In The Eumenides and Agamemnon of The Oresteia trilogy, Aeschylus constructs an over-arching metaphor for elements of the new Athenian democracy. The chorus in each play represents the people who feel under-represented and disrespected, by the society's changing values. In The Eumenides, the chorus of Furies is frustrated with the younger gods and infringements on their power; in Agamemnon the chorus fears more the control of an effective woman in Clytemnestra rather than the leadership of fruitless Agamemnon. Both choruses take direct actions thought to ensure their prominence. Agamemnon picks of the story eponymous Greek king following the conclusion of the Trojan War. In his absence, his wife Clytemnestra has assumed the throne, and the polis has flourished under her. However, as a woman, Clytemnestra is nonetheless seen as unsuited to continue her reign given the morays of Argos. The chorus of Agamemnon relates with Clytemnestra and the thematic frustration with the control of women. Consisting of the bitter old men who were not allowed to go to the Trojan War, the chorus is opposes Clytemnestra's leadership as a woman for the sake of their own pride. They are relieved by Agamemnon's return, and see it as their salvation from being Argos' "dishonored ones." (Agamemnon, Ln. 79) Therefore they spend the play working to critique and delegitimize her reign, ultimately calling for her death for by Orestes hand. The chorus views Agamemnon's return as "justice com[ing] to birth." (Agamemnon, Ln. 1001) Their surprising willingness to accept the loss of an entire generation of young Greek men in exchange for Agamemnon's return to the throne leaves no doubt about how crucial they believe the perseverance of older structures of po... ... middle of paper ... ...gic is working ... I can feel the hate, the fury slip away." (The Eumenides, Ln. 907) This magic is realization that Athena's offer ensures their continuing respect despite the trial's outcome, and that by reconciling themselves to it, they will retain some power. In both The Eumenides and Agamemnon the choruses relate significantly to the actions and characters in each tragedy. While the characteristics and constituents of each chorus differ, both represent the groups left behind in a new era of government. The completion of The Oresteia shows the transformation of power both within the context of the plays and contemporary Greek society which was changing to a new democratic system. The struggle to retain power and tradition in changing governments is consistent throughout history, and clearly exemplified through the battles of the choruses of The Oresteia.
A twenty-first century reading of the Iliad and the Odyssey will highlight a seeming lack of justice: hundreds of men die because of an adulteress, the most honorable characters are killed, the cowards survive, and everyone eventually goes to hell. Due to the difference in the time period, culture, prominent religions and values, the modern idea of justice is much different than that of Greece around 750 B.C. The idea of justice in Virgil’s the Aeneid is easier for us to recognize. As in our own culture, “justice” in the epic is based on a system of punishment for wrongs and rewards for honorable acts. Time and time again, Virgil provides his readers with examples of justice in the lives of his characters. Interestingly, the meaning of justice in the Aeneid transforms when applied to Fate and the actions of the gods. Unlike our modern (American) idea of blind, immutable Justice, the meanings and effects of justice shift, depending on whether its subject is mortal or immortal.
At first glance, the picture of justice found in the Oresteia appears very different from that found in Heraclitus. And indeed, at the surface level there are a number of things which are distinctly un-Heraclitean. However, I believe that a close reading reveals more similarities than differences; and that there is a deep undercurrent of the Heraclitean world view running throughout the trilogy. In order to demonstrate this, I will first describe those ways in which the views of justice in Aeschylus' Oresteia and in Heraclitus appear dissimilar. Then I will examine how these dissimilarities are problematized by other information in the Oresteia; information which expresses views of justice very akin to Heraclitus. Of course, how similar or dissimilar they are will depend not only on one's reading of the Oresteia, but also on how one interprets Heraclitus. Therefore, when I identify a way in which justice in the Oresteia seems different from that in Heraclitus, I will also identify the interpretation of Heraclitus with which I am contrasting it. Defending my interpretation of Heraclitean justice as such is beyond the scope of this essay. However I will always refer to the particular fragments on which I am basing my interpretation, and I think that the views I will attribute to him are fairly non-controversial. It will be my contention that, after a thorough examination of both the apparent discrepancies and the similarities, the nature of justice portrayed in the Oresteia will appear more deeply Heraclitean than otherwise. I will not argue, however, that there are therefore no differences at all between Aeschylus and Heraclitus on the issue of justice. Clearly there are some real ones and I will point out any differences which I feel remain despite the many deep similarities.
