1
Bruce Fraser, 1994. A Study of Narrative Irony in the Oresteia
Abstract
Although many early references to irony are to the rhetorical figure, both in
ancient sources,1 and English,2 Sedgewick points out that this was not the
original meaning.
"Eironeia, as the Periclean Greeks conceived it, was not so much a mode of
speech as a general mode of behaviour."3
Aristotle considered it as the expression of a moral defect, distanced from the
truth,4 with implications for linguistic style rather than a feature of it.5
Its breadth of application may obscure the semantic core common to the
incarnations of this "most ill-behaved of all literary tropes."6 My intention is to
examine its expression as narrative irony, and consider its importance in
language and literature generally.
I adopt a tripartite approach. The first section of this paper is a survey of some
critical positions in regard to irony. My approach is thematic rather than
historical, and is not intended to be comprehensive.7 I wish to trace some of the
intellectual moves by which irony came to be considered as both an awareness
of imitation and a narrative structure, and the connection between this
development and theories of aesthetic distance. I cite authorities whom I
consider to be paradigmatic. My discussion concentrates on links between
dramatic dialogue and narrative irony.
In the second section I adopt a technical linguistic approach to dialogue. I apply
a conversational analysis to a passage from the Agamemnon, and examine some
relations between the dialogue and the plot form.
In the third section I consider the importance of inference in interpreting
figurative language, and suggest that as the perception of ironies involves the
1In eo vero genere quo contraria ostenduntur ironia est ... nam si qua earum verbis dissentit,
apparet diversam esse orationi voluntatem. "that class in which the meaning is contrary to that
ostended, is irony ... for if any of these [delivery/character/subject] is out of keeping with the words, it is
clear that the speaker's intention is different" Quintilian: Institutio 8.6.54.1ff
2Wynkyn de Worde: Ordinarye of Crystyanyte or of Crysten Men 1502: "yronye ... of grammare, by the
whiche a man sayth one & gyueth to understande the contrary," quoted NED V p484. Puttenham G: The
Arte of English Poesie 1589- 'the drye mock'
3Sedgewick
G.G.: Of Irony, Especially in Drama Toronto 1935 p9
Nic.: 1108.a.20-22: kai; hJ mesovth" ajlhvqeia legevsqw, hJ de; prospoivhsi" hJ me;n ejpi; to;
mei'zon ajlazoneiva kai; oJ e[cwn aujth;n ajlazwvn, hJ d? ejpi; to; e[latton eijrwneiva kai; ei[rwn (oJ e[cwn)
4Eth
"and let truth be the mean, and pretence to the greater alazonia and the one practising it the alazon, and
that to the lesser eironia and the one practising it the eiron"
5In the Rhetoric, 1408b11ff, he prescribes complex style, ta; de; ojnovmata ta; dipla' kai; ta;
ejpivqeta pleivw kai; ta; xevna, "compound words and many epithets and foreign words" as suitable for
speaking met? eijrwneiva".
6States B.O.: Irony and Drama Ithaca 1971 p3
7Muecke D.C.: The Compass of Irony London 1969 & Booth W.C.: A Rhetoric of Irony Chicago 1947
are the most complete thematic treatments.
2
identification of context, it might mirror inferential processes in general. Ironic
effects in the dramatic representation of both narrative and dialogue could
indicate a way of judging between different models of inference.
Section 1: Irony and Poetics
A contrast between the language of poetry and rhetoric is made by Mill:
"Poetry and eloquence are both alike the expression or utterance of
feeling. But if we may be excused the antithesis, we should say that
eloquence is heard, poetry is overheard. Eloquence supposes an audience;
the peculiarity of poetry appears to us to lie in the poet's utter
unconsciousness of a listener...all poetry is of the nature of a soliloquy ...
no trace of consciousness that any eyes are upon us must be visible in the
work itself."8
Mill's description may appear historically selective, with little relevance to preHellenistic lyric, which presupposed an audience, or to pre-Platonic writers,
who did not judge poetry in terms of feeling. It may also appear artistically
selective, as the comic parabasis and soliloquy demonstrate that there is no
definite separation between poetry and rhetoric.
Nevertheless it may highlight a real difference between ordinary and artistic
communication. The pretence of which Mill writes is an apparent lack of selfconsciousness, by a selective restriction on reference. It is evident even in preAlexandrian epic and lyric, most obviously in the fictional voices of dialogue.
Plato distinguishes poetic voices by the presence or absence of representation.9
He defined mivmhsi" in terms of diction, levxi", which is not imitated by the epic
poet in ordinary divhghsi":
ajll? o{tan gev tina levgh/ rJh'sin w{" ti" a[llo" w[n, a\r? ouj tovte oJmoiou'n
aujto;n fhvsomen o{ ti mavlista th;n auJtou' levxin eJkavstw/, o}n a]n proeivph/
wJ" ejrou'nta…10
Poetic representation is doubly removed from the truth.11 Like painting, it is an
imitation not of reality but appearance:
povtera pro;" to; o[n, wJ" e[cei, mimhvsasqai, h] pro;" to; fainovmenon, wJ"
faivnetai, fantavsmato" h] ajlhqeiva" ou\sa mivmhsi"… Fantavsmato"...12
8Mill
J.S.: "Thoughts on Poetry and its Varieties,"
Collected Works Vol 1 Toronto 1981 pp348-9
9Republic 394b1: a[neu mimhvsew" aJplh' dihvghsi" givgnetai "without mimesis simple narrative results"
10393b10-c3: "but when he delivers a speech as if he were someone else, shall we not say that he then
assimilates thereby his own diction as far as possible to the one whom he announces as speaking?"
to; de; dh; mimei'sqai tou'to ouj peri; trivton mevn tiv ejstin ajpo; th'" ajlhqeiva"… "is this
business of imitation not concerned with the second remove from the truth?"
12598b2-5: "does it imitate reality as it is or appearance as it appears? Is it the imitation of a phantasm or
of the truth? Of a phantasm..."
11602c1-3:
3
It is compared to a visual projection operating at a distance.13 Plato was
especially concerned with the emotional effect of poetic language as oral
performance,14 and his view of mimesis came to encompass "the total act of
poetic representation, and no longer simply the dramatic style."15 I have no
space to consider in any detail the ethical arguments constructed from this.16
My interest is in the linguistic implications of the projection. There are dangers
in a purely literary approach, but I believe it valid to explore psychological
implications of the Platonic view of poetic language. My definition of
representation will be in the sense of a mental image.
Representation operates both within and outside the text. It is self-embedding,
because, although apparently extra-textual, it is defined by diction, which
constitutes the text. This ambiguous connection between the two worlds is
intrinsic to the Platonic theory of poetic language.
Plato uses the word eijrwneiva only once, to refer to the ironic method of
Socrates,17 but the application to Socrates guaranteed a positive connotation in
later writings.18
"The core of understatement put into it by Socrates and Aristotle remains;
but all offensiveness has disappeared, and even the mockery it connotes.
It is a war upon Appearance waged by a man who knows reality."19
Whose is the irony? It might more appropriately be termed Platonic. Socrates is
depicted as employing a systematic irony which permeated his arguments.
Reading the dialogues gives a doubly ironic effect, as we appreciate the
rhetorical skill of what to the characters seems like invincible logic.
The irony is constant: there is pressure rather than just agility of thought. This
is not only representation, but argument: the real irony is that of the author.
This textual irony,
13598c4:
povrrwqen ejpideiknu;" "showing at a distance"
ejndovnte" hJma'" aujtou;" eJpovmeqa xumpavsconte" kai; spoudavzonte" "we abandon
14605d3-4:
ourselves and follow the representation with sympathy and eagerness"
15Havelock
E.A.: Preface to Plato Oxford 1963 p26
moral conclusion may be seen at 603b3-4:
fauvlh a[ra fauvlw/ xuggignomevnh fau'la genna'/ hJ mimhtikhv. "mimesis then is an inferior thing
16The
cohabiting with an inferior and engendering inferior offspring"
«W ÔHravklei", e[fh, au{th ?keivnh hJ eijwqui'a eijrwneiva Swkravtou". "O Hercules," he said,
"here we have the well-known irony of Socrates." Spoken by Thrasymachus as a term of abuse. Plato
17337a4:
uses the verb and adjective eijrwneuvomai and eijrwnikov" in other dialogues in the sense of
dissimulation.
18"Socratem opinor in hac ironia dissimulantiaque longe lepore et humanitate omnibus
praestitisse." Cicero: de Oratore 2.270.4-5 "I consider Socrates to have far surpassed all others for
charm and refinement in this irony and dissimulation."
19Sedgewick
1935 p15
4
"instead of being concentrated in insulated passages, and rendered
prominent by its contrast with the prevailing tone of the composition,
pervades every part."20
I consider irony as so important to Platonic poetics, or anti-poetics, because it is
implicit in the theory of the form, to; ei\do". The separation of the knower from
the known, and the visual metaphors which permeate Platonic thinking, move
the centre of reference to the subject. A visual definition of reality assumes a
focal point of vision. The doctrine of the autonomous and coherent yuchv, the
thinking self, approaches subjectivism, and the use of a fictional hero to argue
the worthlessness of mimesis risks intellectual vertigo. The dialectical method
may itself be considered inherently ironic.
Irony of detachment, or Romantic irony, may be seen as a development of the
Socratic. The new feature was the replacement of deception by a more positive
theory of disengagement.
