Ironic Interaction in Aeschylus and Sophocles
A w hole b o o k 1h as been w ritten on irony in E uripides, w hich
gives m e som e excuse for om itting this playw right; chapter six of
K irk w o o d 's celebrated w o rk 2 constitutes a m ajor stu d y of irony in
Sophocles; on A eschylus there is less, M ark an to n ato s bein g n o t
re a d ily accessible. H is articles, h o w e v er, p ro v id e a p a rtia l
exception to the follow ing generalisation. The m ajor em phasis has
b een on w h a t English authors p refer to call 'd ram atic iro n y ' and
G erm an au th o rs 'tragische Ironie': the situation in w hich the stage
personage is ignorant of the true significance of w h at (s)he says, b u t
the audience know s better; it is this type of irony w hich dom inates
the O edipu s Rex especially. F u rth erm o re, m o st co m m en tato rs
p re fe r to em p h asise iro n y of situ a tio n ra th e r th a n th e v erbal
ironies of (e.g.) Oedipu s Rex 258-65, concluding w ith 'I w ill fight
for [Laius] as if for m y ow n father'. They discuss above all the
contrast b etw een Schein and Sein: the situation as it appears to the
characters and the situation as the audience know s it to be.
It is rem arkable how little there is in com m on b etw een this type
of irony and G reek είρωνεία, defined by A ristotle (EN 1108a 19-22
etc.) as one extrem e in the co n tin u u m α λ α ζο νεία (b o a stin g )—
αλήθεια (tru th fu ln ess)—ειρωνεία; the εΐρων is h e w ho u nderstates.
T his k in d of iro n y w as (and is) in tim a te ly a sso c ia te d w ith
Socrates, b o th by his ad m irers (e.g.. C icero D e Oratore 11.67, D e
O ff ic iis 1.30, etc., w ho tran slates it as d i s s i m u l a n t i a ) a n d those
1 P. V ellacott Ironic Drama (Cam bridge 1975).
^ For this and other references see m y bibliography. I shall cite these
authors b y nam e only, except for M arkantonatos. U n less stated otherw ise,
num bers in cited editions o f plays refer to page num bers rather than lines.
D. H
este r
15
less im p re sse d , w h o p re s e n t it as a k in d of sta llin g (e.g.
T h ra s y m a c h u s in P la to R e p u b l i c I.337A , T h e o p h r a s tu s 3
Characters 1.1). It is u nclear w hether the irony is intentional and,
if so, h o w far the in te n t is to deceive; so p e rh a p s the v ag u er
definition of Q uintilian (VI.ii. 15) is best: irony has a significance
beyond w h a t is actually said.
This reflection suggests tw o points: the first is the u rg e n t need
for d efin itio n of types of irony, even if such definition m u st be
approxim ate; the second is that, in dialogues at least, the effect on
the in terlo cu to r is relevant as w ell as the effect on the audience;
irony m ay w ell lie in the interplay of the dialogue rath er than in a
series of isolated statem ents. I intend to follow ancient rather than
m o d ern practice by concentrating on verbal irony, w hich should
p rev en t too m uch overlap betw een this article and the w orks cited
in th e b ib lio g ra p h y .
In m y a tte m p te d classific atio n I am
especially in d eb ted to Behler,4 M arkantonatos, an d Sedgewick.
If one defines verbal irony as a rem ark w hich has an underlying
(im plied) significance as w ell as the surface significance, three
m ain situations suggest themselves:
1. The speaker is n o t aw are of the underlying significance; in
effect, the au th o r and the audience are in conspiracy against the
sp eak er;
2. The speaker is aw are of the underlying significance b u t the
interlocutor is not; in effect, the author, the speaker, and the
audience are in conspiracy against the interlocutor;
3. The und erly in g significance is plain to all; if there is any
conspiracy, it is betw een the tw o dialogue partners, w ho m ay be
co-operating in avoiding explicit language (e.g. by the use of
3 Theophrastus d oes not nam e Socrates, but surely had him in m ind. For
Socratic irony see especially G. V lastos Socrates (C am bridge 1991) 21-44.
4 Klassische Ironie 15-39.
16
Ir o n ic
i n t e r a c t io n i n a e s c h y l u s a n d s o p h o c l e s
euphem ism s) or, m ore comm only, trying to score off one another
by indirect m eans.
The first type is, of course, the 'd ram atic' or 'trag ic' irony w hich
h a s b ee n so w id ely d iscu ssed . N e ith e r term seem s e n tire ly
a p p ro p riate; 'd ram atic' suggests th at other types of iro n y do no t
h av e a d ram atic im pact (w hich is clearly false); 'tra g ic ' suggests
th a t w e are in sy m p ath y w ith the victim of illu sio n (w hich is
ce rtain ly n o t tru e of, e.g. A e g isth u s in C h o e p h o r i 838-54 or
S o p h o c le s E l e c t r a 1442-1503).
I p re fe r M a r k a n to n a to s '
'unconscious'. Obviously, such unconscious irony m ay occur in vacuo,
as it w ere, w h en a character or chorus engages in self-deception
w ith o u t any prom pting. Since this type of irony has been so w idely
d iscu ssed , I sh all n o t a tte m p t to d iscu ss it fu rth e r, b u t shall
con cen trate on th e situ atio n typified b y the tw o exam ples cited
above; one character, w ho is aw are of the true situation, is using
conscious irony, to w hich the victim , w ho is not, re sp o n d s w ith
unconscious irony.
This second type of irony is th at w hich C icero tran slate s by
a p retex t th at som ething is n o t the case w h e n in
fact, it is. Socratic irony com es u n d e r this heading, if w e discount
his freq u en t disclaim ers of know ledge, th o u g h there are elem ents
of s i m u l a t i o in h is p ra ise of h is victim s. I sh all call th is
'd e cep tiv e' irony; I have already n o ted the tendency for it to co­
exist w ith the victim 's unconscious irony. In dram a, the suprem e
practitio n er is, of course, C lytaem nestra.
d is s im u la n tia :
The th ird type of irony does no t involve deception. This m akes
it far m ore difficu lt to define; p e rh a p s exam ples w ill h av e to
serve. The sim plest form is saying the exact opposite of w h a t you
m e a n ;5 'T h at w as really b rilliant!'. This is sarcasm ; rh eto rical
unstatem en t (μείωσι?) could also have been u sed ('That w a sn 't very
clever'); there is also the creation of the im aginary, a n d often quite
rid icu lo u s perso n ag es, e.g. a talking h o u se,6 an d o ther form s of
^ Quintilian IX.ii.44.
6 A esch ylu s Agamemnon 37; an interactive exam ple w ill be d iscu ssed later.
D. H
este r
17
sem i-h u m o ro u s exaggeration an d incongruities of various kinds.
This 'rh eto rical iro n y ' (to use M arkantonatos' term ) is very m uch
p a rt of p o p u lar speech. Since it is less obvious and less prom inent
than the o th er types, p erh ap s it is w o rth w hile to p ro v id e a few
non-interactive exam ples.
The P ersia n s, w hile rich in contrast b etw een Schein an d Sein,
offers little in the w ay of conscious irony; there do, how ever, seem
to b e to u ch es of w h a t m ay b e seen as rh eto rical iro n y in the
speeches of the m essenger an d of the ghost of D arius. The 'lig h t
leap ' w ith w hich D adaces fell from his ship does seem to suggest
the 'tu m b ler' of Iliad XII 385 and XVI 742; in the form er passage w e
h av e o nly th e co m p ariso n , in the latter P atro clu s goes on to
com m ent sarcastically on w h a t a fine diver the d ead h ero w o u ld
have m ade. In w h a t spirit is this com parison to be taken in the
P ersians ? P rickard7 speaks of 'ro u g h h u m o u r', w hich description
B roadhead finds unnecessary; Sidgw ick and de R om illy of 'b itter
iro n y '. C learly, g rim (or 'b lack ') h u m o u r is likely to in sp ire
different reactions in different people, b u t if w e rem em ber that an
A thenian audience w o u ld tend to rejoice in P ersian disasters an d
th at m an y of th em w o u ld h av e b een fam iliar w ith P atro clu s'
com m ents, then it is likely that A eschylus intended the incongruity
to be noticed. In this light line 330 can be also taken ironically
ra th e r th an pathetically (I'm really u n d ersta tin g the case') as can
the 'lies n o t very luckily' of the present situation of the handsom e
T h ary b is in 325 (so P rick ard , w ith S ophoclean p arallels, an d
Sidgw ick; B roadhead again deprecates this, b u t D r A nne G eddes
suggests to m e the contrast betw een E uphorbus' form er beauty and
p re se n t u n seem ly state in Iliad XVII 51-8). Finally, there is the
rhetorical u n d ersta te m en t in the rhetorical question of 344; 'Y ou
w o u ld n 't th in k o u r nu m bers w ere inadequate for the fight, w ould
you?'. D ariu s' opening an d closing rem arks also suggest a kind of
black h u m our; 'The gods below ' he says 'are better at grabbing than
letting g o ' (689-90). This μείωσις1 is plainly m arked as ironical by
^ For this and all reference to m od em com m entators see section 4 of m y
bibliography, w h ich again I shall cite by nam e only. For the link b etw een
irony ana hum our see Q uintilian VI.iii.68.