Aeschylus’ tragic trilogy, the only play to survive from Ancient Greece, repeatedly calls our attention upon a central concept of justice: justice as revenge. This is a relatively simple concept, with a powerful emotional appeal, linking vengeance to the family and their feelings for each other and for their collective honor. However, one must look past this superficial theme in order to fully appreciate and understand the depth and beauty of Aeschylus’ work, and regard it as a philosophical investigation into the concepts of justice rather than a great artistic fiction or a poetic exploration. The former approach is unfortunate because the Oresteia is not a rational argument. It is, on the other hand, an artistic exploration of abstract and theoretical issues. What matters in this case is the complexity of the feeling that emerges from the characters, the imagery, the actions, and the ideas in the story. In other words, the writer is dealing with a case of how human bei...
Aeschylus' The Oresteia features two characters burdened by seemingly hopeless decisions. First is Agamemnon, king of Argos, whose army was thwarted by the goddess, Artemis. Agamemnon was faced with the decision to call off the army's sail to Troy, and thus admit defeat and embarrassment, or to sacrifice his daughter, Iphigenia, to satisfy Artemis whom had stopped the winds to delay Agamemnon's fleet. Second is Orestes, son of Agamemnon, who was given the choice by Apollo to avenge his father's murder, thus committing matricide, or face a series of torturous consequences. Although both Agamemnon and Orestes were faced with major dilemmas, their intentions and their characters are revealed through their actions to be markedly different.
What Price Glory? was the title of a Maxwell Anderson play about World War I. Although the Oresteia deals with the period following a much different war, the same question can be asked of it. In the trilogy Aeschylus presents the reader with a stunning example of ancient Greek society, in which warrior ideals were firmly held, and glory in battle was considered the supreme good. The question of moral justification in the trilogy brings in many complex issues, but all of them revolve around the construction of Greek society and the role of different individuals in this system. Two of the most extraordinary characters are the personages of Agamemnon and his wife Clytemnestra. This couple confronts the reader with a myriad assortment of issues, but one of the most thought-provoking is the issue of justification. We are presented with two unnatural murders: that of Iphigeneia by her father Agamemnon, and later that of Agamemnon by Clytemnestra. It is very difficult to argue from merely these facts as to who was more justified in the killings. Many would say Clytemnestra because it was Agamemnon who began the whole situation, but others would argue that society forced Agamemnon into this position. These responses are based only on circumspect and superficial evidence and do not drive to the heart of the issue. To fully understand these characters and to answer the question of their justification one must view their actions in the context of the society in which they lived, and also the role of free-will or self-determination in this society. I will argue that although both characters were victims of the warrior society in which they lived, it was Clytemnestra who was more justified ...
The Chorus sing as Clytemnestra moves around the stage, lighting fires and unmoved to their appeals for news. Their song tells the history of the Greek expedition's problems as they set off for Troy. It would seem that, whilst uplifting the name of Agamemnon ("with the power of Zeus" 47) they also describe the death of Iphigenia with great pity ("gentle curving lips... her glance... wounding every murderer"). They describe his heartache ("pain both ways" 212) between both courses of action, whether to obey the oracle or save his daughter. But undeniably, the Chorus does not approve with what he did ("cause of all our grief" 222) and tell with great sorrow a flashback of Iphigenia singing at the feasts to Zeus ("transfixed with joy" 246). It is with this in our mind that we finally talk to Clytemnestra, the mother of the slaughtered child.
During the time of Euripides, approximately the second half of the fifth century B.C., it was a period of immense cultural crisis and political convulsion (Arrowsmith 350). Euripides, like many other of his contemporaries, used the whole machinery of the theater as a way of thinking about their world (Arrowsmith 349). His interest in particular was the analysis of culture and relationship between culture and the individual. Euripides used his characters as a function to shape the ideas of the play (Arrowsmith 359).
Clytemnestra has the ten years of the Trojan War to plan her revenge on Agamemnon. Upon his return Clytemnestra shows him some love. That love she showed quickly changes to rage and hatred when Clytemnestra she’s Agamemnon with his mistress Cassandra.
“The body says what words cannot” is a quote by Martha Graham that relates to how dance can be used as creative practice that people can use to help understand different pieces of literature. Agamemnon is a play written by Aeschylus that affirms the gender roles society imposes on the characters in the play, specifically Clytaemenstra and Agamemnon, that can be interpreted in the creative art form of dance. Dance is an art form under appreciated by society and reinforces the gender roles illustrated in Agamemnon, through the idea that women are inferior to men in different aspects, which will be expressed and explained by the dance piece made.
In Aeschylus’ Agamemnon there are many different opinions about what kind of king and commander Agamemnon was. Some argued that he was good, while others dispute that his motives were wrong. Clytemnestra, Agamemnon’s wife, gained a strong hatred for him, after he sacrificed his own daughter so he could go to war. Many believe that this was not necessary and could have been overcome. The chorus seems to agree with this to an extent, and feels that Agamemnon could have prayed and requested that he not sacrifice his daughter.
In this essay I intend to discuss how Aeschylus presents Clytaemnestra in the Oresteia and how he marks the extent to which traits of Clytaemnestra's character remain defiantly unchanged as she manipulates events and characters around her. Clytaemnestra is the only character who appears in all three plays in the trilogy, but despite her immense stage presence she remains a troublesome character to interpret due to the highly ambiguous nature of her words. I intend to show that the key to unlocking Clytaemnestra's manly heart lies in the fact that she hated Agamemnon, not simply because he had killed her child, nor because she loved Aegisthus, but out of a jealousy that was not a jealously of Cassandra, but of Agamemnon himself and his status as a man. Therefore, I intend to show how Aeschylus presents Clytemnestra as a character who ventures throughout the Oresteia to fight, think and talk like a man, but also plot with the wiles of a woman, act the role of faithful wife, and argue with passionate conviction of a bereaved mother.
In Aeschylus’ The Agamemnon, Agamemnon and Clytemnestra have to make tough decisions throughout the play, decisions they believe are justified. The actions of Agamemnon and Clytemnestra are not justified because they are caused by their blinding hubris and desire for power. Agamemnon makes the choice to kill his daughter just so he could lead his troops to Troy. Clytemnestra kills her husband, not just for revenge, but for his position and power as king of Mycenae. They make selfish choices and do not believe they will be punished for them. By exposing their true motives, Aeschylus makes it clear they are not justified in their actions.
The role of the chorus in Greek Tragedy is indispensable, as Aristotle once said,” [The chorus] is a dramatic element, an actor among other actors. It shows us the communal background of the action, which is essential to Oedipus [Rex] and to every other Greek Play”
The Chorus, in this play, guides the audience. In the end, it is up to the individual as to what reaction they have to the play, but the Chorus is there to, in a way makes this reaction more complicated. One could leave the play totally condemning Medea, but the Chorus display’s Medea in a way that makes the audience sympathise with her, and so the moral conclusions that need to be come to side, become more complex. The audience has to base their reaction to Medea on what crimes they have seen her commit, and on what they have heard of her through the Chorus. Their integral part in the play acts in many ways, to follow, revise, and extend the plot of the play, and to influence the opinions and sympathies of the audience. It is a literary, and dramatic device that Euripedes uses, and uses well, to help portray a tragedy, and also a moralistic play, in which the Chorus is the voice that provides the morals.
In Euripides' 'Electra', there are a number of parts, speaking and non-speaking, that reveal the redeeming features of the otherwise pitiful characters. This essay will consider the roles of Orestes, Electra, Clytemnestra, the Peasant and Aegisthus (whose actions are only reported to us).