEva, 1175f.), Electra bursts in with her plan to hold
Hermione hostage, if need be cutting her throat, and words are idle no more
(EiQQtCa Xkoyog, 1203). Extravagant praise is lavished on Electra, and her bold
words prepare the way for action in a conspiratorial scene, which culminates with
an invocation of Agamemnon.19 From the dark despair following the assembly is
born a fantastic scheme, which, if carried out, will be as reckless in action as
Orestes was earlier in speech.

In the final episode of the play, speech and action lose all inhibition, and the
stage is overwhelmed by a degree of noise and commotion that borders on the
farcical. In the first half of the play, the license of Orestes, frequently comic, fails
to deliver him from a tragic situation; in the second half the action becomes so
uninhibited that distinctions between comic and tragic are no longer meaningful.
The hybris of the characters produces neither laughter nor tears but simply
shock; and the plot seems to violate the traditional legend, which provides
precedent neither for a comic victory (the triumph of Orestes over Menelaus,

18. The same argument that failed to convince Tyndareus (564ff.) is no more effective before
the Assembly (931ff.), as noted by Eucken (supra. n. 2), p. 163.
19. Three-way dialogue is used very effectively, building gradually (Orestes and Electra, 1018
64; Orestes and Pylades, 1065-1176; Orestes and Electra, 1177-1206; Orestes, Pylades, and Electra,
1207-45) and making repeated mention of the threesome (1178, 1190, 1243f.).

This content downloaded from

185.253.161.67 on Thu, 22 Sep 2022 21:08:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
246 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume 8/No. 2/October 1989

and his rule in Argos) nor for a tragic defeat (the death of the conspirators and
burning of the palace). The tone is often comic, but the overall effect is neither
comic nor tragic as we wonder where this license will lead.
The commotion begins at once as Electra and the two half-choruses station
themselves in front of the palace, alternately crying out (1271, 1281-84) and
urging calm (1273, 1291f.). Then the long-awaited screams of Helen (1296, 1301)
are magnified by the bloodthirsty cries of Electra (1302ff.), only to be silenced by
the approach of Hermione (1311). After the young girl is led into the house, the
noise builds to a crescendo as the shouts of Electra (1345f.) are followed by the
screams of Hermione (1347) and both are drowned out by the chorus:2"

XTJTOV EyEiQETE, XTUJTOV xci (3oav

JTQO tEXdOQ6aev, 6ojrt 6 jreaX0ig ;( 6vog
[An 6EIv6v 'ApYEioLtov tpa3dkXn (6[3ov.
(1353-55)
A welcome calm at the entrance of a messenger (1367) is followed not by a
speech explaining events within, but by an agitated, high-pitched aria that only
heightens the confusion (1369-1502).21 No sooner does the Phrygian describe
the chaos within the palace than the commotion spills onto the stage, as Orestes
charges out in tetrameters to silence the servant (1510) and the agitated chorus
debates whether to raise the alarm or keep silent (1539f.).
At this point the action takes another important step. From silence to unbri
dled speech, to unbridled action first plotted then reported, we come now (it
appears) to unbridled action upon the stage:

i6E JTQO 8aot6cTov i8e jioxQV@ootE

Oodwtov 68' aiOEQog avwo xaxvog.
WTTovDot 7tEtxag, (Og tvUQcoovTEg 860oovc
ToiVg TavraXEioV;, oV6' adtioravTal )6vov.
TEXog "XEL 6aitL)v PQoTOLg,
aTXos oTa OXq..
(1541-46)
This will be no customary end if the violence breaks the bounds of the drama to
destroy the scene building, as it seems it will. Suddenly Menelaus appears on
stage, and the apocalypse is postponed by the ensuing battle of words between
Orestes on the roof and Menelaus below. Threats and insults fly back and forth
in rapid stichomythia, until Orestes calls Menelaus's bluff (1597f.) and demands
he yield in silence (oiya vvv, &vEXov 6' EvxCoXWg Jqacooov xaxog, 1599). But

20. A surprising reversal; usually the chorus asks for silence (Aesch. Ag. 1344) or another asks
the chorus for silence (Soph. El. 1399, Eur. Hipp. 565ff.) to hear what is happening inside. With
XT6Uov ?yeieETe here, contrast arn6' EOTO) xtujo0g, 137.
21. On the shrill delivery of the Phrygian's d&Qadeov AtLkog, see Schol. 1384.