18
Ir o n ic
i n t e r a c t io n i n a e s c h y l u s a n d s o p h o c l e s
the in tro d u cto ry 'It's n o t easy to get out, especially because
and
even B roadhead has to accept this. There is an epic parallel, b u t it
is in Virgil (Aeneid V I 126-9 'The descent to A vernus is easy—b u t to
re trace y o u r step s a n d em erge into th e u p p e r air, th a t's the
problem '). The ghost of Achilles does speak cynically ab o u t death
in O d y s s e y XI 488-93, b u t th is 'p a ra lle l' is v ery rem ote; is it
w ish fu l th in k in g to su ggest th at V irgil an d A eschylus m ay have
h a d a com m on source lost to us? D arius' final advice to indulge in
p leasu re (840-2) 'since w ealth (πλούτος·) is no h elp to the d e a d '
re tu rn s to this tone w ith a kind of ring com position; again I think
Sidgw ick ('a futile m axim , contem ptuously p u t in the m o u th of a
d ea d ty ra n t'—P rick ard is sim ilar) is preferab le to B ro ad h ead 's
vision of 'a b rig h ter future'. These m ay w ell be a p u n on πλούτος
an d Πλοΰτων, as th ere certainly is in O edipu s R ex 30 'H a d e s is
g etting rich [πλουτίζεται ]8 on w ailings and lam entations'. Such a
p u n is no m o re lig h t-h earted th a n L ady M acbeth's 'I'll gild the
faces of the groom s w ithalfor it m u st seem their guilt'; there is a
grim congruity of fact and language.
If a sim pler exam ple is w anted, the A gam em n on can su p p ly it, in
a p assage already referred to. The w atchm an says: 'I'm keeping
quiet ab out the rest, A big ox has stood on m y tongue (hum orous
exaggeration). The h ouse itself, if it h a d a voice, could talk m ost
clearly (προσωποποιία). I am h ap p y to talk to those w ho know and
be ignored by those w ho d o n 't'. This final rem ark m akes clear the
absence of any in ten t to deceive; b u t there is no interaction, since
the chorus of the A g a m e m n o n ignores the irony as com pletely as
th e c h o ru s of th e P e r s i a n s ; th e w a tc h m a n is, in effect,
com m unicating w ith the audience in a sim ilar w ay to the cynical
com m ents occasionally found in epic poetry.9 In tragedy, as in epic,
the effect on the overall im pact w ill no t be great.
It is tim e to tu rn to interactive irony of various kinds. As I w ish
to trace their developm ent, it is necessary to postulate a sequence of
° This is g iv en as an etym olo g y of Pluto b y Plato Cratylus 403-4.
9 E.g. Iliad VI 234-6.
D. H
19
este r
plays. I am assum ing for convenience the chronology for A eschylus
P ers ia n s , S ep te m , S u p p lia n ts , O resteia , P ro m e th e u s (w hich is
a ssu m ed to be gen u ine), a n d for S ophocles Trachiniae, A ja x ,
A n tig o n e ,
O edipu s Rex, Electra, Philoctetes, O ed ip u s Coloneus
(the o rd e r of the first three plays is alm ost p u re guessw ork). I
sho u ld like to establish a convention: trian g u lar brackets are used
to convey a 'h id d e n ' m ean in g of w hich the sp eak er is aw are
(conscious irony, w h eth er deceptive or rhetorical); square brackets
a m ean in g of w h ich the sp ea k er is n o t aw are. For exam ple,
Prometheus 27 (H ephaestus speaking): 'The m an w ho w ill free you
is n o t yet b o rn ' < 'A n d nev er w ill be; no god, still less a m ortal,
could free you '> [Heracles w ill free him , as the audience knew from
H esiod].
This last passage suggests a type of irony w hich is in som e w ays
interm ed iate betw een the sim ple exam ples already discussed and
the fully interactive exam ples w hich are to follow. Tw o types of
irony co-exist in one person: H ephaestus' μείωσις leads him into
an u nconscious p ro p h ecy w hich negates the in ten d ed rhetorical
im p licatio n .
This exam ple m ight be described as 'c o m p o u n d ' irony. A m uch
m ore com plex exam ple is the celebrated 'T ru g red e' of A j a x 64692.10 T here is also an elem ent of interaction in the final reaction of
the chorus to this speech; it is clear (pace B ow ra11) that the chorus
is deceived into believing that Ajax has abandoned his intention of
10 Jebb (1887-) xxxiii-xxxviii and Stanford (1963) 281-8 h ave detailed
d iscussion ou tsid e their m ain com m entaries; also Kitto (1961) 123-4,
R einhardt (1979) 23-8, W innington-Ingram (1980) 46-55. For older
d iscu ssion s see references in D.A. H ester Prometheus 5 (1979) 241-55, to
w h ich m u st be added: L. Bergson Hermes 114 (1980) 36-50, M.W. Blundell
Helping Friends and Harming Enemies (C am bridge 1989) 82-7, G. Crane
CPhil 85 (1990) 89-101, J.A.S. Evans QUCC 38 (1991) 69-86, F. Ferrari
Maia 33 (1981) 199-205, M .H eath The Poetics of Greek Tragedy (L o n d o n
1987) 185-90, H olt AJP 102 (1981) 275-88, G.A. M arkantonatos Platon 24
(1987) 50-71 P.T. Stevens CQ 36 (1986) 327-36, O. T aplin in Arktouros:
Hellenic Studies presented to B.M.W. Knox (Berlin 1 9 /9 ) 122-9, W.B.
Tyrrell Arethusa 18 (1985) 155-85.
C.M. Bowra Sophoclean Tragedy (Oxford 1944) 39-44.
20
I r o n ic
i n t e r a c t io n i n a e s c h y l u s a n d s o p h o c l e s
com m itting suicide, w hen the future course of the play show s that
h e h as not. But basically the speech is a m onologue, an d for our
pu rp o ses it does not greatly m atter w hether Ajax's conscious irony
is p rim a ry d ecep tiv e o r p rim a rily rhetorical; the latter seem s
m ore 'in character', b u t character analysis is no t p a rt of this study.
Ajax begins by saying th at tim e changes the unchangeable, and
he him self is an exam ple; to translate 651-3 very literally 'I have
been fem inised in m y m outh by this w om an; I am sorry to leave her
a w idow am ong enemies, and m y child an orphan'. The am biguities
are a lre ad y p re sen t; h as T ecm essa ch a n g ed only his w ay of
speaking, or his m ind also? Does 'I am sorry' m ean that he regrets
hav in g to do it or th at he has th o u g h t b etter of doing it? In bo th
cases, the form er m eaning seem s to be his real intention; w hy use
the w o rd 'm o u th ' otherw ise? A nd d o esn 't the audience know that
T ecm essa's pleas of 510-24 will be in vain? A t the sam e tim e, we
can u n d e rs ta n d th a t the ch o ru s fa v o u rs the m ore o p tim istic
in te rp re ta tio n .
H e continues 'B ut I am going to the baths an d the m eadow s by
the shore so that, cleansing m y defilem ent, I m ay escape the heavy
w rath of the goddess; and going w here I can find a thankless place,
I w ill h id e this sw ord of m ine, a m ost hostile w eapon, digging in
the earth w h ere n o b o dy w ill see. M ay n ig h t an d H ad es keep it
safe below ; for since I received it as the gift of m y m o st b itte r
enem y, H ector, I h ave h ad noth in g good from the G reeks'. The
second in ten d ed m eanings are clear enough; he w ill cleanse his
defilem ent, appease A thena, an d separate him self from m ortals by
his death; he w ill p lan t his sw ord-hilt in a trench an d h id e the
b lad e in his ow n b o d y (815-22); thus the d ead w ill kill the living
(a them e alread y in Choephori 886 and Trachin iae 1159-63). Since
his 'frien d s' are now his enem ies, it is left to an 'en em y ', H ector, to
do the friendly office of finishing his life; an d the sw ord w ill be
w ith him in his grave. A t the sam e tim e, there is an elem ent of
unconscious irony; A thena w ill be satisfied by his d eath (778-9),
an d h er favourite w ill ensure his burial.
H e continues 'A n d so for the future I w ill know how to yield to
the gods, an d learn to revere the A treidae. They are rulers, so one
D. H
e ste r
21
m ust knuckle u n d er'. As a scholiast w ell points out, he has inverted
the infinitives, and it is very h ard to take 'revere the A treid ae' in
any non-ironical sense, though S tanford12 does his best.
