In this book, Capponi does not merely provide another comparison of the three plays featuring Electra and Orestes by the Athenian tragedians, nor does he simply speculate on the gestures performed in these tragedies. Rather, by examining The Libation Bearers and the two Electra plays, Capponi reflects on the very nature of ancient tragic performance and the impact of theatrical speech. Indeed, the author, in line with Claude Calame’s approach, endeavors to consider the Greek tragedies as texts conceived for a specific audience, in a specific time, according to specific rules.
In the first chapter, Capponi addresses general linguistic issues, drawing on pragmatic studies, and identifies the key components of dramatic speech: drama, lexis, skhêma, and kinêsis. The following four chapters focus on each of these terms through close readings of Aeschylus’ Libation Bearers, Aristotle’s Rhetoric and Poetics, Sophocles’ Electra, and finally Euripides’ Electra. Each chapter dedicated to a specific tragedian concludes with a comparison to the other two, justifying the choice of a particular play to illustrate a specific concept. For example, the prevalent use of skhêma in Sophocles is contrasted with the practices of Aeschylus and Euripides. This structure allows Capponi to emphasize the dramatic features of each tragedian, who, within the artistic form of tragedy, highlights particular tools of expression. The originality of this approach is defended in both the preface (by Claude Calame) and the introduction.
Chapters one and three, titled “Rites de parole et actes de langage” and “Lexis, manière de dire, manière de voir”, provide a theoretical framework based on John Austin’s How to Do Things with Words and Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni’s works (for instance, Les Actes de langage dans le discours). Capponi combines ancient theoretical texts (particularly the Aristotelian corpus) with modern linguistic concepts to develop definitions suited to the Greek mindset, adopting an emic perspective. The first chapter inventories the various speech acts represented in the tragedies, such as curses, prayers, and libations. These are all characterized by Greek terms, their illocutionary value, context of utterance (witness and recipient), formal elements, and gestures. This lexical analysis culminates in a characterization of the specific speech act in theatre as “un drama (δρᾶμα), revêtant un skhêma (σχῆμα) et s’associant à une kinêsis (κίνησις)” (p.82): action, posture, and gesture all enhance their respective expressivity. In the third chapter, Capponi draws on Aristotle’s Rhetoric (Book III) and Poetics to revisit the fundamental meanings of skhêma, defined as a structured and static form. He then skillfully expands this polysemic term to propose a tripartite interpretation of “posture”: as a mode of expression, a stylistic structure, and a bodily attitude. According to Capponi, the mode of expression shapes both the stylistic structure of sentences and the bodily attitude required from the actor; in other words, any linguistic skhêma is translated on stage into a bodily skhêma. These theoretical chapters are extensive but meticulously explain the terminology employed in the subsequent analyses of the plays.
The remaining chapters (two, four, and five) analyze the three tragedies in light of the linguistic definitions established earlier. In the second chapter, “Drama, l’action rituelle de la parole” (pp.83-169), Capponi examines the ritual dimension of speech in Aeschylus’ Libation Bearers, focusing on the kommos (vv.315-475). The self-referential terms such as “prayer,” “lament,” and “curse” structure the text as a series of ritual speeches. At the same time, their frequency highlights Aeschylus’ attention to naming the nature of speech and, by extension, emphasizes the ritual artificiality of theatre. However, when transposed to the stage, these rituals acquire a new form of efficacy, particularly in the context of stage action.
In the fourth chapter, Sophocles’ Electra exemplifies the concept of “Skhêma, forme de langage et du corps,” particularly through the protagonist’s lament (vv.86-120) and the subsequent agôn between Electra and Chrysothemis (vv.341-368). This chapter highlights the originality of Capponi’s approach. He introduces a method grounded in pragmatic theories, dividing the text into minimal units (clauses that bear meaning and are logically connected) and periods (breathing units). This organization allows the semantic unities—also called “sequences”—to take precedence over syntactical or metrical ones. The aim is to reveal the bodily skhêmata induced by the linguistic skhêmata. To achieve this, Capponi uses a table to map out the logical sequencing of the text, emphasizing logical articulations, self-referential terms, structural elements, and signals (notable elements that affect meaning). Since Sophocles’ theatre is built not on realistic movements but on a succession of poses, the goal is not to reconstruct the gestures performed during the performance, but to highlight the poses the actors would have struck while delivering their lines, reflecting the general attitude that the definition of skhêma suggests.
The fifth chapter shifts focus to “Kinêsis, le geste joint à la parole,” exploring codified gestures derived from everyday actions but amplified on stage due to their symbolic significance. Again, Capponi employs a table, this time adding icons to associate each grammatical and semantic unity with a corresponding attitude or gesture (for example, front-facing posture, falling to the ground, handshake). He analyzes the key moments in the meeting scene between Orestes and Electra in Euripides’ Electra, and then compares the recognition scenes across the three tragedians.
The book is notable for its clear prose, systematic definition of technical terms, and well-organized layout. The few Greek terms used are transliterated, making the book accessible even to non-Hellenists. All ancient texts are presented in the original Greek (with the unusual exception of Xenophon on p.42) alongside translations. The quotations from the plays are drawn from various editions—Bollack’s for The Libation Bearers (Éditions de Minuit) and Debidour’s for both Electras (Pléiade), with some textual arrangements made by the author. While the book includes an index of tables, unfortunately, it lacks an index of terms or names.
Capponi’s method is innovative, combining pragmatic linguistics with textual analysis. He offers a deep exploration of the relationship between gestures and speech, supported by precise definitions and typologies that frame his investigation. For instance, he focuses not on all types of gestures but specifically on “emblems”—symbolic gestures that emphasize the text. He also makes a careful distinction between the narrative and spectacular dimensions of the plays, differentiating between the internal and external effects of the utterances. Furthermore, Capponi bolsters his arguments with various tables, which help clarify his reasoning (for example, Table 10 on p.222 synthesizes different classifications of grammatical modalities from ancient philosophical schools and modern linguists).
Capponi explicitly positions himself within current debates. For instance, in linguistics, he challenges the concept of the ‘gap’ (“écart”), which posits that marked utterances can be distinguished from declarative ones. In contrast, he defends the thesis that no utterance in the theatre remains neutral: each line is spoken with the intent of producing a specific effect on the audience. Consequently, he assigns a particular tonality to each clause he delimits. Following another linguistic principle, Capponi asserts that every speech is an utterance, meaning the communicative situation—and thus the recipient—is crucial to understanding the words. This insight is especially relevant for the study of Greek tragedy, which is embedded within a ritual (although the ritual aspects, as mentioned in the introduction, could have been further developed) and a theatrical context. Building on these premises, Capponi argues that gestures are essential for signaling to the audience who is speaking (e.g., the actor facing the audience during a speech). The vast scale of the theatre necessitated the elimination of any superfluous gestures to ensure the clarity of the stage action. Moreover, every step in the action is clearly indicated to the audience within the text. As a result, Capponi reiterates the idea that theatre is an aestheticization of both speech and gesture, as evidenced by the use of self-referential terms.
Capponi further contends that the text calls for gesture, understood broadly as skhêma, which encompasses expressive modalities, attitudes, and deixis. The text’s modalities allow for the systematic reconstruction of associated gestures. Thus, the close connection between linguistic units and gestures enables one to “lire ou, mieux, voir dans les mots du poète la dramaturgie et le jeu de l’acteur” (p.298).
Another key element of his argument is a critique of the evolutionary theory of Greek tragedy, which suggests a progression from the archaic Aeschylus to a modern Euripides, passing through a classical Sophocles. Capponi rejects this view, asserting that Euripides does not represent a more realistic or impassioned theatre, but rather showcases the greatest variety of techniques—some of which were also used, though less extensively, by Aeschylus and Sophocles.
Certain points still invite debate. Capponi’s interpretation of Aristotle, for example, may seem at times anachronistic, veering towards excessive modernization. He argues, against tradition, that Aristotle would have been sensitive to opsis (the visual aspect of theatre), by paying attention to the audience and the context of an utterance, and thus to its perlocutionary effects. However, his argument becomes tangled in the ongoing distinction between the normative and descriptive aspects of Aristotle’s text. For instance, on p.198, Capponi defends the philosopher, claiming that Aristotle merely describes contemporary taste but, to do so, he shifts from theoretical to descriptive discourse without addressing the actual disdain for opsis.
Similarly, Capponi’s linguistic approach sometimes leads to an over-determination of the text. While it is possible that the visual image of poses influenced the writing of the text, reconstructing gestures from the text is merely a heuristic exercise. It may not necessarily reflect the creative process of the playwrights, who were also directors and may have envisioned choreographies before composing the text. By treating actors as indicators of both language and body forms, Capponi emphasizes the composition of the text over the performance itself, which undermines his assertion of situating tragedy within its performance context. While some questions remain unresolved, Capponi candidly opens the door to further discussion.
In conclusion, the book offers a challenging and innovative reading of Greek tragedy by developing a method that blends ancient and modern concepts of language. His definitions, along with the numerous tables, provide valuable tools and open avenues for applying the method to other texts. Applying this method to comedy, with its distinct performance codes, may also prove fruitful. The book will likely appeal not to younger students but to any researcher interested in Greek tragedy, as well as those working in linguistics and the historical or theoretical aspects of theatre.