Euripides' Electra

Electra, by Euripides

Euripides, always "different"

From the moment we walk into the Theater of Dionysus (as citizens of Athens, knowing who will be presenting the plays this year), we know -- before any actors have come onto the stage -- that this play is going to be very different from the plays that Sophocles, or in an earlier time, Aeschylus put on
What is different about Euripides?

use of prologue
use of epilogue (the deus ex machina: in this play the Dioscuri, that is Castor and Polydeuces (=Pollux), the deified brothers of Helen and Clytaemnestra)

"heroic"? (certainly NOT in the Sophoclean sense!!)
more "realistic", at least in a sense: rather as if he takes over mythological figures and poses the question, "But what would they do if they were real people?" (but of course, strictly, the figures and situation remain mythological, and quite unrealistic)
Euripides is sometimes described as "psychological drama", or at least more "psychological" than Sophocles and Aeschylus: I'm not very fond of that term, but it is certainly true that you must pay a LOT of attention to WHO is saying WHAT
example: line 300, Electra's message to Orestes (who, she assumes, is absent): note how it contradicts other aspects of the play, e.g.

l. 307 "slavelike": cf. line 57f!
l. 309-310: "fetch water", "deprived of holy festivals and dances": cf. lines 166ff, and 57f.
ll. 320ff.: compare this portrait of Aegisthus with what we see of him at ll. 777ff.
ll. 326ff: not only inconsistent with the portrait of Aegisthus at ll. 777ff, but bizarre and rather unbelievable in its own terms-- esp. after the deliberate lies earlier in this speech!

As a POET Euripides was revered, but as a TEACHER (didaskalos!) of the citizens he was mistrusted

copious evidence from the comic poet Aristophanes and elsewhere makes it clear that his contemporaries were puzzled to know what it was that he intended to teach them

At one moment, he endorsed their favorite prejudice, or to indulge a favorite grumble or sentiment
But at another moment, he seems to be ridiculing these same prejudices or sentiments
And often he seems to introduce gratuitously a sense of the outrageous (behavior, characterization, sentiment) into his plays
[this last taken in part from P. Vellacott, Ironic Drama]

The Tokens: a comparison of how Orestes is recognized in Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides

Aeschylus:

psychological realism: Electra and chorus want Orestes' return so badly that they rashly, if rightly, assume it
but surreal in the details used: that the locks of hair and footprints match has a fairytale-like, unreal quality to it, and in any event is certainly not in the realm of physical reality

Sophocles:

Electra accepts false proofs for Orestes' death (the report, the urn)
but rejects true (if ambiguous) proofs of his return (Chrysothemis' discovery of a lock of hair on Agamemnon's tomb)
so that between the time of the Messenger's (false) speech (that of the tutor), and teh time of the actual recognition, an elaborate double irony seem to hold sway, in which the truth can be seen as more horrible than the tormenting lie

The final token, the one that works, is highly realistic: for a signet ring is worn precisely as an identifying mark: a symbol of Orestes as the heir to the throne?

Euripides:

See the passage at 520ff, pp. 30f.: Aeschylus' tokens are rejected, then at 573 a more realistic token (scar) is substituted
A realism that works at several levels and accomplishes several goals at once. Among them:

brutal rejection of the fairytale, mythological traditions in favor of a more "realistic" stance
self-reflexive, in the sense that the rejection serves, even as it rejects Aeschylus, to bring to the fore that this scene, like the scene in Aeschylus, is part of a play, a play which reacts to the previous tradition of plays and asserts itself as essentially different
demonstrates the hard, well-grounded core of realism that informs the Euripidean stance: we'll see none of those passionate flights so characteristic of Sophocles' Electra, for instance
a strange sort of comedy or parody is introduced into the tragedy

It's All about Sex

is unattractive: e.g. 146ff (hair clipped, blood & bruises from constant mourning), 184f (filthy etc.), 256 (Orestes implies that her husband may find her unattractive?)
emphatically virginal (and Aegisthus will pay for that!), cf. the sexual imagery at 695
her taunting of Aegisthus' corpse

918ff: the charge of Clytemnestra's promiscuity
945ff: Aegisthus' own promiscuity (note how concerned El. seems to be with these sexual matters, here hardly material!); Aegisthus as a "pretty boy"

1011ff: her own "evil reputation" (promiscuity)
1027ff: Helen's lust, Agamemnon's lust
1035ff: "Women are fools for sex": but why do we receive ALL the blame, what about the men?
Note how much this cheapens the entire business: nothing heroic or ennobling here!

1061ff: not like daughter like mother, but like sister like sister: Helen and Clytemnestra are two whores that destroy the kingdoms of men: "you and Helen, flowering from a single stalk"
Note the terms of her argument:

People and places to know:

Electra, as Euripides depicts her

Orestes, ditto

Clytaemnestra, ditto

Dioscuri (=Castor and Polydeuces)