Ajax continues w ith a passage of m agnificent poetry, in w hich
y ielding is p resen ted as a universal law of n atu re , an d sum s u p
'm u st w e n o t learn discretion? I have just learned th at one m ust
hate an enem y only so far th at he w ill be a friend, an d I w ish to
ren d er service to a friend only so far th at he w o n 't alw ays be one.
For m ost m en the h aven of friendship is faithless'. This 'inversion'
of frien d s/en em ies is ring com position, recalling his rem arks about
Hector; an d again there is unconscious irony; his p resen t enem y,
O dysseus, w ill be his friend in the final scene of the play (1347).
Ajax now tu rn s to Tecm essa w ith w hat can only be described as a
last w ill a n d te stam en t.13 H e asks h er to go in and pray th at his
h e a rt's desire m ay be fulfilled (as she w ill realise in 967-8, this is
his death ); h e asks th e chorus to tell T eucer to take care of
him <i.e. his burial> and then says he is going w here he m u st (since
all m u st die) a n d foretells th a t they w ill learn th at h e is safe
<safely dead> , even if n ow unfortunate. The effect is a relatively
calm e n d to a speech w hich h as a rem arkable com bination of
conscious and unconscious irony; a calm at once dissipated by the
chorus's prem ature joy.
O ne m ay ded u ce from the extrem e difficulties th at this passage
h a s c a u se d m o d e rn co m m e n ta to rs th a t th e co m b in a tio n of
rhetorical and unconscious irony, w ith a deceptive function possibly
not in ten d ed by the speaker, w as too am bitious to really succeed on
stage. W hen w e tu rn to fully interactive irony, the situ atio n is
(initially, at least) far sim pler.
M y illu stratio n s of rhetorical irony have so far been unilateral.
It is m u ch m ore n a tu ra l for rhetorical iro n y in one sp eak er to
12 Stanford (1963) 146.
So D enys Page, in an unpublished lecture.
22
Ir o n ic
i n t e r a c t io n i n a e s c h y l u s a n d s o p h o c l e s
p ro v o k e rh etorical irony in another, an d the stru ctu re of G reek
tra g e d y (above all, th e co n v en tio n of stich o m y th ia, in w hich
antagonists speak alternate lines) is obviously favourable for this.
There are no o u tstan d in g exam ples in the Persians and Septem, b u t
in the S uppliants w e have the confrontation of first the chorus and
th en the k ing w ith the E gyptian herald. The text of the form er
confrontation is desp erately corrupt, th o u g h the h e ra ld ’s sarcasm
is clear en o u g h in 884 ('H auling has n o respect for a lock of hair'),
893-4 in response to the chorus' appeal to Z eus (Ί am no t afraid of
the g o d s h ere ; they d id n 't re ar m e, or b rin g m e to old age by
n u rtu re'), 903 ('Tearing w o n 't pity the fabric of your tunic') an d 9067 ('Y ou’ll soon see p len ty of kings, A e g y p tu s' sons; cheer u p , you
w o n 't have to com plain of anarchy'; accepting the transposition of
905 an d 908, this is a response to the chorus' appeal to the King of
A rgos). W hen the king ap p ears, he h as im m ed iate recourse to
irony in 913-4 'D o you think y o u've come to a city of w om en? For a
b arb arian , y o u 're v ery in su ltin g to w ard s G reeks'. H is 923 is a
co m m en t on th e h e ra ld 's 893 an d , by im plication, rejects the
h e ra ld 's class-distinction am ong gods; his 927 ('I'm n o t hospitable
to p lu n d e re rs of th e g o d s') is a d irect resp o n se to a charge of
inhospitality. 952-3 pick u p 913-4; the A rgives are neither w om en
no t beer-drinkers. Finally, in reassuring the chorus, he concludes
w ith an ironical touch (965); if he an d all the citizens are on their
side, w h y are they w aiting for a h ig h er authority?
The irony in these interchanges (if 'iro n y ' is the rig h t w ord) is
ra th e r cru d e an d obvious, an d the second m eanings are so clear
('w e 're n o t w o m en ' c 'b u t m en an d good fighters at th at'> ) th at I
have n o t fo u n d it necessary to supply them . Both h erald and king
are co n v in ce d th a t th ey h av e the real civ ilisa tio n , th e re al
m onarchy, the real gods; P elasgus' chauvinism is m ore defensible
inasm uch as it is provoked, and there is no d o u b t of the sym pathies
of the audience. For the first tim e there appears on stage the kind
of sarcastic interchange that is so com m on in real life. This is, of
course, n o t its first appearance in literature; the confrontation of
A g a m e m n o n a n d A c h ille s 14 could perfectly w ell h av e b een
E.g. A chilles' u se o f an insult as if it w ere a com p lim en t (Iliad 1.122 'M ost
fam ous Atreides, m ost fond o f p ossessions o f all men').
D. H
ester
23
tran sfo rm ed from epic to dram a. But it alm ost certainly is the
earliest on-stage specim en w e possess.
T hat expert in deceptive irony, C lytaem nestra, is also very good
at rhetorical irony. G o ldhill15 heads his discussion of A gam em non
1372ff.
'T h e triu m p h of r h e to r ic /th e rh e to ric of triu m p h '.
C lytaem nestra begins by referring to h er p revious trium phs. The
atrocious crim e of h er m u rd e r of h er h u sb an d is illustrated by tw o
pictures of m agnificent incongruity: an ord erly ritu al sacrifice to
Zeus, and the spring rains w hich bring new life; in 1406 she ad d s a
th ird im age, th a t of a good craftsm an. W ell m ay the chorus
adm ire h er use of language (1399), w hile going on to vehem ently
criticise h er deed. In reply, she contrasts their p re sen t th irst for
justice w ith th eir in activ ity w h en Iphigeneia w as killed (141121), and com m ents ironically (1438-47) on the m agnificent fidelity
of C assandra to A gam em non, and the honourable and rom antic end
it has w o n her; there is, of course, as she m akes explicit in 1430-9,
an iro n ic a l c o n tra s t w ith A g a m e m n o n 's
in f id e lity to
C ly taem n estra herself, so h is 16 fate gives h er m arital satisfaction
<w hich h e d id n o t p ro v id e w h en alive (1446-7)>. H er su p rem e
illu stra tio n is h e r p re d ic tio n (1555-9) th a t Ip h ig en e ia w ill no
d o u b t fulfil in H ad es h er d u tifu l role (243-7) as w elcom er an d
e n te rta in e r < u n less, of course, b ein g sacrificed b y h e r fath er
d am p en ed h er ard o u r and w eakened h er sense of filial d u ty > .17
N eith er the chorus n o r A egisthus can p lay in h er league. The
nearest the chorus gets is the rhetorical question of 1505-6: 'W ho is
th ere to give ev id en ce th at you are in nocent of this m u rd e r? ';
A eg isth u s is capable only of b lu ster an d threats. A lth o u g h the
rh e to ric a l iro n y is ex trem ely effective, the lack of an eq u a l
15 G old h ill (1984) 89-95.
16 Or C assandra's, according to w h o m w e su p p ly as the subject of enrjyayev
in line 1446. W hether there is any charge o f prom iscuity against Cassandra
herself depends on a very doubtful text in 1443.
^ The eschatological speculations o f G. T hom son (1966) I I 113 are, I think,
entirely irrelevant.
24
Ir o n ic
in t e r a c t io n i n a e s c h y l u s a n d s o p h o c l e s
an tag o n ist m akes the scene less interactive than the scene in the
S uppliants; C lytaem nestra has established in h er 'beacon-speech'
a d o m inance w hich she n ever relinquishes. Also so m ew h at one­
sided, b u t for a different reason, is the confrontation of O restes and
C ly taem n estra in th e Choephori. T here is an o p p o rtu n ity for the
exchange of rhetorical irony, w hich he indeed indulges in, picking
u p h er 'd earest A egisthus' w ith 'H e's dear to you he? So you can be
in the sam e tom b. Y ou'll n ever betray him in d e a th ' <'as you d id
the m an w ho w as supposed to be dear to you, your h u sb an d '> (8945; cf. 904-7 w here he says it explicitly). But how ever good she is at
irony, it is no p a rt of h er p resen t conciliatory role, a n d she fights
back w ith o th er w eapons: a rem inder of h er m othering role, an d a
w arn in g of the curse th at falls on sons w ho kill their m others. He,
b y contrast, uses irony as a b arrier betw een him self an d the h o rro r
of the situ atio n , relying p articu larly on the in co n g ru ities of h er
situ atio n : faith fu l (as w e h av e seen) to h er lover, n o t to h er
h u sb an d , killing his father an d settling d o w n to a h a p p y old age
w ith him (909), especially significant are the interchanges of 910-1
and 930:
C ly t.
'Fate w as partly to blam e for this, m y son'.
Or.
'T hen it is fate that has provided for y o u r d eath
too'.
and
Or.