"The irony we are concerned with here comes of age with Friedrich
Schlegel, who ... argued that irony was the highest principle of art, that
the poet stands ironically above his creation ... the author pervades his
characters and their actions, but he is never subjectively identifiable with
them; like God, he always expresses less than he thinks."21 The central
idea is of a spiritual freedom of view, that "Socratic Irony is a unique form
of conscious dissimulation ... It is the freest of all licences, for through it
one is enabled to rise above himself."22
Authorial, 'subjective,' irony was described by Kierkegaard as "infinite absolute
negativity," which "no longer directs itself against a particular thing, but ... the
whole of existence has become alien to the ironic subject."23 Irony was
intellectualised as:
"the very principle of negation itself. The difference between irony as 'dry
mock,' or perverse negativity, and irony as an unlimited capacity to
negate, or oppose, ideas, is not a difference in the kind of operation the
mind performs but rather a difference in the mind's intentions toward the
observed content. Hamlet is ironic in the first sense; Shakespeare creating
Hamlet is ironic in the second ... Irony is the dramatist's version of the
negative proposition."24
This sense of total negativity has been explored in two ways, through ideas of
distance and of structural irony. Shaftesbury suggested that works of art are
fundamentally self-contained, because they are contemplated in a disinterested
20Thirlwall
C.: "On the Irony of Sophocles" The Philological Museum 2 1833 p484
1971 p3
22Schlegel quoted Sedgewick p16. Schlegel also calls irony transzendentale Buffonerie and
Selbstparodie.
23Kierkegaard S.: The Concept of Irony tr. Capel Bloomington 1968 p276
24States 1971 ppxvii-xviii
21States
5
way. "Shaftesbury opposed disinterestedness to the desire to possess or use the
[aesthetic] object,"25 a view also held by Kant, who considered delight in the
beautiful to be uniquely disinterested: of the pleasures, "das des Geschmacks
am Schönen einzig und allein ein uninteressirtes und freies Wohlgefallen sei."26
Heidegger interpreted this as the suspension of the possessive, appropriative
will and the acceptance of beauty for itself.27
The same approach is expressed this century in Bullough's comparison of the
psychological effect of the distance to the appearance of objects in a sea-fog:
"the sudden view of things from their reverse, usually unnoticed, side,
comes upon us as a revelation, and such revelations are precisely those of
art. In this most general sense, distance is a factor in all art."28
It may be remarked how exact is the contrast between the Platonic view of
distance as objective loss of truth, the imperfection of the copy, and a
psychological perspective which judges the same phenomenon from the
observer's standpoint.
The idea that a text is simply to be contemplated may encourage the thought
that the text is itself a serene contemplation, a 'movement into the light.'29 There
is also a tension between dissociation and strangeness in theories of aesthetic
distance: a contrast may perhaps be drawn between language as "display text"30
and as ostranenie [defamiliarisation],31 or between Stanislavsky's 'fourth wall'32
and Brecht's verfremdungseffekt [alienation].33
Disengagement of the aesthetic object has been reflected in the separation of
literary and linguistic study. Early twentieth century linguistics concentrated
on the analysis of the language system to the exclusion of literature, while
literary theorists using linguistic approaches generally restricted themselves to
the referential axis of language.34
25Stolnitz
26Kant
J.: "On the Origin of Aesthetic Disinterestedness" JAesth 20 1961 p134
I.: Kritik der Urtheilskraft in Sämmtliche Werke 5 Leipzig 1867 p214 "of the pleasures, that in
the beautiful is the only free and disinterested one."
27Heidegger
M.: Nietzsche tr. Krell London 1981 pp108-110. He criticises the interpretations of
Kant by both Nietzsche and Schopenhauer as misunderstanding of 'interesse.'
28Bullough E.P: "Psychical Distance as a Factor in Art and an Aesthetic Principle"
British Journal of Psychology 5 1912 pp89-90
29Arnold M.: Poetical Works London 1950. Preface pxxii. Coleridge's metaphor of Greek tragedy
as statuesque, in "Greek Drama and Shakespeare's Drama" 1813, is a similar image.
30Pratt M.L.: Towards a Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse Bloomington 1977
31Shklovsky V. in Russian Formalist Criticism tr. Lemon & Reis Lincoln 1965 p12. A similar
process may be identified in Aristotle's ojnovmato" ajllotrivou ejpiforav Poetics 1457b7. [the
importation of an alien word]
32"the assumption that there is a fourth wall cutting the audience off from the stage and the consequent
illusion that the stage action is taking place in reality and without an audience." Brecht B.: "Short
Description of a New Technique of Acting" in Brecht on Theatre tr. Willett London 1964 p136
33Brecht 1964 pp91ff
34Structuralist analyses can highlight symbolic patterns, but they are limited linguistically, as
they fail to consider whole utterances, or even the communicative function of language.
6
7
The move away from Structuralist linguistics to more interactional approaches
has led to a renewed interest in rhetoric and figurative language. There has
been a particular concentration on metaphor,35 mostly adapting the unified
Aristotelian model of figurative language.36
Irony has remained a more literary than linguistic topic, but interpretations
have become more abstract and structural. This approach was first adopted in
English by Thirlwall. He distinguished verbal irony, subdivided into rhetorical
and dialectical,37 from situational or 'practical' irony.38 Practical irony is divided
into intentional deceit39 and 'the mockery of fate,' which Thirlwall applied to
drama as 'tragic irony.'
He compared the perspective of the spectator to the "attention bestowed by an
intelligent judge on two contending parties," where "the right and truth lie on
neither side exclusively ... the irony lies not in the demeanor of the judge, but is
deeply seated in the case itself." This same conflict of sympathy is created by
the dramatic poet, as "the contrast between man with his hopes, fears, wishes,
and undertakings, and a dark, inflexible fate"40 or the "rules of unerring Justice."
Applying this to Oedipus Tyrannus, Thirlwall concluded that "the main theme of
the poet's irony is the contrast between the appearance of good and the reality
of evil."41 This is developed as a structural principle:
"the poet has so constructed his plot, as always to evolve the successive
steps of the disclosure out of incidents which either exhibit the delusive
security of Oedipus in the strongest light, or tend to cherish his
confidence, and allay his fears."42
Thirlwall's achievement was, through his categorisation, to change the
emphasis from the author's perspective to a technique, which highlighted its
effect on the audience. For the artist as Hero, he substituted the spectator as
Judge.
35Many
papers collected in Ortony A.(ed.): Metaphor and Thought Cambridge 1979
in the Poetics 1457-1460 and the Rhetoric 1405-1413. The interactive approach of the
model appeals to many modern theorists.
37Thirlwall C.: "On the Irony of Sophocles" The Philological Museum 2 1833 p484
38Thirlwall 1833 p485
39As of the witches in Macbeth and Mephistopheles in Faust: Thirlwall pp485-6.
40Thirlwall 1833 p493
41Ibid p500
42Ibid p498
36Especially
8
A century later, Sedgewick generalised his argument, pointing out that it was
"mere luck that the epithet was not 'Aeschylean' or 'Euripidean' - it might have
been either with about as much reason."43 He also emphasised the point of view
of the audience, contrasting "the sense of contradiction felt by spectators of a
drama who see a character acting in ignorance of his condition,"44 with a
pervasive general irony, "the property peculiar and essential to the illusion of
the theatre."45
Irony is a necessary consequence of the perspective of the audience.
"The spectator knows the facts, the people in the play do not ... The whole
attitude of the interested spectator is ironic; by the very fact that he is such
a spectator, he is an ironist ... General irony is always with us in the
theatre, waiting to be awakened into the vivid and active life which I
should like to call the specific irony of drama."46
Neither irony is primarily verbal: in the Agamemnon
"Aeschylus not only avoids double-edged words ... but declines to inject
specific irony into a situation that would seem to cry for it, in order that a
certain desired impact may strike upon his audience more heavily."47
This is taken further as the Oresteia progresses. Dialogues in the Agamemnon
typically involve one who knows and one who does not, while in the
Choephoroi, both participants know.
"Specific dramatic irony is withdrawn in order to make way, first for a
conscious debate that is great in itself, but mainly for an invasion of the
general ironic sense without parallel in drama."48
By contrast, the Electra plays of Euripides and Sophocles show specific irony in
the duping of Clytemnestra and Aegisthus.
Emphasis on the temporal dimension has brought the interpretation of irony
back to the text, and particularly the dramatic text. It has stimulated a number
of theories of irony based on plot form. The reading or performance of a drama
is a sequential process: just as interpretation of metaphor is a process of
recognition,49 so ironic meaning is eventually understood, as the resolution of
an information imbalance.
43Sedgewick
1935 p50
p43
45Ibid p44
46Ibid pp26, 29, 30
47Ibid p54
48Ibid p61
49Aristotle: Rhetoric 1412a21-22
44Ibid
9
The double nature of this understanding, as mimed by the actors and
experienced by the audience, recalls the Aristotelian analysis of drama as both
affective, arousing pity or fear,50 and structural, in the reversal51 and the twopart plot.52 Aristotle explicitly connected the two: hJ ga;r toiauvth ajnagnwvrisi"
kai; peripevteia h] e[leon e{xei h] fovbon.53 All narratives involve the release of
information, and every plot is a discovery plot from some perspective. This
may be why Aristotle praised the coincidence of peripevteia, which is judged by
the audience, and ajnagnwvrisi", perceived by the character.54
The reversal plot has been interpreted as constitutively ironic by Burke, who
describes it in terms of agency roles. He defined irony as the total perspective
built from the relativistic points of view of individual agents.
"Irony arises when one tries, by the interaction of terms upon one another,
to produce a development which uses all the terms ... As an over-all ironic
formula here, and one that has the quality of 'inevitability,' we could lay it
down that 'what goes forth as A returns as non-A.' This is the basic
pattern that places the essence of drama and dialectic in the irony of the
'peripety,' the strategic moment of reversal."55
A detailed ironic system of interpreting dramatic plots was developed by
Evans, in his theory of "discrepant awareness," by which the representation of
characters acting in ignorance constitutes the dynamic which motivates the
following scene.56
Narrative irony is typically dramatic, though it can be applied to other forms of
poetry. Brooks wrote that "the poem is like a little drama," because its language
responds to the context, and
"what is said is said in a particular situation and by a particular dramatic
character ... the internal pressures balance and mutually support each
other. The stability is like that of the arch: the very forces which are
50Poetics 1452b30-33: ejpeidh; ou\n dei' th;n suvnqesin ei\nai th'" kallivsth" tragw/diva"..tauvthn
foberw'n kai; ejleeinw'n ei\nai mimhtikhvn (tou'to ga;r i[dion th'" toiauvth" mimhvsew" ejstivn) "since
then the structure of the best tragedy should be ... one that represents things arousing fear and pity - for
that is peculiar to such a representation."
