D.Litt. et Phil. (Classical Languages) / Please refer to full text to view abstract

M.A. / The goal of this research is to list, explore and explain the similarities and differences between the Electra of Euripides and the film of Michael Cacoyannis. Some critics regard the film as completely unfaithful to the original; others view it as a faithful cinematic rendition of the original; while others still regard it as a reworking of, and an improvement on, Euripides’ version of the Electra myth. The myth as treated by Euripides is about the revenge of the two children of Agamemnon and Clytemnestra. After Agamemnon had returned victorious from the Trojan War, he was murdered by his wife, Clytemnestra, and her lover, Aegisthus. His daughter, Electra, finally takes the initiative when she and her brother, Orestes, avenge their father’s murder by killing their mother and her lover. The method devised to address the research problem is firstly to compare the text of the original tragedy with the screenplay of Cacoyannis. Thereafter, the dramatic structure (plot, time frame, characterization, setting, mood, narrative perspective and theme) of the tragedy and the film are compared. Next, the media of film and theatre are explored and compared. For the stage production of Euripides’ Electra, the aspects of the set, masks, choral movement, mirror scenes, objects and tokens, off-stage violence, actions and gestures, the deus ex machina, and tableaux are examined. Regarding the film, the features of set design, costume design, cinematography, music, acting and directing are surveyed. Finally, the respective socio-historical contexts of the original play and the film, as well as relevant biographical material from both Euripides and Cacoyannis, are investigated. It is concluded that Cacoyannis remained true to the spirit of the original drama of Euripides as well as to the genre of tragedy. However, the way in which he adapted Euripides demonstrates his secularism, his dedication to contemporary issues, like the plight of women, an unequal society, oppressive and authoritarian regimes, and the futility of revenge. In this way he forcefully demonstrated the timeless power and universality of an ancient myth even in the twentieth century.

Euripides’ Electra has long been one of the playwright’s most controversial works. This book offers a reading of the play concentrating on its language, which is analysed by applying a variety of modern linguistic approaches: conversation analysis, pragmatic theories of speech acts and inference, politeness theory, the study of the interplay of gender and language, paroemiology, and the study of discourse cohesion. The first three chapters argue for the Peasant, Electra and Orestes, respectively, that their linguistic behaviour constitutes a vital part of their characterisation. The Peasant’s (ch. 1) sturdy morality is established by the way his language becomes more forceful when he touches on ethical questions; it is then tested in his conversations with Electra, where his language is suggestive of a conflict between his morals and his desire to please his royal wife. Electra herself (ch. 2) is characterised initially by the inability to communicate successfully with those around her — a disconnect which is suggestive of the fundamental incongruity of her circumstances. This adds a dimension to her motivations, which, as a force driving Electra’s linguistic behaviour, remain highly stable throughout the play up until the matricide. Another consistent feature of Electra’s language is the way it is patterned by her gender. Orestes’ characterisation in the early part of the play is ingeniously kept to a minimum through his sustained disguise. Various aspects of his language, but particularly his use of gnomai, contribute to that disguise, which involves a suppression of emotion, an avoidance of self-reference, and the exertion of control over the flow and topic of his conversation with Electra. We can only interpret a dramatic text if we know what it says, and if we know who says what. In chapter 4, I argue that the linguistic approaches I adopt can also help us in making a determination about textual-critical problems, particularly concerning the issue of speaker-line attribution (two notorious cases are discussed: 671-84 and 959-87). The final two chapters deal with longer speeches. In the messenger scene (ch. 5), Euripides uses linguistic devices to create an ebb and flow of suspense, and to manipulate audience expectation. In the agon (ch. 6), differences in the way Clytemnestra and Electra structure their speeches, particularly their narrationes, reveal much about their different (and fundamentally irreconcilable) viewpoints and approaches.