This content downloaded from

185.253.161.67 on Thu, 22 Sep 2022 21:08:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 DUNN: Comic and Tragic License in Euripides' Orestes 247

Menelaus will not be silent, and the verbal abuse escalates to faster half-lines and
finally to violent action, as Orestes shouts for fire (&aX' ei, si4)air 6botaT',
'HXExxTca, r6be, 1618) and Menelaus calls upon the Argives (oUx e etv6jrXOk
Jo6i 3o6rloTijOTEoc; 1622). Only now that the apocalypse seems complete does
Apollo arrive to resolve the impasse.
It is important to observe how skillfully Euripides has created this impasse,
an impasse both of genre and of action. Between the parody of an Asiatic eunuch
and the impending death and destruction, we do not know whether we are
watching a comedy or a tragedy, and our uncertainty is all the greater because
neither a victorious, comic Orestes nor a defeated, tragic one is compatible with
the established legend. This uncertainty is reinforced by the doubtful course of
the action. The conflict between Menelaus and Orestes leads to phantom resolu
tions, as Menelaus capitulates (1598) and Orestes claims the victory (1599), only
to resume bickering for another seventeen lines until Menelaus again capitulates
(1617)-or only seems to, for both men now gird for the final violent confronta
tion (1618, 1622, quoted above). Uncertainty borders on unreality as the two
men interrupt their threats to debate whether Helen died or vanished into thin
air (1557, 1580, 1614). But the most striking means of leaving the outcome
uncertain is the double epiphany.22
Orestes' appearance upon the palace roof is an epiphany closely modeled
upon that of Medea, with Menelaus playing a role similar to that of Jason. The
situations are similar: Jason wants to recover the bodies of his children and avenge
himself upon Medea, just as Menelaus wants to recover his daughter and his wife's
body, and avenge himself upon Orestes. Both begin an assault upon the palace
doors, with similar language (Med. 1314f., Or. 1561f.), and both are surprised by
the sudden appearance of their enemy upon the palace roof.23 Medea turns the
tables upon Jason, and makes her escape upon the chariot of the sun; Orestes
turns the tables upon Menelaus, and will escape with the help of Apollo. The
surprise appearance of Orestes also includes important formal features of the deus
ex machina: an introductory injunction (1567), an assertion of authority (1569,
here humorous), and an expression of amazement at the epiphany (1573).24 The
ragged Orestes, now wielding power and commanding silence like a god, is a trium
phant comic hero, overcoming all odds, and turning the tables on his enemies.

22. The uncertain (future) outcome of the conflict between Orestes and Menelaus has a parallel
in the uncertain (past) outcome of the "murder" of Helen. The Phrygian's wild aria left us not
knowing whether she was killed or has miraculously escaped, and the bickering between Orestes and
Menelaus only adds to our confusion. The outcome is also uncertain because the command of Apollo
does not direct the action, as it does in Oresteia; cf. D. H. Roberts, Apollo and His Oracle in the
Oresteia (Gottingen, 1984) 108-20.
23. Cf. G. Arnott, "Euripides and the Unexpected," G&R 20 (1973) 59-60; and F. I. Zeitlin,
"The Closet of Masks: Role-playing and Myth-Making in the Orestes of Euripides," Ramus 9 (1980) 62.
24. On formal features of the deus ex machina, see F. M. Dunn, "Euripidean Endings," (diss.
Yale, 1985) 147-62 with notes 392, 393; on the expression of surprise, Te, xTi Xfua; cf. Hipp. 1391,
Ion 1549, Rh. 885.