511452a22-23: “Esti de; peripevteia me;n hJ eij" to; ejnantivon tw'n prattomevnwn metabolh;..."a
reversal is a change of the action into its opposite."
: “Esti de; pavsh" tragw/diva" to; me;n devsi" to; de; luvsi", ta; me;n e[xwqen kai; e[nia
tw'n e[swqen pollavki" hJ devsi", to; de; loipo;n hJ luvsi". "In every tragedy there is a complication and
521455b24-26
a dénouement: the events outside the plot and some of those inside usually form the complication, and
the rest is the dénouement."
531452b1
541452a32-33: kallivsth de; ajnagnwvrisi", o{tan a{ma peripeteiva/ gevnhtai, oi|on e[cei hJ ejn tw'/
Oijdivpodi "the best discovery is one that coincides with the reversal, as in the Oedipus."
55Burke K.: A Grammar of Motives Berkeley 1969 pp512 & 517. Burke implicitly connects irony
with the Aristotelian model of metaphor.
56Evans B.: Shakespeare's Comedies Oxford 1960. The theory is probably more relevant to the
large casts of Elizabethan drama than to Greek tragedy.
10
calculated to drag the stones to the ground actually provide the principle
of support."57
57Brooks
C.: "Irony as a Principle of Structure" in Zabel 1968 p730 & 733
11
Such views are interesting not only in themselves, but in what they presuppose.
The most important presumption is the thematic sequence. If there are
identifiable mental processes involved in the construction and interpretation of
narratives, these are likely to be connected with the understanding of cause and
effect.
Thematic organisation was Aristotle's criterion in distinguishing plot from
story, mu'qo" from e[po": the conveyance of a single idea through the plot, not
narrative genre.
"It was the poetic that Aristotle chose as the category of categories for
literary discourse. Narrative was not adapted to designate a number of
kinds of stories and storytelling until Cicero's era."58
Swearingen points out that Aristotelian mivmhsi" is similar to current models of
narrative.
"Aristotle's analysis of Homeric and subsequent narrative ... develops a
theory of authorial control ... a ventriloquistic conception of poetic
composition and performance that links the poet's to the actor's art and
both quite directly to the rhetor's use of ethos, an 'assumed' character."59
Aristotle praised Homer for speaking so often in the voice of a character, as that
is a representation,60 similar to tragedy. He identifed the pleasure of epic as the
increased scope for the inexplicable.61
"In contrast to the thematically associative, flashback-laden pattern of the
Iliad, the events depicted in the dramas are rendered sequentially, a plot
pattern that would provide Aristotle with the raw material for a linear,
chronological, and causal theory of dramatic plot (muthos) and action. The
linearity of events in the Greek dramas has also led to the hypothesis that
the strongly sequential pattern of Greek drama had the effect of
rehearsing the Greek audience for linear sequences of thought and telling
that are essential for reading written texts ... By modern standards of
narrative cohesion, the Greek dramas are more narrative than the Greek
epics."62
I take Swearingen's point that plot and theme bring a unity of movement and a
causal dimension to narrative. His historical argument is perhaps more
speculative.
58Swearingen
C. Jan: "Narrative: The Transition from Story to Logic" in Britton B.K & Pellegrini
A.D. (eds.): Narrative Thought and Narrative Language Hillsdale 1990 p178
59Swearingen 1990 p183
60Poetics 1460a8-11
611460a14: to; a[logon, di? o} sumbaivnei mavlista to; qaumastovn "the unutterable, through which
comes the wonderful."
62Swearingen
pp185-6
12
"Aristotle's analysis ... indicates that explicit thematization was becoming
simultaneously more perceptible and more frequently perceived. The
dramatists introduced new ways of telling that stimulated new modes of
understanding. The surfacing of the concept of theme itself is a prime
example, as is the particular case of the theme of justice. Dramatic
treatments of justice gradually converged in philosophical inquiries into
the nature and finally the theory of justice, an analytical mode that would
reach its classical culmination in Plato's dialogues."63
The hypothesis of a link between unity of theme and causality in poetic and
philosophical thought and the ability to perceive such unity, may help explain
the prominence of narrative ironies in tragedy.64
Drama, however, is not only monologue, and irony is not simply a system of
cross-reference, "an intelligible way in which the reader can be reminded of the
rest of a play while he is reading a single part of it."65
If irony is defined in a purely linear way, the language is seen as onedimensional. I agree with Bakhtin that literary analysis should focus on the
voices in the discourse rather than the authorial perspective, on dialogic
relationships rather than meaning
"defined in relation to its referential object (the study of tropes, for
example) or in relation to the discourse within the same context or the
same speech (stylistics in the narrow sense)."66
Bakhtin defined all language as discourse, but his point is especially valid in the
case of represented dialogue, where the language is actually a mime.
"Each time that discourse appears in the midst of a historical narration ...
we pass to another tense system, that of discourse. The nature of language
is to permit these instantaneous transfers ... By its choice of verb tenses,
discourse clearly distinguishes itself from historical narration. Discourse
freely employs all the personal forms of the verb ... Similarly, the number
of verb tenses is greater in discourse."67
Represented dialogue is of course not only mimed syntax. Mimicry, Eliot
suggests, may be recognised by
"the incompleteness of the illusion ... if we are actually deceived, mimicry
becomes impersonation. When we listen to a play by Shakespeare, we
listen not to Shakespeare but to his characters."68
63Swearingen
p186, citing Havelock E.: The Greek Concept of Justice Cambridge Mass 1938
could perhaps be compared with the use of irony by Homer.
65Empson W.: Seven Types of Ambiguity London 1947 p44
66Bakhtin M.: Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics tr. Emerson Manchester p185
67Benveniste E.: Problems in General Linguistics tr. Meek Coral Gables 1971 pp208-9
68Eliot T.S.: "The Three Voices of Poetry" in Eliot T.S.: On Poetry and Poets London 1957 95-96
64Which
13
The voices are not only those of the characters. Eliot defines poetic voices not
by syntax but by intention, meaning, and nuance. They may interact, as
"the voices of the author and character in unison, saying something
appropriate to the character, but something which the author could say
for himself also, though the words may not have quite the same meaning
for both."69
They must also express the overarching dramatic shape, and "a kind of musical
design also which reinforces and is one with the dramatic movement."70
A syntactic description of dialogue is therefore likely to be inadequate.
Linguistic analysis has to be sensitive to voice. This raises the question of
methodology.
"If we accept that there is an interesting relationship between play
dialogue and real conversation, and if we agree that it might be
linguistically interesting to consider the language used in dialogue
specifically in the light of this relationship, then the stylistician has an
immediate problem in deciding to conceptualise the underlying linguistic
mechanisms."71
One method would be through topic. Almost all pragmatic studies of classical
Greek have involved topic analyses, which examine features of word order like
prolepsis.72
There is, however, a problem of definition. Topic is identified either
semantically, through given or new information,73 syntactically, through noun
and verb,74 or through word order, where "the theme is the point of departure,
the takeoff point of the clause, and the significant fact about it is that the
speaker is free to select whatever theme he likes."75 This approach assumes
69Eliot
1957 p100
T.S.: "Poetry and Drama" in Eliot 1957 p76
71Burton D.: Dialogue and Discourse London 1980 p5
72Panhuis D.: "Prolepsis in Greek as a Discourse Strategy" Glotta 62 1984 pp26-39;
Slings S.R.: "Written and Spoken Language: an Exercise in the Pragmatics of the Greek
Sentence" Classical Philology 87 1992 pp95-109. Other work on prolepsis in classical Greek is
listed in Slings p105 n46.
73The problem is that the given/new distinction is not a linguistic one, so depends on inference
by the hearer. Levinson S.C.: Pragmatics Cambridge 1983 px argues that definitions suffer from
an "underlying conceptual vagueness," with no way of generalising from simple declarative
clauses to more complex sentences.
74Lyons J.: Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics Cambridge 1968 p334:
"from the time of Plato onward, the definition of the noun and the verb has been closely
associated with the distinction of subject and predicate...the traditional view [is that] the subject
of discourse is a noun."
75Halliday M.A.K.: "Functional diversity in language" Foundations of Language 6 1970 pp356-7
70Eliot
14
some level of default word order, and while this may be discovered in Greek
prose, I doubt whether it is an appropriate analysis for poetry.76
Even if there is no satisfactory definition of topic, it might still be possible to
identify topic boundaries. Some work on this is being done in English,
particularly in the area of 'troubles talk,'77 which concentrates on the effects of
emotionally charged conversations on the interactional distance between the
participants. However, at the present stage, I believe topic to be too pretheoretical a term to be useful.
I agree with Burton that a conversational analysis is a suitable level for a
preliminary analysis, as
"plays are a means of presenting the social world in a specifically
alienated, and therefore graspable, way ... the audience will ... interpret
what is set before it as representational art merely because the vehicles for
the author's work and words are human beings interacting."78
We might anticipate differences of emphasis from ordinary speech, as Kennedy
suggests.
"One would expect the broad features of speech - rhythmic, syntactic and
rhetorical - to be predominant; and one would not look for emphasis on
individual speech ... In such a theatre the characters as speakers are not
emphatically differentiated; we expect them to converge in how they
express themselves even if what they express brings them into
fundamental conflict. The dialogue may embody a dialectic of opposed
values, without a corresponding opposition of language."79
I propose to conduct a conversational analysis as a case study, in order to
determine how far these expectations are met.
76Dover
K.J.: Greek Word Order Cambridge 1960 argues against a default word order, while
Dunn G.: "Syntactic Word Order in Herodotean Greek" in Glotta 66 1988 pp63-79 emphasises
regularities, as does Panhuis 1984 p38: "In Greek a constituent with a particular syntactic
function can occur in many positions in the sentence, the ordering being of a communicative
nature."