'You killed w hom you should n o t have; suffer
w hat you should n o t'
O restes is picking u p h er w ords and deeds and throw ing them back
at her, b u t this conscious rhetorical irony com bines w ith unconscious
iro n y ;18 th ere rem ains a price for him to pay, an d bo th fate an d
guilt w ill h av e a role in th at too.
Line 930 should no m ore be interpreted as a conscious adm ission of guilt
than (for exam ple) Antigone 95-6 'Let m e and m y folly suffer this terrible
fate'; A n tigone is also throw ing her antagonist s w o rd s back at her: see
G arvie (1986) 302. On the scene in general see S ed gew ick (1948) 72-6, w h o
d enies any elem ent o f unconscious irony w h en asserting an irony of
D. H
25
ester
L ater A echylean exam ples are m ore evenly balanced.
In the
E u m e n id e s b o th A pollo an d the Furies use rhetorical irony of a
rath er crude an d obvious kind as part of their arm oury (e.g. Apollo
in 209 'Y our fine prero gative', 226 'P u rsu e him and cause yourself
m ore tro u b le', 228 'I w o u ld n 't have your h o n o u rs as a gift'; the
chorus in 597 'If the vote catches u p w ith you, y o u 'll change your
tu n e'; 599 'tru s t in corpses, after killing your m other!'). So w hen
the antagonists com e face to face at the climax of the trial (614-80,
711-33) there are som e ironical touches; the rep eated 'y o u say ' of
the chorus in 622, 642, and 719 challenges argum ents w hich, indeed,
invite a challenge, an d he in his tu rn seem s to be m ocking their
w ords in 713-4 an d their im potence in 729-30. But on neither side is
iro n y th e m ain w eap o n ; in stead w e h av e a m ix tu re of logic,
threats, an d bribes, w ith occasional ironical un d erto n es.19
The confrontations of the Prometheus Bound are m ore subtle. In
the pro lo g u e, P ow er a n d H ephaestus are bickering; in the final
epeisodion, H erm es an d P rom etheus are in violent opposition. In
betw een, O ceanus' attem pts to m ediate m eet an ironic reaction from
Prom etheus.
There are touches of irony in the opening speeches. P ow er says
th at P ro m eth eu s 'm u s t learn to love the ty ra n n y of Z eus an d
aban d o n his philan th ro pic w ays' (10-11); the ironical tone, w ith a
touch of oxym oron, is clear enough. H e p h aestu s' 'T he m an w ho
will free you is n o t yet b o rn ' has already been discussed; rhetorical
irony, b u t w ith an unconscious irony in the un w ittin g p rophecy of
the b irth of H eracles.20 W hen they directly confront each other,
P o w er is p a rtic u la rly p ro n e to rh e to ric a l q u estio n s, tre a tin g
H ep h aestu s as a child w ho has to be nag g ed into action: 'W ell,
w h y are you hesitating an d w asting tim e in pity ?' 'H o w can you
situation: 'The eyes of both victim and avenger are on ly too dreadfully
open'; see also G oldhill (1984) 178-83, G arvie (1986) 291-302.
For a detailed analysis see G oldhill (1984) 249-56.
20 S o G r if f ith (1980) 33 a n d o th e r s .
26
Ir o n i c
in t e r a c t io n i n a e s c h y l u s a n d s o p h o c l e s
diso b ey y o u r fa th e r's co m m an d s?' (40-1) 'still sh riek in g an d
groaning for the enem ies of Zeus? Taken care you d o n 't have to feel
so rry for y o u rself som e day!' (66-7). H is cynicism is no t only
tow ard s Prom etheus; he com m ents ironically 'N o-one is free except
Z eus'. (50) T ow ards the end of the scene H ephaestus rouses him self
en o u g h to h it back, com m enting on his needless nagging a n d the
congruity of his w o rd s an d looks. The scene ends w ith an echo of
H ep h aetu s' prophecy: Pow er turns to P rom etheus and says (82-7):
'A ll right, now , go on being insolent and stripping gods of their
prero g ativ es to give them to creatures of a day. H ow can m ortals
relieve you of any of your sufferings? The gods are w rong to call you
'P rom etheus'; you need forethought [προμηθεως·] to get yourself out
of this h an d iw o rk '. The p u n is a m ocking one (Griffiths com pares
those on P en th eu s/πένθος 'suffering' in Bacchae 367, on Α ΐα ς/α ΐα ι
'a la s' in A j a x 430-3, etc.), b u t P ow er has accidentally associated
him self w ith the prediction of the role of H eracles, w hose first act
w ill be to kill the v u ltu re that feeds on P rom etheus' liver.21
In his soliloquy a n d interchange w ith the chorus, P rom etheus
m akes occasional u se of a different type of rhetorical irony; th at
w h ich in v ites his au d ien ce to sy m p ath ise w ith h is v iew p o in t;
'Look w h a t gods are d o in g to a god!' (92); 'This is the u n fittin g
bo n d ag e th at the n ew com m ander of the blessed h as in v en ted for
m e ' (96-7; 'b le sse d ' is especially ironical in this context); 'm y
sen try -d u ty is u n en v iab le' (143) 'A fter getting this help from m e,
the ty ran t of the gods has given m e these rew ard s <a pu n ; τιμ α ί22
can m ean 'h o n o u rs' or 'p u n ish m e n ts'> in re tu rn ; it's a kin d of
disease endem ic in tyranny no t to trust one's friends' (221-5). It is in
this k ind of context th at he u tters his fam ous 266-7 'I did w ro n g
w illingly, w illingly, I w o n 't d en y it; in h elp in g m ortals I found
suffering for m yself'. Like O restes and A ntigone, he is picking u p a
w o rd used by others (the chorus' 259-60 'd o n 't you see y o u've done
w rong?'); he is aw are of the am bivalence of the situation b u t is
21 Hesiod Theogony 523-7.
22 So Griffith (1980) 129; the text is, however, debatable.
D. H
este r
27
ce rtain ly n o t p le a d in g g u ilty to a m o ral error; ra th e r h e is
im plying th at his 'm istak e' w as the only m oral course.23
H is irony continues in the scene w ith O ceanus, w hom he greets
(296) w ith 'W h at's this?' H e assum es th at O ceanus has com e to
enjoy his sufferings, an d congratulates him on his ow n im m unity.
By 337 O ceanus has been provoked into retaliation ('Y ou're m uch
better at instructing others than yourself'), an d bo th have recourse
to irony in the final exchanges of 377-96; P rom etheus calls his offer
to m ediate 'v ain trouble an d frivolous stu p id ity ', to w hich O ceanus
replies in yet an o th er ironic echo of an antagonist's w o rd s 'Let m e
be sick w ith this disease, since the best course is to be intelligent
w hile seem ing stu p id '; P rom etheus replies (in effect) 'T h a t's m y
line'. P ro m eth eu s concludes by again w arn in g him to avoid the
w ra th of Z eus an d O ceanus rejoins 'Y our disaster is m y teacher'.
W e h a v e a fu lly d e v e lo p e d in te rc h a n g e of rh e to ric a l iro n y
betw een equally m atched antagonists w ho em ploy (as is usual) a
m ixture of oblique and direct speaking; an d once again there m ay
be u n d erto n es of unconscious irony; are the 'g u ilty ' pleas, false in
intention, justified in reality?24
R hetorical irony also pays a p a rt in the final co n trib u tio n of
H erm es an d P rom etheus. H erm es calls him a σοφιστής-, a 'w ise
g u y ' (944: iro n y , if the w o rd w as n o t y et estab lish ed in the
dero g ato ry sense if acquired in Plato an d A ristotle) an d is told in
tu rn (953) th at his speech is p ro u d -m o u th ed an d full of arrogance,
as b efits a 'lac k ey of the g o d s '.
The so m e w h a t irre g u la r
stich o m y th ia of 964-981 continues along sim ilar lines; H erm es
insists th at P ro m eth eu s has got into his p re sen t p o sitio n b y his
insolence, a n d it to ld th a t P ro m eth eu s w o u ld n o t ch ange his
troubles for H erm es' servitude. 977-8 follow a (by now ) fam iliar
pattern: H erm es 'I h ear th at you are m ad w ith no sm all disease';
P ro m eth eu s 'I'm w illing to be diseased, if it is a disease to hate
23 So Griffith (1980) 137; alternative interpretations in C onacher (1980)
43-4.
24 See e.g. Conacher (1980) 46.
28
Ir o n i c
in t e r a c t io n i n a e s c h y l u s a n d s o p h o c l e s
y o u r e n e m ie s'.