This content downloaded from

185.253.161.67 on Thu, 22 Sep 2022 21:08:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
248 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume 8/No. 2/October 1989

This triumph is compromised, however, first by the half-hearted resistance

of Menelaus (1600-16, 1621-24), which threatens to destroy Orestes along with
his enemies, and then by a second epiphany as Orestes on the roof is upstaged by
Apollo on the machine. The god overturns the daemonic Orestes and restores
the traditional resolution, apparently replacing comic triumph with tragic defeat.
Uncertain before how the action would end, we now have two endings and
further uncertainty: is the final outcome success or failure? On the one hand, the
scheme of Orestes is halted in its tracks: the god forbids the murder of Hermione
or the burning of the palace, and shows that the attempted murder of Helen was
also a failure. His command and explanation restore the plot to its traditional
course and impose upon the human agents a larger, divine order. On the other
hand, the scheme of Orestes has succeeded: he will not be executed by the
Argives; he will be purified of his crimes and will be allowed to rule in Argos. His
licentious speech and action achieve their desired result through the fortuitous
intervention of the god. The two tendencies of the action-toward comic success
and tragic failure-are both realized in the double epiphany, and the appearance
of the deus does not resolve, but confirms, this conflict.
Confirmation of the conflict accounts for a second unusual feature of the
ending: Apollo performs his role as deus ex machina twice. The first half of the
epiphany (1625-77) begins with Apollo's command that Orestes and Menelaus
desist, continues with the god's prophecies, and concludes with their acceptance
of his command. The second half (1678-90) begins with Apollo's command to
depart, continues with acceptance by Menelaus and Orestes, and ends with a
repetition of the command and a prophecy about Helen. The only other two-part
epiphanies in Euripides are interrupted either by an entrance (Hippolytus in
Hipp.) or by challenges to the "deus" (Jason in Med., and Electra and Orestes in
El.). In Orestes there is no such interruption. The first part of the epiphany,
which begins with the command to stop (nrcaot, 1625), puts a halt to the
impending conflagration; but as we have noted, it only confirms the uncertainty
of the outcome. In such an impasse, a repetition of the epiphany is required, if
only to dismiss the puzzled characters. The second part begins with the command
XOQ@EIxE vUv exaCoITO o0t JnQodr(ooootev, / veixact Te 6blakho0e (1678f.), and
after Orestes and Menelaus agree to stop their quarrel, Apollo repeats the
command to depart: i'TE vvv xa0' 666v (1682). If the impasse remains, and the
deus must expressly command the characters to leave the stage, this explains a
final unusual feature of the ending. In Orestes, and only here, the parting words
of the chorus do not summarize the preceding action, they do not draw a moral
from it, nor do they bid farewell to the other characters. The chorus simply
delivers the formulaic prayer for victory (1691-93), thus ending the play with no
suggestion that the action is resolved.25

25. Elsewhere the prayer for victory is preceded by lines that summarize the action (Pho.
1758ff.) or bid farewell (IT 1490ff.). The other choral exits all include such closing themes. On the

This content downloaded from

185.253.161.67 on Thu, 22 Sep 2022 21:08:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
DUNN: Comic and Tragic License in Euripides' Orestes 249

Orestes has come a long way, from silence to unbridled speech to the brink of
unbridled action, and in the process he has displayed qualities of both the tragic
and the comic hero. At first, the casting-off of inhibitions is shown in both a comic
and a tragic light, but toward the end of the play the license becomes so extreme
that neither category is appropriate. The fantastic and murderous plot is especially
outrageous in that it threatens to violate dramatic conventions by overthrowing
the established version of the legend, and by resulting in destruction and murder
upon the stage. This license, first both tragic and comic, finally truly tragicomic, is
represented by the conflict between silence and speech, and by the contrast be
tween the Orestes who lies silent for the first 210 lines of the play and the Orestes
who gives his name to the land of Free Speech, Parrhasion:26

o/: 6' aV XQEtbv,

'Ogeoa, yacg tf6ria' 6ieQ3acko6v0' OQovg
HCntQolov OlXElV 86ae60ov EvtavTov xixXov.
XExXrioeTal 68 oijg ( vyig E;OVWVov
'A&otlv 'AQxaoLv T' 'OPQoelov xackev.
(1643-47)