77Jefferson G.: "On 'Trouble-Premonitory' Response to Inquiry" Sociological Inquiry 50 1980
pp153-185
78Burton 1980 p112. Conversational analysis also uses alienation devices: recordings and
transcriptions.
79Kennedy A.K.: Dramatic Dialogue Cambridge 1983 p35
15
Section 2: Linguistic Analysis
A conversational analysis of the first kommos and fifth episode of the
Agamemnon.
I have selected this for several reasons. First, because it would be interesting to
test Kennedy's view that
"Aeschylean tragedy is, clearly, the least dialogue-centred type of Greek
drama known to us ... it must be clear to every reader of the Oresteia ...
that here dialogue, in any interpersonal and interactive sense, is only just
beginning to emerge."80
It is theatrically powerful,81 and its theme82 is central to the plot of the
Agamemnon and indeed of the Oresteia. The dialogue is not primarily an
adversarial one: because it is between the actor and the chorus, it has an
internal quality of cooperation which may be more typical of real conversation
than the set contest or ajgwvn: both interlocutors seem to be playing a part in the
release of information, which ensures maximum emotional and intellectual
effect.
It is also extensive: the fourth episode of the Eumenides is the only longer
sequence of dialogue in Aeschylus. It has a particularly interesting contrast of
voices, and includes a very complex lyric section.
Finally, the scene is particularly suitable for a consideration of narrative irony,
because it is revealed after the prophecies that Cassandra's language is subject
to an inability to persuade.83 This is immediately contradicted by the chorus,
producing a doubly negative linguistic effect.84 The scene effects the movement
from persuasion, peiqwv, to violence: Cassandra is the only person whom
Clytemnestra fails to persuade.
Theoretical introduction
Conversational analysis is based on three fundamental assumptions: that
interaction is organised structurally, that the contributions are context-shaped
and context-renewing, and that these two properties inhere in the details of the
interaction. The application of a structured assumption to the fine details of
80Kennedy
1983 p37
Argument 13-14: tou'to de; to; mevro" tou' dravmato" qaumavzetai wJ" e[kplhxin
e[con kai; oi\kton iJkanovn. "this part of the drama is admired for its sufficiency of astonishment & pity."
Paley 1879 p431: "The most thrilling perhaps that ever emanated from dramatic art."
82Lebeck A.: The Oresteia: A Study in Language and Structure Washington DC 1971 identifies this
as the lesson of suffering, pavqei mavqo" [p54 ], and specifically that "the vengeance exacted for
hereditary guilt has a just basis in the voluntary action of the individual."[p56]
831212: e[peiqon oujdevn? oujdevn "I could persuade noone of anything."
84This sort of self-conscious linguistic effect is discussed in Goldhill S.: Language, Sexuality,
Narrative: the Oresteia Cambridge 1984
81Agamemnon
16
conversation, a turn-by-turn context-renewing interaction, implies a direction
for subsequent talk and an architecture for the maintenance of intersubjective
understanding within talk.85
The concept of adjacency pairs, that a conversational utterance may in some
way determine or require a complementary response, was first suggested as a
simple turn-taking management system,86 but proved to have wider
implications.
"Insofar as the second utterance was a response, it could be treated as
displaying an understanding of the prior utterance. Thus second pair parts
not only accomplish (or fail to accomplish) some relevant next action, in so
doing they also display some form of public understanding of the prior
utterance to which they are directed. In turn, the public understanding of
a prior turn's talk that is displayed in a current turn becomes available for
'third turn' comment."87
The criterion is not a rule but an expectation, so the first part restricts the
second, in a preference organisation that corresponds closely to the linguistic
concept of markedness.88 Atypical responses are frequently marked
syntactically or with particles.
I adopt the conversational model of Coulthard, which assumes that there is
"a relatively small number of speech acts defined according to their
function in the discourse and combining in predictable structures to form
higher units... [Language functions are defined for a particular context:]
the level of the function of a particular utterance, in a particular social
situation and at a particular place in a sequence, as a specific contribution
to a developing discourse."89
The analysis proposes a hierarchy or 'rank scale,' derived from the categorial
grammar of Halliday,90 in which each level is described in terms of the units
next below. My terminology is adapted from that of Coulthard to allow for
differences between literary text and classroom interaction, for which it was
originally developed.
85My
summary is adapted from Heritage J.: Recent Developments in Conversation Analysis
Warwick Working Papers in Sociology 1 1984 p4
86By Schegloff E.A.: "Sequencing in Conversational Openings"
American Anthropologist 70 1968 pp1075-1095
87Heritage 1984 p5
88Levinson S.C.: Pragmatics Cambridge 1983 p307
89Sinclair J. McH. and Coulthard R.M.: Towards an Analysis of Discourse Oxford 1975 11 & 13
90Halliday M.A.K.: "Categories of the theory of grammar" Word 17 1961 pp241-292
17
The speech event91 is seen as a linguistically unordered series of transactions,
identified by theme. The transactions are composed of exchanges, each
representing two speakers' joint contribution to a
91Defined
in Hymes D.: "Models of the interaction of language and social life" in Gumperz J.J. &
Hymes D. (eds.): Directions in Sociolinguistics New York 1972
18
transaction, and consisting of alternating turns,92 often as question and answer.
The exchange boundaries are typically marked by particles as 'framing items,'
and by metastatements referring to the current topic ('focus' items).
It was observed that turns frequently have a two-clause structure, justifying the
introduction of the category of 'move,' corresponding linguistically to the
clause. Moves are defined in the way originally proposed for the turn, as
initiation, response and feedback, and also the boundary-defining frame and
focus moves. As moves are defined interpersonally, a smaller functional unit of
'act' was proposed.
My analysis will concentrate on the levels of the act and move. I use many of
the functional categories of Sinclair and Coulthard:
marker (of exchange boundaries, and therefore topic), elicit (questioning),
inform, direct (command), accept, acknowledge (an informative), reply,
prompt, evaluate, and comment (expanding preceding turn).
I have added the following categories, to cover the self-referential and
apostrophising functions of some of the acts:
explain (comment on one's own previous move), predict, apostrophe,93 and the
prefix meta- to mark acts as not addressed to the other interlocutor. This last
function is realised syntactically by third person verbs.
The moves are labelled as frame and focus, opening and re-opening, and
answering moves.94 I have added a category of 'develop,' the expansion of an
immediately preceding move in the same turn.
These categories are provisional: they suggest a functional structure which is
open to interpretation. My purpose is to ascertain whether such an outline is
plausible, not whether this is the ideal one.
Once the text has been allocated a functional categorisation, I shall consider
aspects of the local management, and especially the initiation and response
pattern. Cassandra's three speeches or rJh'sei" receive only outline treatment. I
shall finish with an consideration of some patterns of narrative irony.
92Turn
is used to mean the whole of a speaker's contribution between the interlocutor's words.
use the word not as Quintilian, but in the sense of address to an absent person.
94This nomenclature is taken from Burton 1980, where the system is adapted for 'casual'
conversation.
93I
19
Analysis of utterances as adjacency pairs
Cassandra and the chorus each have fourteen turns in the lyric.95 The iambic section96 is in
three subparts, of one long speech by Cassandra with answering comment by chorus, and
following stichomythic exchange, of seven, six, and nine turns each.
Suggested acts performed in each turn
Conversational moves
Ka.1 marker; apostrophe
frame
Ch.1 elicit; inform [adversative]
answering/focus
Ka.2 marker; apostrophe
frame
Ch.2 meta-comment; inform [adversative]
focus/develop
Ka.3 apostrophe; explain
frame/develop
Ch.3 meta-predict; inform [additive]
focus/develop
Ka.4 apostrophe; inform [causal]; apostrophe
frame/opening
Ch.4 inform; comment
answer/develop
Ka.5 adversative; inform [causal]
answer/develop
Ch.5 meta-evaluate; meta-comment.
focus/develop
Ka.6 reply; explain
reply/develop
Ch.6 comment ; challenge
focus/answer
Ka.7 marker, explain; inform
frame/opening/develop
Ch.7 comment; comment; inform [causal]
answer/answer
Ka.8 marker; inform; meta-comment ; inform
frame/opening/focus/develop
Ch .8 meta-comment; explain
frame/develop
Ka.9 marker; comment; inform; direct
focus/opening/answer/opening
Ch.9 challenge; comment; comment [sung]
answer/opening/develop
Ka.10 marker; direct [apostrophe]; inform; comment
focus/opening/develop/focus
Ch.10 comment; evaluate [sung]
answer/develop
Ka.11 marker; explain; apostrophe [spoken]
frame/opening/develop
Ch.11 comment; explain [sung]
answer/opening
Ka.12 reply; explain; predict [spoken]
answer/develop/develop
Ch.12 elicit; comment; elicit [rephrase]
opening/develop/opening
Ka.13 marker; meta-comment; apostrophe; predict
frame/opening/develop
Ch.13 comment; comment [sung].
answer/focus
Ka.14 meta-comment; inform, predict
re-opening/develop
Ch.14 comment; explain; comment.
answer/focus
Iambic: First section97 Cassandra speaks mostly in first person, chorus always in the second
person.