T his w a s a p re v a le n t G re e k d ise a se , a n d
P ro m e th e u s ' iro n y a g a in h a s an u n c o m fo rta b le ele m e n t of
u n in te n d e d fact. H erm es sum s u p (984) 'You clearly w o n 't say
a n y th in g th a t th e F ath er re q u ire s ' a n d is an sw e re d w ith the
heavily ironical O f course, I've got plenty of favours from him for
m e to re tu rn '.25 H erm es now proceeds to threaten and to execute his
threats; the loss of the P rom etheus U n bou n d leaves us u n su re of
ho w , ev en tu ally , P ro m etheus a n d Z eus m an ag e d to a ttain som e
compromise.
Such, th en , is th e p a tte rn of A esch y lean in te rc h a n g e s of
rh e to ric a l iro n y ;
ex ten siv e , d iffu se , co m b in e d w ith o th e r
rhetorical p attern s, and no t greatly affecting our interpretations of
the plays, except for the occasional presence of co m p o u n d irony.
Sophocles is m ore concise. A n early, and especially neat, exam ple
is the confrontation of Teucer and M enelaus in Ajax 1142-48:
Men.
I once saw a m an w ho w as a bold speaker
urging sailors to p u t to sea in storm y w eather. But w hen he
w as sto rm -b o u n d , y o u w o u ld n 't h e a r a w o rd from him ;
instead he cow ered u n d e r a cloak an d let any of the sailors
w ho w an ted tread on him . P erhaps a bold storm , blow ing
u p from a sm all cloud, could extinguish the noise of you and
your blustering voice.
Aj.
I've seen a m an, full of folly, w ho m ocked
his n eig h b o u rs' m isfortunes. T hen som eone looking an d
th in k in g like m e said to h im 'M an, d o n 't m istre a t the
dead; be sure you will be punished if you do'. That w as the
advice he gave the luckless m an, and I can see the m an now ,
an d , as I think, h e is n o n e o ther th a n you. W as th at a
rid d le ? '
T here is one rhetorical figure here, προσωττοττοιία; M enelaus
uses it to obliquely insult his adversary; Teucer not only answ ers in
25 If this is the correct interpretation; see Griffith (1980) 261.
D. H
este r
29
kin d b u t m ocks the figure. M enelaus a b ru p tly rev erts to his
preferred w eapon, threats, and stalks out.
O th er Sophoclean instances are closer to A eschylean practice.
In the A n tig o n e , b o th A ntigone an d C reon count rhetorical irony
am ong their w eapons, b u t it is no t dom inant in any passage, and is
directed m ostly at passive opponents (Ismene, the chorus, H aem on,
th o u g h th e last is ev en tually provoked into retaliation). T here is
no d ec ep tiv e iro n y , so th e classic in tera ctio n b e tw e e n it a n d
dram atic irony is also lacking.
But there is som e ironic interchange. Ism ene does no t react to
A ntigone's ironical references to C reon ('the general', 8; 'th e good
C reon', 31), n o r does she retaliate w hen the irony is tu rn ed on h er
('If you like, h old the g o d 's law s in d ish o n o u r' 76-7; 'O h, announce
it! I'll hate you even m ore if you d o n 't tell the w o rld ' 86-7; 'Let m e
an d m y folly suffer this terrible fate' 95-6) b u t there is an elem ent
of unconscious irony in this last exam ple at least; A ntigone w ill
com e to regard h er fate as terrible, even if the idea seem s absurd to
her n ow , an d she w ill be charged w ith folly (383, 975); there are
alread y signs th at h er rigid position has elem ents of w eakness.
C reon, sim ilarly, does n o t em erge altogether u n scath ed from his
encounter w ith the guard, w ho com plains (317, 319) w ith a kind of
desperate b rav ad o about the stan d ard response to b ad new s (shoot
the m essenger) an d m anages to escape w ith his life. W hen the
m ain antagonists stan d face to face, it is A ntigone w ho h as m ost
recourse to irony (448 'I knew ; how could I not? It w as obvious
e n o u g h ', 469-70 'If y o u th in k m y act is folly, it's a fool w h o 's
calling m e a fool'); h er 499-507 is packed w ith irony, an d in their
final exchange he hits back in kind (522-5):
Creon:
A ntigone:
Creon:
'Being dead doesn't turn an enem y into a friend'.
'M y n ature is to join in love, not join in hate'.
'Go d ow n below, and love them , if love you m ust'.
H er line, a fine debating point, is often quoted ou t of context as a
noble statem ent of principle; b u t she seem s to feel no obligation to
ap p ly it to fam ily m em bers w ho are no t yet d ead , n otably h er
30
Ir o n ic
in t e r a c t io n i n
Ae s c h y l u s
a n d so ph o cles
s is te r ,26 a n d h er po sition, like C reon's, is n o t as stro n g as she
th in k s.
Just as A ntigone relied confidently on h er sister for su p p o rt and
w as let do w n , so C reon relied on his son. W hen he in tu rn is let
d o w n , h e lik ew ise h as reco u rse to b itte r iro n y (726ff.); his
antagonist hits back in kind:
Creon:
Haemon:
Creon:
Haemon:
Creon:
Haemon:
Creon:
Haemon:
'A re people of m y age to be taught to think by
people of yours?'
O n ly w h at is right; if I am young, you should
consider deeds rath er than age.'
'Is the city to give orders to m e?'
'D on't you see you have spoken as a very young
person?'
'Is anyone b u t m e to rule this land?'
'You can't call it a city if it belongs to one m an.'
'Isn 't the city held to belong to the ruler?'
'The only thing you could properly rule is a desert!'
N e ith e r of th e m a in a n ta g o n is ts h a s fin ish e d w ith iro n y ;
A nitgone com m ents ironically on the 're w a rd s' of p iety in 922-8
an d 940-3 (w ith, again, the unconscious im plication th at h er piety
m ig h t n o t be as perfect as she believes. She has, inter alia, totally
fo rg o tten th a t she h as a living sister). C reo n 's exchange w ith
Teiresias in 1045-63, w ith its quibbling on 'good sense' an d 'p ro fit'
could be described as suicidal. Sophocles' technique is sim ilar to
A eschylus', b u t the irony is concentrated into shorter passages.
It w o u ld be ted io u s to catalo g u e all scenes w h ich involve
rh e to ric al iro n y , so I shall p ick tw o b rie f extracts from large
c o n f ro n ta tio n s (O e d ip u s v e r s u s T eiresias, E lectra v e r s u s
C ly taem n estra) w h ich involve also c o m p o u n d irony. O ne is
26 So esp. 543 and 549; see Winnington-Ingram (1980) 124-5 and Brown
(1987) 165-7, w ho are much sounder than Kamerbeek (1953-) 107 'The
w ords ... reveal the innermost centre of her being' or Jebb (1887-) xxix, w ho
argues that Antigone's harshness to Ismene is feigned in order to convince
Creon of her sister's innocence.
D. H
ester
31
Oedipus Rex 397: 'I, 'ig n o r a n tia s you think, b u t actually cleverer
than yo u are> [in reality, blind to the situation] O edipus, stopped
h e r '.27 The o th er is Electra: 580-3, in w hich Electra says 'bew are
of laying d ow n such a law for m ortals; you m ight set u p trouble and
rem orse for yourself; for if w e kill in return for killing, you w ould
die first, if you got justice'. This argum ent could clearly be used to
invalidate the position of Electra an d O restes.28
These rem inders of the presence of unconscious irony (dom inant
in b o th plays, an d far m ore significant than the rhetorical irony)
m ay serv e as a tra n sitio n to the second m ain ty p e of ironic
interaction, in w hich deceptive irony in one speaker is answ ered by
unconscious irony in another. Here, too, Aeschylus m ay be regarded
as th e in n o v a to r.29 The A g a m e m n o n is esp e cially rich in
exam ples, b u t a sim ilar point m ay be m ade to that already m ade in
connection w ith rhetorical irony in th at play: the exchanges are
no t equally balanced, since C lytaem nestra dom inates every scene.
As she is the deceiver, deceptive irony is m uch m ore p ro m in en t
than unconscious irony.
H er first p ro m in en t use of deceptive irony is in 338-50, in her
pray er th at the victorious Greeks m ay respect the gods of Troy and
th eir sh rin es a n d so n o t offend the g ods a n d in cu r d isaster.
C onacher30 w ell com m ents 'The queen's hopes m asquerade as fears
as she h in ts w ith covert irony at the various dan g ers (all to be
fulfilled) w h ich still aw ait the conquerors'; the h erald w ill tell
27 So e.g. Daw e (1982) 133, Gould (1970) 63.
2® So esp. Kells (1973) 128, Winnington-lngram Platon 28 (1976) 147-50,
Sedgewick (1948) 80-2.
2^ I am aware that Sophocles may have been the originator of this type of
irony, since his earliest (lost) plays antedate the Oresteia; but in the absence
of any explicit testim ony such as Poetics 5 1449a 15-19, where Aristotle
tells us that Sophocles introduced the third actor (who is required for the
Choephori and Eumenides), it is safest to treat the elder poet as the
originator.
30 (1987) 33; similarly Lloyd-Jones (1970-) 35.