Comic and tragic elements in Orestes are inseparably connected: as the charac
ters move from silence to speech and threaten unbridled action, they tread a thin
line between tragic failure and comic success, while comic and tragic license
become increasingly blurred. I shall conclude by observing, first, that the combina
tion of tragic and comic informs the major themes of the play, and second, that this
combination may usefully be compared with modern tragicomedy.
Orestes is often considered a tragic and pessimistic reflection of moral deprav
ity in man and society: this play is "the dark night of the Greek soul,"27 and "the
most negative, the most pessimistic, the most nihilistic of Euripides' extant
plays."28 On this view the burden of the drama may either be the demoralization,
even dehumanization that takes place within the conspirators in general and
within Orestes in particular; or it may be the moral vacuum that is found to
pervade the play's characters and institutions as a whole.29 These tragic themes,

authenticity and significance of the choral exits, see Dunn (previous note) 34-40; and D. H. Roberts,
"Final Words: Parting Lines in Sophocles and Euripides," CQ, n.s., 37 (1987) 51-64.
26. El. 1273-75 also alludes to this aition, without mentioning rIaQGolov or 'OQoETElov by
name.

27. H. Parry, "Euripides' Orestes: The Quest for Salvation," TAPA 100 (1969) 352
28. S. L. Schein, "Mythical Illusion and Historical Reality in Euripides' Orestes,"
(1975) 53.
29. On the moral depravity of Orestes and his companions, see H. G. Mullens, "The Mean
ing of Euripides' Orestes," CQ 34 (1940) 153-58; followed by P. N. Boulter, "The Theme of ayoia
in Euripides' Orestes," Phoenix 16 (1962) 102-6; and W. D. Smith, "Disease in Euripides'
Orestes," Hermes 95 (1967) 291-307. In defense of their character, see W. Krieg, De Euripidis
Oreste (Halle, 1934) 13-21; and H. Erbse, "Zum Orestes des Euripides," Hermes 103 (1975) 434
59. On the play's moral vacuum, see Burkert (supra, n. 2); C. Wolff, "Orestes," in E. Segal, ed..

This content downloaded from

185.253.161.67 on Thu, 22 Sep 2022 21:08:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
250 CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume 8/No. 2/October 1989

however, have a comic side in the exuberant lack of morals displayed by the
conspirators. According to Jekels, "the feeling of guilt which, in tragedy, rests
upon the son, appears in comedy displaced on the father"; in the latter "we find
the ego, which has liberated itself from the tyrant, uninhibitedly venting its
humor, wit, and every sort of comic manifestation in a very ecstasy of free
dom."3" In Orestes this freedom from inhibition, the most extreme form of
license, is reflected not only in Orestes' complete lack of shame, but also in his
youthful rebellion against the authority of Menelaus and Tyndareus, and even in
the licentious parody of Aeschylus in which the action is cast. In the end, how
ever, Orestes remains caught between tragedy and comedy by the double epiph
any: he triumphs over the ineffectual father-figure Menelaus, but is compelled to
acknowledge the authority of Apollo.
If the moral depravity of Orestes has its comic side, can the same be said of
moral decay in society? It has often been noted that the drama's moral vacuum
and lawless atmosphere reflect the upheavals that in 408 B.C. threatened to
destroy Athenian society, upheavals such as a questioning of values, conflict
between the generations, and lawless violence and assassinations.3' Is it possible
that the decay of Athenian society has a comic side? Kott compares the license of
tragicomedy to the Carnival in Rome, where social upheaval and violence were
given free reign.32 Here the people carried candles shouting, "Sia ammazzato chi
non porta moccolo" ("Death to anyone who is not carrying a candle"), and
Goethe describes the license of the scene: "A boy blows out his father's candle,
shouting: 'Sia ammazzato il Signore Padre!' In vain the old man scolds him for
this outrageous behavior; the boy claims the freedom of the evening and curses
his father all the more vehemently."33 The ritual license of the Carnival reenacts
the lawlessness of eighteenth-century Rome without its deadly consequences;
similarly the license of Orestes, performed at the City Dionysia in 408, reenacts
the upheaval in Athenian society and the violence of the oligarchic clubs without
their dire and familiar consequences.
A comedy about a dying society, a tragedy about freedom from inhibition,
Orestes thoroughly blurs the distinctions between the two kinds of drama. A
blurring of the two forms, rather than a mixing of comic and tragic elements, is