Ka.1 [Description embedded in explanation, elicit, and commands to witness]
Ch.1 non-accept [by question]; comment
answer/re-opening
Ka.2 inform [narrative]
answer
Ch.2 prompt
develop
Ka.3 comment
focus
Ch.3 prompt
answer
Ka.4 preface [ajll? h\n]
frame; re-opening
Ch.4 prompt
opening
Ka.5 inform; inform
answer; develop
Ch.5 prompt
opening
Ka.6 inform
answer
Ch.6 prompt
opening
Ka.7 inform
answer
Ch.7 non-accept
answer
951072-1177
961178-1330
971178-1213
20
Second section98
Ka.1 [Vision and evaluation, with asides to chorus]
Ch.1 comment [Thyestes feast]; prompt
answer; focus; opening
Ka.2 inform [Agamemnon's death]
answer
Ch.2 reply
answer
Ka.3 non-accept
answer
Ch.3 reply; comment [avert]
answer
Ka.4 comment [contrast between chorus and murderers] focus
Ch.4 elicit [implying ignorance]
opening
Ka.5 comment
answer
Ch.5 accept; explain
answer; develop
Ka.6 comment
answer
Ch.6 comment
answer
Third section99
Ka.1 [longest self reference: rejection of prophethood & prophecy of Orestes' revenge]
Ch.1 comment; elicit
focus; opening
Ka.2 reply
answer
Ch.2 non-accept
answer
Ka.3 explain
answer
Ch.3 evaluation
opening
Ka.4 non-accept
answer
Ch.4 non-accept
answer
Ka.5 apostrophe
frame; opening
Ch.5 elicit [implying stage business following Ka.5]
opening
Ka.6 marker
focus
Ch.6 elicit
opening
Ka.7 explain
answer
Ch.7 non-accept; inform
answer
Ka.8 non-accept
answer
Ch.8 non-accept
answer
Ka.9 meta-comment
frame; opening
[epilogue; direct]
Ch.9 comment
focus
Ka.10 meta-comment; apostrophe; general; comment
focus; opening; develop
Analysis of some patterns
The general pattern shows the extreme contrast between the lyric and the
iambics in terms of interaction between the participants. It also shows that
interaction in the lyric is structured by two-move turns, rather than the
typically single-move iambics.100
The initiating and response pattern
Cassandra initiates during the lyric, and the chorus in the iambic stichomythia.
In the lyric, Cassandra initiates twelve turns, and responds twice.101 In the
981214-1255
991256-1330
100For
reasons of space, I do not consider Cassandra's three rJh'sei" in any detail.
& 1095
1011090
21
iambics, the chorus initiate once102 and prompt throughout Cassandra's
story.103 The second set of stichomythia is dominated by Cassandra: the chorus
initiate once only.104 The third section is dominated by the chorus.105
Questions and answers
In the lyric, where Cassandra initiates, she asks five questions, all rhetorical.106
The chorus also have five, of which one is real but not answered. In the iambics,
Cassandra asks six questions, of which one is a genuine enquiry,107 while the
chorus ask ten, of which nine are real. This demonstrates a more interactive
pattern: the chorus and Cassandra also refute seven of each other's
statements.108 The most extreme non-accept is the use of a question to avoid
taking an oath.109
Turn-taking and the larger-scale development of the discourse
In the lyric, questions are not used to control the turn-taking, but are placed in
the first move of a duple or multiple turn: when a question is placed in the
second move, the conversation breaks down.110 Questions are used to start the
second turn of an adjacent pair.111 This use of questions foregrounds the lack of
conversational development.
In the iambics, the ends of Cassandra's first two extended speeches are
signalled by questions and directives, and of the last by a plethora of
performative metastatements.112 The first dialogue is entirely initiated by
questions from the chorus, who conclude the exchange by changing to a
comment.113
The second dialogue is more adversarial: the chorus initiate the exchanges by
declarations, directives, and wishes, and their turns are marked by negatives.114
The one question is foregrounded precisely as it is functioning not as a
question, but a declaration of ignorance.115
1021199ff
1031204,
1207, 1209, 1211.
1041251
105The
chorus initiate 1296ff, 1300, 1302, 1304, 1308, 1310.
1100, 1107, 1114, 1138. The chorus take 1087 as a real question.
1071194ff: in fact a group of questions, signalling the end of her speech.
108Marked in the analysis above as 'non-accept.'
1091198-9
1101087-8
1111074, 1119, 1150, 1162
112tlhvsomai 1289, prosennevpw 1291, ejpeuvcomai 1292
113An implied denial: hJmi'n ge me;n dh; pista; qespivzein dokei'" 1213
114a[ll? 1245, ou[k..ajlla 1249, ouj 1253 dusmaqh' 1255
115It is a question for the speaker, but not for the hearers - Cassandra and the audience.
1061087,
22
The third dialogue is more argumentative still: after the first choral question,116
Cassandra and the chorus contradict each other, and each exchange contains at
least one negative. The sequence shows an exchange structure extending over
more turns: one seven-turn exchange sequence,117 and one eight-turn
sequence.118 It recalls the ajgwvn of the tapestry scene: the topic is of course the
same, highlighting the contrast between Cassandra and Agamemnon in their
approach to the palace door.
Addressing the speech: person and number
In the lyric, Cassandra speaks mostly as apostrophe, although she is aware of
the chorus's presence.119 She apostrophises Apollo, Clytemnestra,120 and
possibly Agamemnon.121 A feature of her speech is the increasing self-reference.
The chorus refer to themselves in the singular except when speaking as
representatives of the community.122 They begin with direct address, then
change to the third person.123 They return to the second person by exploiting
Cassandra's rhetorical question as a conversational opportunity.124 They break
into song in a burst of self-reference, but their last four choral utterances, when
they have the main burden of lyric, are again phrased as direct address.
In the iambics, each of Cassandra's main speeches embeds a third person
narrative in a second person frame. In both the first and second sections
Cassandra uses first the plural125 and then the singular126 when calling the
chorus to witness. Throughout the scene, she frequently uses the first person.
Embedding descriptions in dialogue: verb structure
Cassandra's visions are exclamations, with few finite verbs. Her first verb is in a
subordinate clause,127 and the first independent sentence is in her fourth turn.
The fifth has no verb, and her seventh and ninth turns have mostly third
person verbs with impersonal subjects. She also uses finite verbs as interjection
or as anacoluthon.128 All her turns except the sixth and possibly the fifth start as
exclamations. The three extended speeches are also exclamations, though they
1161296-1298
1171295-1304
1181306-1314
119She
speaks in reply to their comment at 1090ff.
1201107ff
1211138-9
1221098-9
& 1213
1083
1241087-8: pro;" poivan stevghn… .... pro;" th;n ?Atreidw'n. The chorus's next words mark the
category shift.
1251184 & 1217
1261196 & 1240
1271082
1281087 & 1108
1231078,
23
have a more regular clause structure: the verbs are predominantly present
tense, and the clauses are interlaced with asides and comments.
Overall, the lyric shows a high proportion of apostrophe, hypothetical question,
and metastatements which may be interpreted as self- or audience-directed.
Discourse coherence is maintained by the chorus aligning its language to
Cassandra's. Interaction is stressed throughout.
The lyric opening moves are stereotyped: Cassandra's attention-seeking devices
are formulaic cries. Markers common in real conversation are almost totally
absent.129 The absence of a third feedback or comment turn in all the lyric
exchanges is in contrast with the more extended iambic sequences. The most
informal passage is the question and answer sequence of Cassandra's
narrative.130
Interpretation
A breakdown by adjacency pairs appears to fit the language of the scene. My
labelling of the speeches as conversational turns does not, I believe, distort the
dramatic and dialogic development.
There are many features of conversational style, in both idiom131 and
phrasing.132 However, a conversational structure is not consistently maintained.
The level of metalanguage is higher in the lyric than the iambic, as is
Cassandra's failure to exploit conversational openings. The extent to which this
is so may be enlightening.
All commentators write admiringly of the way this scene is paced and
structured metrically and thematically, and attention to the exchanges may
illustrate some of the techniques.
"In structure and imagery the scene exemplifies that technique employed
throughout the trilogy: (enigmatic) prolepsis and gradual development of
meaning."133
A lack of causal relations in the lyric134 is balanced by the linguistic coherence
of the choral utterances: the release of information is structured through the
dialogue. In the lyric, the chorus frame Cassandra's visions, providing
explanations and prediction,135 setting the linguistic and emotional register,136
1291307
is an exception.
1301202-1213
the use of particles, as initial ajll? 1248, 1302, 1304, 1313. kai; mh;n 1254
the anacoluthon when describing Clytemnestra 1232
133Lebeck 1971 p52
134Noted by Fraenkel p553: "throughout the non-lyrical part of the scene ... a sharp stressing of
causal relations has taken the place of a mere sequence"
135Turns 1, 2 & 3
136Turns 4, 6, 7, 8, and especially 9, where the choral voice lifts into song (1121)
131Especially
132As
24
describing stage business,137 and introducing linguistic figures which
Cassandra takes up.138
"The chorus is not addressed in Cassandra's monody, as might be
supposed from its singing in between; but she in her ecstasy is conscious
of its presence."139
This can be seen from her use of particles.140 Nor is her speech disjointed:
"Her observations and thoughts are described in singularly coherent
order and for the most part in straightforward language."141
The respects in which this dialogue does not resemble a conversation are
linguistically emphasised. The chorus react to Cassandra's failure of uptake by
switching person, repeating themselves, and even creating a false uptake by
answering her apparent question.142
The pattern of questions demonstrates how the poet foregrounds the lyric
discourse: the spoken choral responses are clearly marked as conversational,
even at a cost of potential bathos.143 The metrical scheme also parallels the
linguistic function of the chorus: when they change into dochmiacs, their
language moves from the specific into description of movement.144 The chorus
does not generalise more than the actor.145
The complex epirrhematic structure is collaborative to a degree.146
"The tempo of the scene is slowed up in the earlier part by the Choral
responses...in the second half of the scene, Cassandra reverses the
process: each of her last four utterances ends with two full iambic
trimeters of the spoken type, apparently not sung."147
137Turn
5 (1093-4)
the nightingale simile in turn 11 (1140ff)
139Leo: Monolog im Drama 8 quoted Fraenkel p496
1401090 me;n ou\n, 1095 gavr, 1129 soiv .
141Denniston & Page p165
1421087
143Fraenkel [p539] writes of the choral speech as 'a detached reserve,' a 'calm rationality,' and
'cool moderation.'
144ejpi; de; kardivan...1121,
ajpo; de; qesfavtwn... 1132
145Fraenkel [p.493] comments of 1084: "The form of the sentence is that of a general maxim, but
as usual it is applied to the case in hand." Denniston & Page note [p165] that the pacing function
of the actor and chorus invert during the lyric from 1119.
146The ajmoibai'on has seven pairs of stanzas, with choral response of trimeter couplets. After fifth
stanza, the chorus change to dochmiacs. In the sixth stanza pair, Cassandra changes to a lyric
and a trimeter couplet, and in the seventh, to four lines of lyric and two trimeters.
147Denniston & Page p165
138As
25
The change of style from the sixth strophe accompanies a change of theme.
"Everything that Cassandra has said ... was conveyed to her through real
visions ... This particular type of trance ends with the death of the king.
What follows is not vision but prophecy."148
At this point the choral lyric changes from first person expression and general
opinion or gnwvmh to second person interaction.149
The placing of the voices in the discourse
"Part lyric instrument, part dramatic personality, Cassandra stands
midway between the Chorus and the other dramatis personae in her effect
on the imagination of the audience ... Process, cause, and consequence are
seen in a single timeless moment and no voice but Cassandra's could
convey this whole. Yet Cassandra is a human sufferer as well and it is
from this fact that the scene derives its poignancy."150
Cassandra's predicament has more than simply affective power: by using a
voice speaking within the story to predict what the audience already knows to
be true, Aeschylus guarantees the validity of the discourse. The narrative irony
is embodied in literal self-reference. This creates a pressure on the flow of
information, especially evinced in Cassandra's appeals for confirmation.151
The convergence of information levels between the interlocutors accompanies
an emotive one. Even the meta-comments to the audience show the build-up of
a relation between the speakers. The language of the chorus moves from
description to question and finally to assessments of Cassandra.152 A movement
from informative to evaluative language may be a general feature of
conversation, so this narrative trajectory would parallel normal features of
discourse. Further attention to closing sequences of dialogue might bring this
out.
148Fraenkel
pp539-540
the remarkable question of 1154-5: povqen o{rou" e[cei" qespesiva" oJdou'
kakorrhvmona"… "from where do you have the boundaries of your prophetic, evil-speaking path?"
150Conacher D.J.: Aeschylus' Oresteia: A Literary Commentary Toronto 1987 pp40-41
151As Verrall [p138] points out, at 1206 "the unhappy woman sacrifices her modesty to her
intense desire for belief."
152Their comments early in the lyric could be taken as mocking, as Verrall [p126] interprets
1083-4 & 1088-9.
149Including
26
It is difficult to have a consistent view of the choral character: it may be better
to consider the chorus as actor rather than character,153 as is suggested by the
variation in singular and plural verbs by the chorus and by the actor speaking
to it.154 Verrall infers different choral speakers in the Cassandra passage, from
changes of tone in the voice.155 Kaimio points out that Aeschylus "most
frequently presents the chorus as a closed collective group,"156 and varies
number more than the other tragedians.
However, in this dialogue the chorus is almost always identified as singular, as
both speaker and addressee. I consider its voice to be consistent, and therefore
its identity.157 We construct the fictional world by assuming the validity of its
language.158
"Dramatic personality is like dramatic space, in being 'framed' by a
principle of limited existence ... the language of dramatic persons does not
give clues to or express their personality, their inward and spiritual being:
it is their personality and their being. For dramatic persons, to be is to 'say
a few words.'"159
Person varies between second and third, as the chorus acts as both
commentator and foil. Both person and number serve the function of creating
variable distance, between actor and chorus, and with the audience.
The ironic development
Although the conversation is initiated by both interlocutors, the information
flow is overwhelmingly from Cassandra to the chorus. This is established at the
start of the sequence by the chorus's apparently unfulfilled prediction and
inappropriate information.160 The chorus mostly comment on Cassandra's
turns: their explanations are restricted to their own preceding moves.161
Yet their contribution is not passive: they insist on clarity, and are the first to
name Thyestes and the Erinyes.162 Acting as dummy, by setting up Cassandra's
pun on Apollo's name,163 they provide a social and a temporal context,
153Poetics 1456a25-26: kai; to;n coro;n de; e{na dei' uJpolabei'n tw'n uJpokritw'n kai; movrion ei\nai
tou' o{lou kai; sunagwnivzesqai"and the chorus should be considered as one of the actors and part of the
whole and involved in the action."
154Kaimio
M.: The Chorus of Greek Drama Helsinki 1970
at 1238 and 1321
156Kaimio 1970 p241
157Character in the sense of mask provswpon rather than disposition h\qo".
158Ohmann R.: "Speech Acts and the Definition of Literature"
Philosophy & Rhetoric 4 .1 1971 pp1-19
159Gould J.: "Dramatic character and 'human intelligibility' in Greek Tragedy"
PCPS 24 1978 p44.
1601083 & 1088
1611075, 1079, 1106.
1621119 & 1242
1631075 & 1079
155As
27
contrasting the visions of the past with those of the future,164 and commenting
on Cassandra's previous moves and predicting the following ones.
While the direction of information is represented from Cassandra to the chorus,
the chorus control its interpretation, by monitoring and evaluating: almost all
their lyric contributions contain a value judgment.165 The conversational
analysis shows how the most ambiguous information, in the lyric, is
accompanied by a high number of framing and focus moves.
The language of the scene is totally determined: the audience can be in no
doubt of the accuracy of the information. Even though they do not understand,
the chorus accept that Cassandra has the gifts of prophecy166 and of insight.167
Her language is violent in its very sounds:168 it is intended to shock, and the
movement to clarity is also a movement to speech. Our expectations are
constantly subverted by the predictions and suggestions of the chorus: it could
even be seen as ironic that they refuse to accept she has been denied the power
to persuade.169 Yet by the end of the scene we and they are none the wiser. It is
only retrospectively that we discover the future.
Although Cassandra is not developed as a character, her predicament engages
us powerfully. Easterling considers that the human intelligibility of tragedy is
expressed through the external situation and behaviour of the characters.
"The words they utter matter because they articulate the dramatic
situation, not because they convey the characters' inner consciousness."170
The words do however describe the characters' inner feelings. The voice of the
chorus parallels its dramatic function. The Aeschylean chorus typically suffers
and grieves for its own fate,171 but here the emotional landscape is reversed: the
fate of the chorus is not an issue. This gives it a freedom to shift its viewpoint
and act as ambiguous voice. While it is easy to identify turns as responses, it is
difficult to categorise them as challenging or supportive. The discourse
combines cohesion with great diversity in the relationship between the
participants.
The analysis of this scene as a conversation may help to emphasise that there
are not only two participants involved. Apollo is present throughout the scene,
as ?Aguia'ti", mavnti", Loxiva", Paiwvn, and Luvkeio" (door-keeper, prophet,
interpreter, healer, and wolf-slayer or god of light). His ambiguous status is
repeatedly stressed.
1641105-6,
1173-7, 1242-5
only neutral comment is at 1105.
1661084
1671093-4, 1098-9
1681152-3, 1165-6, 1247.
1691213
170Easterling P.E.: "Presentation of character in Aeschylus" Greece and Rome 20 1973 p4
171As noted in Kaimio 1970 p241
165The
28
"The god's oracle reinforces the ending and helps bring resolution; the god
himself is associated with change and doubt."172
He is alien to lamentation,173 yet Cassandra continually emphasises that he has
ruined her, in a twofold destruction.
Apollo is not only constantly referred to, but addressed. Rather than
categorised as exceptional,174 the apostrophes should be considered as part of
the discourse.175 When the chorus speak of Apollo in the third person they also
use the same person to speak of Cassandra. Aeschylus brings him on stage
imaginatively: as Cassandra casts off her robes she cries:
ijdou; d? ?Apovllwn aujto;" ejkduvwn ejme; crhsthrivan ejsqh't?176
A parallel is suggested between Apollo and Agamemnon: ambiguity is
maintained over which of Cassandra's two lovers brought her here.177 She
addresses the pillar of one at the house of the other, and when she speaks of the
uJptivasma keimevnou patrov", it is her robes as Apollo's prophet that are lying
before her.178 Her rejection is itself ironically loaded: she delivers her last
prophecy afterwards.179 The move to specificity is a movement away from
Apollo,180 towards Agamemnon. The remainder of the scene following the
ironic luvsi"181 emphasises the association of her fate with Agamemnon's.
The addresses to Clytemnestra are equally immediate: the conversational tone
is reinforced by the same appellation182 as Cassandra uses three times for
herself.183 The tone is in great contrast to the highly formal performative
invocations at the end of the scene.184
172Roberts
D.H.: Apollo and his Oracle in the Oresteia Göttingen 1984 p72
an obvious point which Stesichorus mentions: Fragment 52, Lyra Graeca 2 p58
174As I have done in my analysis.
175The invocation of a god in the Athenian theatre cannot only have implied absence.
1761269-70. "see Apollo himself stripping me of my prophet's clothes." Who is the addressee?
177As the references at 1138-9 and 1263
1781284
179Shakespeare did not go so far: "This rough magic I here abjure...I'll break my staff, bury it
certain fathoms in the earth, and deeper than did ever plummet sound I'll drown my book."
Tempest 5.1.50ff.
180As it logically must be, if she is to be believed, in order to evade Apollo's curse.
181?Agamevmnonov" sev fhm? ejpovyesqai movron."I say you will see Agamemnon's death." 1246
182tavlaina 1107
1831138, 1158 & 1274. The chorus apply the word to her at 1247 & 1295.
1841291 & 1323ff.
173Reinforcing
29
Conclusion
Aristotle wrote that homogeneity of action is a danger for tragedy.185 A
conversational analysis may help to bring out the diversity of voice in the
scene, which a purely thematic discussion might miss.186 The choral voice
reduces ambiguity at every stage.187
Our initial expectation was that the complexity of the signals in dramatic
dialogue might differentiate it radically from conversation. Kennedy
distinguishes cumulative dialogue, the totality of play's language, from
'counter-speech,' the contrasting verbal styles of the speakers, and
"the acting and reading signals. The audience is being allowed to overhear
the dialogue, and in so doing is responding to all the signals written into
the play-language."188
Yet the constant pressure created by Cassandra's appeals to be believed, and
her eventual disclosure that she cannot be believed, combines features of
conversational style and acting signals. Kennedy's expectation that the features
of individual speech would be swamped by broad rhetorical patterns of
language is not, I think, entirely fulfilled.
The complexities of Aeschylean language demonstrate a literary style, but not
necessarily one opposed to the conversational. Havelock points out that the
style of oral poetry is highly formulaic, and conversational style may have
developed as a literary one.
"The idiom and content of ... the preserved word, set the formal limits
within which the ephemeral word can be expressed ... the books and the
bookish tradition of a literate culture set the thought-forms of that culture,
and either limit or expand them."189
If we compare the Cassandra passage with the dialogue of Homer we may
appreciate the extraordinarily high level of interaction in it. This extends even
to the verse form, which helps give a wonderfully complex and emotional
expression to the dialogue.190
185Poetics
1459b31. to; ga;r o{moion tacu; plhrou'n to;n ajkouvonta ejkpivptein poiei' ta;" tragw/diva"
"for it is monotony which soon sates the audience and makes tragedies fail."
M.: The Poetics of Greek Tragedy London 1987 discusses poikiliva pp104-107.
pro;" th;n ?Atreidw'n "to the house of the Atreids."1088. touvtwn a[idri" eijmi ... ejkei'na d? e[gnwn
"I do not know these ... those I recognise."1105-6. ou[pw xunh'ka "I do not understand yet" 1112
constitutes a promise.
188Kennedy 1983 p10
189Havelock 1963 p135
190The dochmiac-iambic exchange between Antigone and the paidagogus in Phoenissae 88-201
makes an interesting comparison. Cassandra's entrance in Troades 308ff shows a change in one
character's speech.
186Heath
187...
30
Section 3: Irony and Linguistics
The conversational analysis undertaken above suggests that large scale
patterning does not totally distance dialogue from conversation. Pragmatic
models of inference in ordinary speech also emphasise an overarching
direction.
"Our talk exchanges ... are characteristically, to some degree at least,
cooperative efforts; and each participant recognises in them, to some
extent, a common purpose or set of purposes, or at least a mutually
accepted direction ... We might then formulate a rough general principle
which participants will be expected (ceteris paribus) to observe, namely:
Make your conversational contribution such as is required at the stage at
which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange
in which you are engaged. One might label this the Cooperative
Principle."191
Grice suggested his principle of conversation to explain how we infer meaning
from context. The process of reconstructing a speaker's intention requires more
than purely linguistic information. Whether this is achieved by a system of
social cooperation, or through a mental procedure of recursive deduction, as
suggested by Sperber and Wilson,192 the task is the same as the interpretation of
textual meaning.
It is likely that we interpret all language as if it were real, as Johnson-Laird
suggests.193 Understanding recovers the context, real or fictional.
"The reader must assume that what he has facing him is ... a real piece of
communication. He must then assume that any utterance in the text is
relevant in the context of surrounding utterances. He will often have to
make the utterance relevant by supplying information of his own."194
The mental representation of this must either be propositional, a deductive
system of truth values, or some sort of holistic map or model. It is of course
possible that we do not understand the world by representation at all: such
theories are problematic.195 I do not have space to consider the philosophical
issues,196 but think it reasonable to assume the theory for linguistic purposes.
191Grice
P.: "Logic and Conversation" in Grice P.: Studies in the Way of Words Harvard 1989 p26
D. & Wilson D.: Relevance Oxford 1986
193Johnson-Laird P.N.: Mental Models Cambridge 1983 p246
194Urquhart A. quoted by Shiro M.: "Inferences in discourse comprehension"
in Coulthard 1994 pp174-5
195The problem is one of recursion: for the model, where is the image projected and who is
watching it? For the proposition, what is the mental language?
196Bechtel W.: Philosophy of Mind London 1988 and Blackburn S.: Spreading the Word Oxford 1984
discuss representations and alternative models of meaning.
192Sperber
31
Relevance theory suggests that the mechanism is propositional, motivated by a
single criterion of processing efficiency, which infers context. Poetic effect is
"the peculiar effect of an utterance which achieves most of its relevance through
a wide range of weak implicatures."197 A poetic text exploits this. "Context is
carefully built up to encourage exploration in the appropriate direction."198 This
is interpreted using a deductive algorithm199 which somehow balances
contextual effect against processing effort in an equation of mental economics.
The second possibility, that inference is by mental model, is argued by JohnsonLaird. It seems plausible because of two contrasting features of the human
mind. The first is the impressive speed of inference.
"An utterance generally has at least two contexts: one for the speaker and
one for the listener ... and just about any item of information could be
relevant to the interpretation of an utterance ... listeners generally have no
way of knowing what will be relevant until they hear the utterance. In this
sense, a sentence defines its own context when it is uttered ... There is a
mental mechanism which retrieves the information with striking
efficiency."200
This compares with the relatively poor performance of human memory.
Psychological experiments show that memory is the limiting factor in most
cognitive tasks,201 and the nature of its shortcoming accords with the
expectations of an inferential system based on pattern recognition.
"Models encode little or nothing of the linguistic form of the sentences on
which they are based, and subjects [in psychological experiments]
accordingly confuse inferrable descriptions with the originals."202
There would of course need to be translation between an inferred model and
the linguistic form. This must be either through a sense relationship or through
reference, and if the latter,
"a psychologically plausible theory of comprehension must allow for the
reference of some expressions to play a role in determining the senses of
other expressions."203
This recalls the Aristotelian model of metaphor, which also involves a relation
between sense and reference, in context inferred from an imported word.204 The
197Sperber
D. & Wilson D.: Relevance Oxford 1986 p222. Implicatures are defined in Grice 1989
pp24-26
198Pilkington A.: "Poetic Effects" Lingua 87 1992 p44
199Sperber & Wilson 1986 p68
200Johnson-Laird 1983 p173-4
201Ibid p124
202Ibid p162
203Ibid p241
2041457b7: ejpoforav implies a direction: bringing a word from a distant context.
32
difference is in the temporal extension of irony. The speed of inference contrasts
with the restriction on the possible speed of causal narrative. As audience or
reader, we spend much of the time waiting for the plot to happen.
"Computational speed is important, because conscious decisions occur in
real time. Indeed, consciousness is a temporal phenomenon: it exists in
time and through it we become aware of the phenomenal 'present.'"205
Irony is not dramatic tension, but it may be an effect of tension. Particular
inferences may be encouraged by the speed of oral performance. The Cassandra
scene can be read in a fraction of the time it takes to perform, and the inferences
drawn from a reading would be different partly for this reason, producing
"ironies for the pleasure rather of commentators than of first-night
audiences ... those delicate cross-references that are now the discoveries of
the learned."206
Dramatic tension is affected by performance factors like discomfort, tiredness,
and the lack of control which the reader enjoys. An audience is in a purely
passive position, without any right to communicate. This may explain the
Platonic emphasis on the performance effects of mimesis.207
Ironies suggest a criterion by which we can judge between inference by model
and by proposition. Mental representation creates distance by separating the
knower from the known, mirroring the dramatic situation in which
"the role of the actor on the stage was primarily to project a detached,
personalised and homogenous image of the human body for the benefit of
clarifying the public's opinion about itself ... only the distance afforded by
the theatrical setting would make such a projection exemplary and thus
successful."208
Even narrative ironies may be expressed visually. The position of Cassandra by
the door is specified: the language constantly tells us where she is. The choral
voice is in another, more ambiguous, dimension.209 This may reflect a lack of
interest in the future of the chorus, normally of great concern in Aeschylus. The
significance of the scene is expressed partly through position.210
205Johnson-Laird
p450
1947 pp45 & 47
207See footnote 14
208Kerckhove D. de: "A Theory of Greek Tragedy" Sub Stance 29 1981 p30
209Equally, Cassandra’s insight is expressed in the constant visual imagery of her speech, while
the language of the chorus is overwhelmingly about speech.
210A point made more generally by Taplin O.: The Stagecraft of Aeschylus Oxford 1977
206Empson
33
The spatial features of drama and the phenomenal contradictions inherent in
mimesis211 may support the view that representation involves the construction
of mental models. The ease with which the mind encompasses relationships,
compared with the difficulty of explaining linguistic reference, may explain
why the negativity of irony is so easy to recognise, and so hard to define.212
Figurative language, rather than being deviant, could be the norm.213 Irony
may be the aesthetic expression of logical disjunction,214 as metaphor is perhaps
the expression of a conjunction.215 The representations of dialogue and
narrative are central to language. It is likely that
"there are areas of philosophical concern where propositions will not
suffice. In these areas, representative literary attitudes may present
concrete samples that test, extend, and give depth to philosophical claims.
But the more interesting cases are those in which writers try to perform
directly philosophical roles, by stressing the quality of questions or the
nature of stances and attitudes."216
Argument, narrative, and the voices of dialogue are all processes of constant
redefinition.217 The problem of recursion in all representational explanations of
meaning218 may be connected with the generation of ironies. The awareness at
one moment of the possibilities inhering in that moment focuses the causal
sequence of the inescapable tragic necessity,219
in a vision which must be
manipulated through dialogue, and shared, generalised, and opposed, in order
to be thinkable.
Context cannot be recovered without some such sorting process, but the mind
appears reluctant to reject the alternatives it has created. Ironies seem both
important and indeterminate, incomplete in themselves and existing only as
alternatives. Study of ironic effects could however be generally helpful to the
interpretation of both literary and conversational discourse.
211A
subject addressed in States B.O.: "The Dog on the Stage," New Literary History 14 1983 14-22
the etymology of the word is unknown, as pointed out by Thomson J.A.K.: Irony: A
Historical Introduction London 1926 p4
213As argued in Lakoff G. & Johnson M.: Metaphors We Live By Chicago 1980. The view is
opposed in Blackburn 1984 pp171-179
214Suggested by Tindale C.W. & Gough J.: "The Use of Irony in Argumentation" Phil & Rhet 20
1987 pp1-17. This would create links with paradox.
215Some relations between metaphor, paradox, and narrative in Aeschylus are discussed by
Elata-Alster G.: "The King's Double Bind" Arethusa 18/1 1985 pp23-46
216Altieri C.: Act and Quality Amherst 1981 p304
217As illustated by hJ eijwqui'a eijrwneiva Swkravtou", and its typical syntactic form, A is B.
218Mentioned in footnote 195
219oujk e[st? a[luxi", ou[, xevnoi "There is no escape, none, friends." 1299
212Even
34
Text
The text of the Agamemnon used is that of Murray G. (ed.): Aeschyli Tragoediae Oxford 1955
Quotations of other Greek authors are from the Oxford editions, and of Latin authors from the
Loeb editions.
Commentaries
Conacher D.J.: Aeschylus' Oresteia: A Literary Commentary Toronto 1987
Denniston J.D. and Page D.L.: Aeschylus: Agamemnon Oxford 1957
Fraenkel E.: Aeschylus: Agamemnon Oxford 1950
Paley F.A.: The Tragedies of Aeschylus London 1879
Verrall A.W.: The 'Agamemnon' of Aeschylus London 1889
Bibliography
Abbreviations
AJPhilol
ClassPhil
JAesth
JHS
LLC
New LitHist
PCPS
Phil& Rhet
TRI
American Journal of Philology
Ancient Philosophy
Arethusa
Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy
Classical Philology
Classical Quarterly
Glotta
Greece and Rome
Journal of Aesthetics
Journal of Hellenic Studies
Journal of Literary Semantics
Journal of Pragmatics
Journal of Semantics
Language
Lingua
Literary and Linguistic Computing
Modern Drama
New Literary History
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society
Philosophy and Rhetoric
Studium Generale
Sub Stance
Theatre Research International
Word
Altieri C.: Act and Quality Amherst 1981
Atkinson J.M. & Heritage J. (eds.): Structures of Social Action Cambridge 1984
Austin J.L.: How to Do Things With Words Oxford 1962
Bakhtin M.: Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics tr Emerson Manchester 1984
Baldry H.C.: The Greek Tragic Theatre London 1971
Bechtel W.: Philosophy of Mind London 1988
Ben Chaim D.: Distance in the Theatre Epping 1981
Benveniste E.: Problems in General Linguistics tr. Meek Coral Gables 1971
Blackburn S.: Spreading the Word Oxford 1984
Booth W.C.: A Rhetoric of Irony Chicago 1974
Brecht B.: Brecht on Theatre tr. Willett London 1964
Britton B.K & Pellegrini A.D. (eds.): Narrative Thought and Narrative Language
35
Hillsdale 1990
Brooks C.: "Irony as a Principle of Structure" in Zabel 1968 pp729-741
Brown G. (ed.): Language and Understanding Oxford (forthcoming)
Brown G. & Yule G.: Discourse Analysis Cambridge 1983
Burke K.: "Form and Persecution in the Oresteia" Sewanee Review 60 1952 pp377-396
--------A Grammar of Motives Berkeley 1969
Burton D.: Dialogue and Discourse London 1980
Cha J.S.: Linguistic Cohesion in Texts Seoul 1985
Cole P. (ed.): Radical Pragmatics New York 1981
Collinge N.E.: "Thoughts on the Pragmatics of Ancient Greek" PCPS 214 1988 pp1-13
Coulthard M.: An Introduction to Discourse Analysis London 1985
--------------- (ed.): Advances in Written Text Analysis London 1994
Coulthard M. & Montgomery M. (eds.): Studies in Discourse Analysis London 1981
Dawe R.D.: "Inconsistency of Plot and Character in Aeschylus" PCPS 189 1963 pp21-62
Dawe R.D., Diggle J., Easterling PE. (eds.): Dionysiaca Cambridge 1978
Dennett D.C.: Consciousness Explained Boston 1991
Denniston J.D.: The Greek Particles Oxford 1954
Dodds E.R.: "Morals and Politics in the Oresteia" PCPS 186 1960 pp19-31
Dover K.J.: Greek Word Order Cambridge 1960
---------"Some Neglected Aspects of Agamemnon's dilemma" JHS 93 1973 pp58-69
Downing A.: "An alternative approach to theme" Word 42 No 2 1991 pp119-143
Dunn G.: "Syntactic Word Order in Herodotean Greek" Glotta 66 1 1988 pp63-79
Earp F.R.: The Style of Aeschylus Cambridge 1948
Easterling P.E.: "Presentation of character in Aeschylus" Greece and Rome 20 1973 pp3-18
Elata-Alster G.: "The King's Double Bind" Arethusa 18/1 1985 pp23-46
Eliot T.S.: On Poetry and Poets London 1957
Else G.F.: Plato and Aristotle on Poetry Chapel Hill 1986
Empson W.: Seven Types of Ambiguity London 1947
Evans B.: Shakespeare's Comedies Oxford 1960
Fillmore C.J.: "Pragmatics and the Description of Discourse" in Cole 1981 pp143-166
Friedländer P.: Plato: An Introduction tr. Meyerhoff London 1958
Frye N.: Anatomy of Criticism Princeton 1957
Garvie A.F.: "Aeschylus' Simple Plots" in Dawe, Diggle, Easterling 1978 pp63-86
Goldhill S.: Language, Sexuality, Narrative: the Oresteia Cambridge 1984
------------ Reading Greek Tragedy Cambridge 1986
Grice P.: Studies in the Way of Words Cambridge Mass 1989
Havelock E.A.: Preface to Plato Oxford 1963
Heath M.: The Poetics of Greek Tragedy London 1987
Hegel G.W.F.: Aesthetics: Lectures in Fine Art tr. Knox Oxford 1975
Heritage J.: Recent Developments in Conversation Analysis
Warwick Working Papers in Sociology 1 1984
Johnson-Laird P.N.: Mental Models Cambridge 1983
Jones J.: On Aristotle and Greek Tragedy London 1971
Kaimio M.: The Chorus of Greek Drama Helsinki 1970
Kaufer D.: "Irony and Rhetorical Strategy" Phil & Rhet 10 1977
Kennedy A.K.: Dramatic Dialogue Cambridge 1983
Kerckhove D. de: "A Theory of Greek Tragedy" Sub Stance 29 1981 pp23-36
Kierkegaard S.: The Concept of Irony tr. Capel London 1966
Kirkwood G.M.: A Study of Sophoclean Drama Ithaca 1958
Korpimies L.: A Linguistic Approach to the Analysis of a Dramatic Text Jyväskylä 1983
Labov W.: "The study of language in its social context" Studium Generale 23 1970 pp30-87
Lakoff G. & Johnson M.: Metaphors We Live By Chicago 1980
Lebeck A.: The Oresteia: A Study in Language and Structure Washington DC 1971
Lesky A.: "Decision and Responsibility in the Tragedy of Aeschylus" JHS 86 1966 pp78-85
Levinson S.C.: Pragmatics Cambridge 1983
Lyons J.: Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics Cambridge 1968
Martin W.: Recent Theories of Narrative Ithaca 1986
36
Mill J.S.: "Thoughts on Poetry and its Varieties" Collected Works Vol 1 Toronto 1981 342-365
Muecke D.C.: The Compass of Irony London 1980
-------------Irony and the Ironic London 1982
Oostdijk N.: "The Language of Dialogue in Fiction" LLC 5.3 1990 pp235-241
Ortony A.(ed.): Metaphor and Thought Cambridge 1979
Panhuis D.: "Prolepsis in Greek as a Discourse Strategy" Glotta 62 1984 pp26-39
Pilkington A.: "Poetic Effects" Lingua 87 1992 pp29-51
Porter T.E.: "Drama as text: mythos and praxis" Word 37 1 1986 pp93-110
Pratt M.L.: Towards a Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse Bloomington 1977
Roberts D.H.: Apollo and his Oracle in the Oresteia Göttingen 1984
Romilly J. de: Time in Greek Tragedy Ithaca 1968
Rozik E.: "Theatrical Irony" TRI 11 1986 pp132-151
--------- "The Functions of Language in the Theatre" TRI 8.2 1993 104ff
Searle J.R.: Speech Acts Cambridge 1969
Sedgewick G.G.: Of Irony, Especially in Drama Toronto 1935
Sharpe R.B.: Irony in the Drama Chapel Hill 1959
Shiro M.: "Inferences in discourse comprehension" in Coulthard 1994 pp167-178
Sinclair J. McH. & Coulthard R.M.: Towards an Analysis of Discourse London 1975
Slings S.R.: "Written and Spoken Language: an Exercise in the Pragmatics of the Greek
Sentence" Classical Philology 87 1992 pp95-109
Smith N.V. (ed.): Mutual Knowledge London 1982
Sperber D. & Wilson D.: "Irony and the Use-Mention Distinction" in Cole 1981 pp295-318
------------------------Relevance Oxford 1986
States B.O.: Irony and Drama Ithaca 1971
---------"The Dog on the Stage: Theater as Phenomenon" New Lit Hist 14.2 1983 pp373-388
Stolnitz J.: "On the Origin of Aesthetic Disinterestedness" JAesth 20 1961 pp131-143
Swearingen C. Jan: "Narrative: The Transition from Story to Logic"
in Britton & Pellegrini 1990 pp176-7
------------------Rhetoric and Irony New York 1991
Taplin O.: The Stagecraft of Aeschylus Oxford 1977
Thirlwall C.: "On the Irony of Sophocles" The Philological Museum 2 1833 pp483-537
Thomson J.A.K.: Irony: A Historical Introduction London 1926
Tindale C.W. & Gough J.: "The Use of Irony in Argumentation" Phil & Rhet 20 1987 pp1-17
Vellacott P.: The Logic of Tragedy Durham NC 1984
Vlastos G.: "Socratic Irony" in Classical Quarterly 37 1987 pp79-86
Webster T.B.L.: "A Study of Greek Sentence Construction" AJPhilol 62 1941 pp385-415
West M.L.: Studies in Aeschylus Stuttgart 1990
Wilson D.: "Relevance and Understanding" to appear in Brown (forthcoming).
Winnington-Ingram R.P.: Studies in Aeschylus Cambridge 1983
Winter E.: "Clause relations as information structure" in Coulthard 1994 pp46-68
Zabel M.D. (ed.): Literary Opinion in America Gloucester Mass. 1968