32
Ir o n i c
i n t e r a c t io n i n a e s c h y l u s a n d s o p h o c l e s
us in 527-8 that the Greeks did offend, an d his 647-660 w ill record
th e ir p u n ish m en t; th eir le a d e r's p u n ish m e n t C ly taem n estra is
reserving for herself as a 'fresh disaster'. But this obvious sequence
is n o t the only irony in the passage; C lytaem nestra concludes 'This
is w h a t you are hearing from me, a w om an; b u t m ay good fortune
triu m p h, u n am biguous to see; I have chosen a benefit of m any fine
th in g s'. C ly taem n estra gracefully a d m its,31 by im plication, the
su p erio rity of m ale logic; echoes the ch o ru s' frantic p ra y e r th at
p u n ctu ate d their long account of the disaster at Aulis; hin ts that
there is am biguity in the p resen t situation; an d looks fo rw ard to
her ow n successful usurpation.
The ch o ru s-lead er is d u ly deceived, com m enting 'L ady, you
h ave spoken like a sensible m an. H earing y o u r reliable (πίσ τα)
evidence, I too am p re p arin g to ad d ress the g o d s'. H e politely
reassures h er on the validity of h er reasoning (accepting, as he w as
in te n d e d to do, th at m ale logic is in general su p erio r to fem ale
logic), believes h er evidence (πίστα', w hich can also m ean 'lo y al'
h as p a rtic u la rly stro n g u n d e rto n e s of u nconscious irony), an d
associates h im self w ith h er p ra y e r w ith o u t realising th a t they
are p ray in g for opposite things.
A fter celebrating h er triu m p h over the chorus, C lytaem nestra
co n tin u es in 600-12 to d ictate to the h erald a m essage for h er
're v e re d ' re tu rn in g lord. She stresses the joy w ith w hich she will
w elcom e him ('w h at could be sw eeter for any w om an than to unbar
the doors to h er h u sb an d w hom a god has b ro u g h t safe hom e from
the w ars'), an d says th at he w ill find h er as faithful (πίστη) as he
left h er [obviously h er ad u ltery w ith A egisthus goes back m ore
th an ten years], 'th e house-dog, noble to him , an enem y to those
w h o w ish him ill'. O ne feels th at these last p h ra ses m ig h t be
re a rra n g e d 32 and th at 'd o g ' m ight w ell signify 'b itch ', as it does,
fo r ex am p le, in I li a d VI.34 (H elen) a n d O d y s s e y V III.319
See especially G. Thomson (1966) II, 33.
32 See e.g. Markantonatos Main Types 80.
D . H e ste r
33
(A p h ro d ite ).33 She en ds by stressing h er unch an g ed n atu re and
freed o m from 'p lea su re or blam e from any o th er m a n ', a n d by
a sse rtin g h e r sp eech is tru th fu l a n d a p p r o p ria te .34 She is
obviously th oroughly enjoying h er duplicity.35
Pace Vellacott,36 the chorus-leader has no suspicions, and again
responds w ith unconscious irony: 'As you [the herald] can tell, she
has m ad e a seem ly (ευπρεπή?) speech, as keen in terp re ters can
tell'. A gain, th ere is a hig h ly am biguous w o rd (ευπρεπή? c a n
m ean 'p lau sib le'), a n d 'k e en in te rp re te rs' is h a rd ly an accurate
description of this chorus.
H er suprem e triu m p h of deception is yet to come. H er husband
stands before her. It is unnecessary to analyse his speech, since any
iro n y in it is unconscious; b u t its final line ('M ay victory, since it
h as atten d e d m e, stay securely') certainly is a m agnificent 'feed
lin e' for her. She takes full ad v an tag e of it in h er w elcom ing
speech (855-913). A t first it is oblique, since she is ad dressing the
chorus: 'G entlem en citizens, senior m en of A rgos, I am not afraid to
tell y o u of m y h u s b a n d — loving (φιλανορα?) w ays; p e o p le 's
re v ere n ce w a ste s a w ay w ith tim e '.
T h at th is a n d all h e r
following rem arks are insincere is obvious to everyone; it is obvious
to alm ost everyone th at she is thoroughly enjoying h er am bivalent
language. For exam ple, φιλανορα? can equally m ean 'm an-loving',
an d the reverence w hich tim e has eroded is h er reverence for her
33 See especially Goldhill (1984) 54-7.
34 Assuming that lines 613-4 belong to her and not to the herald (so
Fraenkel 1950 II lines 305-7, following Headlam: G. Thomson (1966) II, 545 to the contrary).
35 So e.g. Conacher (1980) 30.
36 Vellacott (1984) 67 (compare his similar interpretation of the Oedipus
Rex). But the chorus' fears are vague; as far as they have any specific
content, it is fear of public resentment at the length of the casualty lists in a
war fought for an inadequate reason (lines 427-58, 799-804) or of divine
envy of triumphant conquerors (459-74, 763-71, 988-1000); even w hen they
hear Agamemnon's death cries they do not realise what has happened
(1346-71). See H.D.F. Kitto Greek Tragedy (London 1961) 74-5.
34
Ir o n i c
i n t e r a c t io n i n a e s c h y l u s a n d s o p h o c l e s
husb an d , n o t her diffidence in m aking personal rem arks in public.
F ra e n k e l37 asto n ish in g ly com m ents 'T he p u rp o se of this speech
a n d th e s p e a k e r's a ttitu d e are q u ite clear, b u t h a v e b een
continually obscured by artifices of interp retatio n ', an d goes on to
w a rn u s a g a in s t th e 'p la y fu l in g e n u ity ' of th is p a rtic u la r
in terp retatio n ; for once V ellacott38 has it right; 'F raenkel seem s
as u n a w a re of h er b itte r iro n y as A gam em n o n h im self'. She
continues w ith a lengthy discussion of the w oes of a wife w ho sits
at hom e ap a rt from h er husb an d , im agining in gruesom e detail all
the d isasters w hich m ight be h ap p e n in g to him <as she hopes>;
'a n d on top of this o ur child is not standing beside m e, a w arran t of
o u r pledges to one another'; Vellacott39 w ell com m ents 'giving him
tim e, if h e w ill, to recall Iphigeneia, before she a d d s 'O re ste s'',
w ho h ad been sent abroad so th at he w ould no t be an obstacle to her
ad u ltery .40 She goes on to enlarge on her ow n grief, and hails him
in an ex trav ag an t collection of seven m etap h o rs as the fulfilm ent
of all h e r h o p es (there is a n e a t echo of this in the sim ilarly
extrav ag an t collection of m etaphors, of a less com plim entary kind,
w hich C assandra uses of h er in 1232-6). She belatedly tu rn s to her
husband, and concludes by inviting him to tread on p u rp le robes 'so
th at Justice w ill lead him into an unexpected hom e': tw o m ore
b e a u tifu l am b ig u itie s:41 A gam em non is going to get w h a t he
deserves <death, n o t a triu m p h al retu rn > an d his re tu rn w ill be
unex p ected <in th at he is killed, no t th at the ten-year w a r m ade
him think he w o u ld never see hom e a g a in x
To this fulsom e flattery A gam em non responds w ith m ild irony
(914-6); h er speech is ap p ro p riate to his absence a n d because of it
37 (1950) II 390.
38 (1984) 69; similarly Sedgewick (1948) 65-8, Goldhill (1984) 68,
Conacher (1987) 34-5, G. Thomson (1966) II, 71, Sidgwick (1881-) 45.
39 (1984)164-9 and 175-6, Garvie (1986) 35 (and the whole of 30-39).
40 G. Thomson (1966) II ,72, referring to Cho. 132 and 915.
E.g. Markantonatos Main Types 81.
D. H
35
ester
ju st ab out as long. He know s that it is overdone, b u t goes on to
explain th at this is the w ay w om en n atu ra lly behave (919). H e
has no su sp icio n of h er intentions; his only fear is one th at he
shares w ith the chorus; too m uch triu m p h m ay incur divine envy
(C lytaem nestra h ad p ray ed in 504, w ith h er custom ary irony, that
it w o u ld not). H e is p artic u la rly u n w illin g to trea d u p o n the
garm ents: 'H o n o u r m e as a m an, not as a god'. His final w ords are a
lovely exam ple of unconscious irony resp o n d in g to h er deceptive
irony; 'n o t to think stu p id ly is the god's greatest gift. W e can call
a m an blessed if he en ds his life in prosperity; I'd be h a p p y w ith
every th in g ju st as it is'. [The end of life an d the final verdict are
in d e e d at h a n d ; th e e n d w ill not be h a p p y , n o r the v erd ic t
favourable.]
A g am em n o n is quite certain he w ill no t change his m ind an d
yield to his w ife's tem p tatio n (932). T w enty-tw o lines later he
does just that. H er intentions and her persuasive skills are obvious;
his m otives are less so, b u t it does n o t m atter for o u r p u rp o se
w h e th e r he is obsessed by personal arrogance,42 possessed b y a
δαίμων, or in spired by gentlem anly courtesy, tow ards an act w hich
com bines gratu ito u s insolence, irresponsible destructiveness, an d a
sym bolic w ad in g th ro u g h blood. In a futile attem p t to avert divine
w rath he rem oves his sandals; w ith insatiable naivety he entrusts
his concubine to the care of his wife. She, in response, thanks the
gods th at they h ave such w ealth th at w aste is irrelevant, an d in
ano th er o u tb u rst of m etaphor greets him as a shade-tree, bringing
coolness in sum m er an d w arm th in w inter; she asks Z eus to fulfil
h er prayers. W e are quite certain of the content of these prayers
and their fulfilm ent; he rem ains sublim ely unaw are; the chorus is
afraid, b u t h as no idea why.
H av in g d ea lt successfully w ith h er council of
h u sb an d , C lytaem nestra can have no fear th at she
helpless captive. She invites C assandra to en ter
p articip ate at th e ritual; she assures h e r th at an
elders an d h er
w ill fail w ith a
the palace and
ancient fam ily
42 The predominant view; the other reasons are those of Lloyd-Jones and
Fraenkel respectively.
36
Ir o n ic
i n t e r a c t io n i n a e s c h y l u s a n d s o p h o c l e s
w ill n o t trea t its slaves w ith the cruelty of n ou v eau x riches, b u t
she w ill get 'w h a t is cu stom ary' < 'for a m istress en tertained b y a
w ife'> ; 'A lread y the sheep sta n d by the central h e a rth for the
sacrifice. So w e w ill w in a pleasure w e never expected'. C assandra
k n o w s th e full situ atio n , a n d know s also th a t she w ill n o t be
b e lie v e d ;
h e r silen ce m a k e s th e d o u b l e s
e n t e n d r e s of
C lytaem nestra seem m erely silly. She w ins this skirm ish, even if
h er defeat an d death are sure an d im m inent.
H er silence m eans that the only com m ents are from the chorus.
Som e of th ese co m m ents a p p e a r am b iv alen t, a n d G o ld h ill43
believes th at they are engaging in deliberate irony of their ow n in
com m enting on C ly taem nestra's use of language. But their 1053
'Follow her; she is giving you the best advice for y o u r situ atio n '
show s th at they are as m uch in the d ark as ever; this is again the
response of unconscious irony to deceptive irony.
In a b riefer scene from the Choephori the balance is reversed;
u n co n sc io u s iro n y is m o re p ro m in e n t th a n d e c e p tiv e irony.
A egisthus is such a w uss (only the slang term seem s adequate) that
in 837ff. he v irtually w rites the script for his o w n deception.44 He
has h eard the new s of O restes' 'd e a th ', bringing a fu rth er 'bloody
b u rd e n ', b u t is it true? W om en are em otional creatures an d liable to
s p re a d false ru m o u rs.
The (fem ale) c h o ru s -le a d e r g ra v ely
com m ends his search for first-hand evidence, a n d he goes off to
question the m essenger 'w h o couldn't deceive m y open-eyed m ind'.
H e h as neatly b u t unconsciously forecast his ow n u n deception and
im m ed iately follow ing d eath , an d the ch o ru s-lead er has only to
give him a gentle n u d g e along the prim rose path.
If w e w an t a perfect balance betw een deceptive and unconscious
irony, Sophocles can p ro v id e it. O f tw o classic instances I shall
43 (1984) 82; the chorus' vague optatives are to be attributed rather to
politeness (Sedgewick (1948) 53, etc.).
44 For a fuller discussion see Conacher (1987) 118-23, Goldhill 1984 164-9
and 175-6, Garvie (1986) 237 and 280.
D. H
37
ester
analyse the first (A j a x 89-117).45 A prosaic translation m ight ru n
as follows:
Athena:
'H o, there, Ajax! I am calling you again. W hy
have you so little regard for your ally?' < T m not
your ally, and you'll soon find the consequences of
refusing m y offer of alliance';».46
Ajax:
'H ail, A thena! Hail, d au g h ter of Zeus! H ow w ell
you have stood by me! I will adorn you w ith golden
offerings in retu rn for this catch'. [She is his bitter
opponent, an d his only offering w ill be his death.]
A th.:
'W ell, said! But do tell me; have you dyed your
sw ord w ell in the Greek arm y' c'Y ou've been
killing cattle, you id io t'x
Ajax:
'I m ay as w ell boast; I w o n 't deny it'. [His 'boast'
is sham e.]47
A th.:
'H ave you turned your w eapons on the A treidae
too?' <'You m issed!'>
Ajax:
'So th at they w o n 't dishonour Ajax again' [It's his
'vengeance' that brings him the dishonour].
A th .
'The m en are dead, if I u nderstand y ou' <1
understand: you d o n 't'x
Ajax:
'Let them take m y arm s aw ay now th at they're
dead!' <I'm in a position to gloat'> [Direct irony
m isplaced.]
45 On this passage see especially Markantonatos Platon 27 (1975) 269, Jebb
(1887-) 25-9, Kamerbeek (1953-) 36-43, Stanford (1963) 69-73.
46 Lines 770-6.
47 Lines 363-7, etc.
38
I r o n ic
i n t e r a c t io n i n a e s c h y l u s a n d s o p h o c l e s
A th.:
'W ell, w h at of the son of Laertes? W ere you in luck
there, or has he escaped you?' <'H e has, an d is
standing near you'>.
Ajax:
'A re you asking m e w here the dam ned fox is?'
[O dysseus has certainly foxed him.]
A th.:
'Yes; I m ean O dysseus, your ad v ersary ' c'actually,
less of an adversary than I am '>.
Ajax:
'H e's sitting inside as a m ost welcom e prisoner: I
d o n 't w an t him to die just yet'. [More m isplaced
gloating.]
Ath:.
'W hat are you going to do first? W hat else is there
to gain? < 'N othing'> .
Ajax:
'First, I'll bin d him to a pillar of the h u t roof'.
A th:.
'W hat m ore harm are you going to do to the poor
m an ?' [a stan d ard stichom ythia interruption].
Ajax:
'I'll m ake his back bloody w ith a w hip before I
kill h im ' [the only blood still to be shed is his
own],
A th:.
'N o, d o n 't torture the poor m an like th a t' <'You
c a n 't'>
Ajax:
'A thena, I'm telling you to have y o u r w ill in
everything else; he w ill p ay this, an d no other,
p enalty' [He thinks h e can give orders to a
goddess].
A th:.
'You, then, since y our pleasure is to do this, p u t your
h an d to it, d o n 't give u p anything you in ten d '
c 'A re n 't I obliging?'>
D. H
39
ester
Ajax:
'I'm off to do it; I'm telling you to stand by m e
again as this kind of ally'.
This sentence com bines ring com position (the reference to A thena
as an ally sta n d in g by him , w h ich b eg a n the p assa g e), the
arro g an t rep etitio n of 'I'm telling y o u ', an d the unconscious irony
w h ich re calls O d y s s e y XXI 402-3; 'I h o p e th a t th is m a n 's
[O dysseus'] p rofit in the fu tu re is equal to his success in stringing
the bow n o w '. Ajax, like the anonym ous suitor, has unconsciously
called d o w n his ow n d oom u p o n him ; w ith friends like A thena,
w ho need s enem ies? She is the m ost H om eric of divinities in this
m ost Hom eric of plays.
The o th er locus classicus is, of course, Electra 1442-74, in w hich
A egisthus encounters C lytaem nestra's corpse u n d er the im pression
that it is O restes'. The situation, and the techniques em ployed, are
alm o st id en tical w ith th a t in the p ro lo g u e of the A j a x : one
c h a rac te r (here E lectra at first, O restes later) kn o w s the full
situation, and deliberately conceals it from a victim , w ho responds
w ith unconscious irony. I w ill refrain from analysing it at length,
especially since others h av e done so.48 There rem ains, how ever,
the q u estion as to w h eth er there is a fu rth er level of unconscious
iro n y in th is scene a n d in w h a t im m e d ia tely follow s, if the
'triu m p h a n t' Electra and O restes are about to suffer w h a t he does
in the O resteia and w h at bo th do in E uripides' Electra ; this w ould
ad d another ironic dim ension to an already com plex situation. This
view is fa sh io n a b le n o w a d a y s 49 b u t I do n o t share it. I have
discu ssed the m o ral issues elsew here, an d w o u ld here w ish to
observe only th at there m u st be a lim it to the levels of irony w hich
an audience can be expected to sim ultaneously appreciate, and this
lim it m ig h t be two.
48 Markantonatos Platon 28 (1976) 147-50, Sedgewick (1948) 80-2.
49 E.g. Kamerbeek (1953-) 17-20, Kells (1973) 1-12, Winnington-Ingram
(1980) 225-47; to the contrary Jebb (1887-) 203, D.A. Hester Mnemosyne
28 (1975) 203-5 and Antichthon 15 (1981) 15-25 with refs.
40
Ir o n ic
i n t e r a c t io n i n a e s c h y l u s a n d s o p h o c l e s
H ow ever th at m ay be, the Philoctetes has a subtle variation of
th e them e in th e long first e p e is o d io n .50 T here is an extrem ely
elab o rate sto ry of d ecep tio n to tell, a n d N eo p to lem u s takes his
tim e over it; Philoctetes is du ly deceived. H ow ever, the reactions
of Philoctetes are m ostly predictable, and our m ain concern is no t
w ith unconscious irony on his p art, b u t w ith the points in w hich
N eoptolem us' account corresponds w ith the tru e facts; in particular,
h o w far does he realise th at h is lies are, at a d ee p er level, true?
Once again, the conscious and unconscious (or sem i-conscious) irony
co-exist in one person.
Initially it w o u ld ap p e ar th at N e o p to lem u s' talent for deceit
h a s b e e n g ro ssly u n d e re s tim a te d b y O d y sse u s (79-80) a n d
N eo p to lem u s him self (86-9); he resp o n d s b lan d ly to Philoctetes'
opening questions and lies elegantly (250 'know that I know nothing
ab out the object of y o ur questions'; a stan d ard form ula for 'let m e
tell you th a t' carries the im plication 'I w an t you to believe that').
In 329 he em barks on his m ain sequence of lies 'w ith difficulty', as
h e says; an o th er sta n d a rd phrase, suggesting to Philoctetes that
he is h in d ere d by em otional stress, and to us (w hether he him self
realises it or not) th at lying to this sym pathetic sufferer w o n 't be
easy for him . In the insults he casts at O dysseus (above all in 3834, 431-2, 441), in w hich he is su p p o rted by the 'm erch an t' (607-9),
he is b u t follow ing O dysseus' ow n advice (64-5): b u t he w ill com e to
h o ld these view s in reality (1224-49). P articularly in stru ctiv e is
431-2: 'O d y sse u s is a clever w restler, b u t even clever p lan s,
P hiloctetes, are often th w a rte d ': the co m b in atio n of decep tiv e
irony and unconscious irony is clear enough, b u t is there also a hint
th a t N eo p to lem u s alre ad y has q u alm s?51 Even clearer is 524-9;
N eoptolem us says he will no t be inferior to the chorus in 'w orking
for Philoctetes in his h o u r of need ', and asks the gods to help them
sail 'w h ere w e w ish'. H e intends to 'serv e' Philoctetes by m aking
him the conqueror of Troy (N eoptolem us' intended destination), bu t
219-675; on this see esp. Ussher (1990) 119-132.
51 So Webster (1970) 99; see also Johnson CR42 (1928) 213, Ussher (1990)
125.
D. H
este r
41
uses w o rd s w h ich im p ly th at he w ill serve him by taking him
hom e (Philoctetes' in ten ded destination); he cannot foresee th at in
1393-1402 he w ill m ake this offer in earnest.52
It is tim e to su m up. A lthough m ore com plex p attern s m ay
occasionally occur, the tw o m ain types of ironic interaction are that
in w hich rhetorical irony is answ ered by rhetorical irony an d that
in w hich deceptive irony is answ ered by unconscious irony. The
form er p attern m ay be called 'endem ic' in G reek tragedy; it occurs
frequently b u t not very conspicuously, and is rather p a rt of the basic
s tru c tu re th a n a key ele m e n t in th e in te rp re ta tio n of an y
in d iv id u a l play. The latter p attern is 'en d em ic'; b o th reception
an d illusion are of m ajor significance in the plays in w hich they
occur. Both p attern s are in tro d u ced b y A eschylus, p o lish ed by
Sophocles, an d continue in Euripides.53
B ib lio g ra p h y
1.
Discussions of irony
m ostly 'd ram atic' or 'tragic' irony in general (this list has no
claim to be complete):
E. Behler Klassische Ironie, Rom antische Ironie, Tragische
Ironie (D arm stadt 1972).
D.C. M uecke The Compass of Irony (London 1969)
G.C. Sedgew ick O f Irony (Toronto 1948) esp. 64-76
(O r e s te ia ) 34-7 and 79-83 (Electra).
J.A.K. Thom pson Irony (London 1926) esp. 39-53
( A g a m e m n o n ), 54-69 ( Oedipus Rex).
So Kirkwood (1958) 259-60, Johnson (1928) 210, Ussher (1990) 128.
53 Por rhetorical versus rhetorical irony see e.g. Medea lines 499-575, for
deceptive versus unconscious irony see e.g. Medea 869-75. I am indebted to
the helpful comments of an anonymous reader.
42
2.
Ir o n ic
i n t e r a c t io n i n
Ae s c h y l u s
a n d so ph o cles
Major discussions of irony in Greek tragedy:
S.K. Johnson 'Som e aspects of dram atic irony in Sophoclean
T ragedy' CR 42 (1928) 209-14.
G.M. K irkw ood A S tu d y of Sophoclean Drama (N ew York
1958), 247-87 w ith references.
G. M arkantonatos 'O n the M ain Types of D ram atic Irony as
u sed in G reek T ragedy', Platon 29 (1977) 79-84.
[also articles in Emerita 41 (1973) 491-7 on A n tig on e, Platon 26
(1974) 73-9 on Trachiniae, 27 (1975) 269-72 on A jax, 28 (1976)
147-50 on Sophocles Electra, 31 (1979) 59-72 on Aeschylus].
Briefer references to irony in Greek tragedy:
C.M. Bowra Sophoclean Tragedy (Oxford 1944) esp. 114-5,
254-6.
H.D.F. Kitto Greek Tragedy _3rd.ed. (London 1961) passim.
A. M ueller Aesthetischer Kom m entar zu den
Sophocles (Padeborn 1904) esp. 79-81.
Tragodien des
U. P arlavontza-F riedrich Tduschungsszenen in den Tragodien
des Sophocles (Berlin 1969) esp. 87-90, 94-5.
K. R ein h ard t Sophocles tr. H. H a rv e y /D . H arv ey (O xford
1979) 121-5
T.G. R osenm eyer The A r t of Aeschylus (Berkeley 1982) 324-5.
T.B.L. W ebster A n Introduction to Sophocles 2nded. (London
1969) 117-119
R.P. W innington-Ingram Sophocles (C am bridge 1980) passim ,
esp. 316-7, 328-9.
H
43
ester
Editions and commentaries referred to:
A. Aeschylus
Plays in series
Persae
S ep tem
S u pplian ts
O r e s t eia
Agam em non
Choephori
Eu m enides
P ro m e th e u s
A. Sidgw ick (Oxford 1881 -)
H.D. B roadhead (C am bridge 1960)
J. de Romilly etc. (Paris 1974)
A.O. P ritchard (London 1879)
G.O. H utchinson (Oxford 1985)
T.G. Tucker (C am bridge 1908)
A.W. V errall (London 1887)
T.G. Tucker (Cam bridge 1908)
A.F. G arvie (C am bridge 1969)
H. Lloyd-Jones (Englew ood Cliffs
1970
sep a rate plays)
G. Thom son (A m sterdam 1966)
A.W. V errall (London 1889-;
sep arate plays)
D.J. C onacher Aesch ylu s' Oresteia
(Toronto 1987)
S. G oldhill Language, Sexuality,
N a rra tive (C am bridge 1984)
P. V ellacott The Logic of Tragedy
(D urham N.C. 1984) esp. 62-75.
J.D. D enniston (D. Page, Oxford
1957)
E. Fraenkel (3 vols., O xford 1950)
A. Bowen (Bristol 1986)
A.F. G arvie (Oxford 1986)
L.D. Barnett (London 1901)
A.H. Som m erstein (C am bridge
1989)
M. G riffith (C am bridge 1980)
H. R ackham (C am bridge 1903)
D.J. C onacher (Toronto 1980)
B. Sophocles
Plays in series
R.C. Jebb (Cam bridge 1887-)
44
Ir o n i c
T ra ch in ia e
A jax
A n tigo n e
O edipu s Rex
E le c tr a
P h ilo ctetes
D. H ester
U n iv ersity of A delaide
i n t e r a c t io n i n a e s c h y l u s a n d s o p h o c l e s
J.C. K am erbeek (Leiden 1953-)
M. Davies (Oxford 1991)
P.E. Easterling (C am bridge 1982)
W.B. Stanford (London 1963)
A. Brow n (W arm inister 1987)
R.D. D aw e (C am bridge 1982)
T. G ould (Englew ood Cliffs 1970)
J.T. S hepherd (C am bridge 1920)
J.H. Kells (C am bridge 1973)
R.G. U ssher (W arm inster 1990)
T.B.L. W ebster (C am bridge 1970)