Euripides: A Collection of Critical Essays (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1968) 134; and Schein (previous
note), 66.
30. L. Jekels, "On the Psychology of Comedy," in R. W. Corrigan, ed., Comedy: Meaning and
Form (New York, 1981) 174, 179.
31. On questioning of values, see K. Reinhardt, "Die Sinneskrise bei Euripides," in Tradition
und Geist (Gottingen, 1960) 227-56; D. Lanza, "Unita e significato dell'Oreste euripideo," Dioniso
35.1 (1961) 71; and R. Goossens, Euripide et Athenes (Brussels, 1962) 638. On generational conflict,
see T. M. Faulkner, "Coming of Age in Argos: Physis and Paideia in Euripides' Orestes," CJ 78
(1983) 289-300. On violence, see Burkert (supra, n. 2) 106-8; and O. Longo (supra, n. 2) 282-86.
32. J. Kott, "Ionesco; or, A Pregnant Death," in The Theater of Essence (Evanston, Il1., 1984)
100.
33. J. W. Goethe, Italian Journey, tr. W. H. Auden and E. Mayer (New York, 1968), 467f.

This content downloaded from

185.253.161.67 on Thu, 22 Sep 2022 21:08:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
DUNN: Comic and Tragic License in Euripides' Orestes 251

distinctive also of modern tragicomedy, and seems to reflect a similar dislocation

of values in modern society.34 In The Bald Soprano or Waiting for Godot, the
blurring of tragedy and comedy is accompanied by a simplification-almost
trivialization-of the dramatic situation, as if the playwright were peeling away
irrelevant action in order to find a hidden, private source of the comic and the
tragic. In Orestes, a gradual crescendo of noise, spectacle, and action propels us
toward a denouement that is finally neither tragic nor comic, while the frantic
pace and uncertain goal of the final scenes reenact the terrifying and exhilarating
experience of the chaotic events of 408 B.c. Drama was always a public concern
in ancient Athens, and the uncertainty that in modern tragicomedy is anxiously
directed inward, in Orestes is directed outward in an extravagant display of
license. This spectacular, shocking, and immensely popular tragicomedy,35 pro
duced in one of Athens' most difficult years, challenges us to view our own
uncertain times with Euripides' ruthless honesty and with his exuberant sense of
humor.

Northwestern University

34. Cf. R. W. Corrigan, "Tragicomedy," in Corrigan, ed., (supra, n. 30), 222f.

35. T6 b6Qdta TV 3v Eti OXrlVg; EFi6oXtiLoVvTwv, Hyp. II. Arnott (supra, n. 2), p. 13, summarizes
the evidence for the unusual popularity of Orestes. My thanks to Sheila Murnaghan and to the reader
for Classical Antiquity for their helpful comments on this paper.

This content downloaded from

185.253.161.67 on Thu, 22 Sep 2022 21:08:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms