The Oresteia by Aeschylus: Eumenides

1/ As the final part of the Oresteia, this is quite a strange play. After the murder of his mother Klytaimestra (better known as Clytemnestra), Orestes is pursued by the Furies.

“PRIESTESS […] But all around this man there slept 

a terrifying crowd of women resting on our seats. 

Not really women—they were more like Gorgons; 

but I cannot truly liken them to Gorgons

nor Harpies—for I saw a picture once 

of Harpies stealing Phineus’ feast, and they 

had wings; but these have none, and they are black 

and horrible in every way. They’re snoring, 

and the stench around them is unbearable. 

Disgusting streams of filth 

Pour from their eyes…” 

(translated by Michael Ewans) 

Horrifying stuff.

I note that the murder of Aigisthos (better known as Aegisthus) is fair game; even Klytaimestra’s murder of her husband Agamemnon, for the Furies, is not the worst; but matricide is the greatest evil. 

Haunted, Orestes asks for help from Apollo (the one who told him to kill his mother) and also asks Athena. She then sets up a trial for him in Athens, judged by 12 Athenian citizens. 

2/ The imagery in Aeschylus’s plays is interesting. 

“KLYTAIMESTRA You’re hunting in a dream! You’re barking like a sleeping dog 

that can’t forget its need to kill.” 

That’s the ghost of the dead woman, in case you’re wondering. 

“FURIES While I still slept, reproaches came in dreams

and struck me like a horseman with his whip 

in the belly, down below the liver. 

Here, the chill, the heavy chill, 

the dreadful whip-lash of the executioner!” 

3/ It is, however, a strange play because Apollo, a god, appears at the trial and argues in defence, and because the trial ends up not being about morality or justice but essentially boils down to the question “To which parent does the child owe more?”. 

“APOLLO […] The person called the mother is no real parent

of a child; she simply nurses foetuses once they’ve been sown. 

The parent is the man, who mounts; the woman is a hostess 

who preserves a stranger’s offspring—if they are not harmed by any god. 

Now I will show you living proof of what I say. 

A father can beget a child without a mother; see, right here

as witness stands the child of Zeus himself:

she was not nurtured in the dark depths of a womb, 

yet she is such an offspring as no goddess ever bore…” 

That is Athena. But isn’t this sophistry? The vote is split, Orestes is acquitted, the play ends with a triumphant tone, but this is nevertheless troubling.   

Michael Ewans points out: 

“In Agamemnon, [Apollo] punishes the girl who broke her pledge by a hideous death; in Libation Bearers he is ruthless once again, commanding matricide, warning of terrible penalties should Orestes try to evade it, and ordaining that Orestes must sink to treachery in order to achieve that end. Nor was his oracle, in real life, always above the charge of deviousness and trickery.” 

In a way, the acquittal of Orestes (probably) means the end of the cycle of violence, but at the same time I would guess that Aeschylus does mean the trial and Apollo’s interferences to be troubling. 

The Oresteia by Aeschylus: Libation Bearers

1/ As written in the previous blog post, this is the second part of the trilogy, and about the killing of Klytaimestra (also known as Clytemnestra). 

I read the translation by Michael Ewans, who uses transliterations from Greek. 

2/ Aeschylus’s plays are rich in metaphors and similes. 

“ELEKTRA […] We call upon the gods, who know 

that great waves toss us all around

like men at sea; but when we’re fated to survive, 

a small seed often grows into a great tree-root.” 

Some animal imagery: 

“ORESTES Zeus! Zeus! Look down and witness this! 

You see the orphaned offspring of the eagle who has died – 

a fearful serpent’s trapped him in its coils. They are bereft 

of father-love, and suffer pangs of hunger; they’re not strong enough 

to hunt food like their father, bring to the nest. 

[…] If you were to destroy the eagle’s brood, you could not send 

back any sign of hope to mortal men; 

and if this tree of kingship shrivels up and dies 

we will not be your ministers upon the festive days of sacrifice…” 

Mixed metaphors. 

Klytaimestra’s nightmare also has an interesting image: “she dreamt she gave birth to a snake” and “a clot of blood poured out into the milk.” 

Orestes later compares her to snakes: 

“ORESTES […] If she had been a seasnake, or a viper, she could make men’s flesh dissolve

without a bite, so great her daring 

and the power of her evil mind…” 

3/ This is an interesting passage: 

“LIBATION BEARERS The earth 

breeds terrifying beasts. 

In her embrace the sea 

encompasses a multitude 

of monsters that can kill a man. 

Up in the sky are comets, meteors—

like flying torches which descend 

to harm us. Then think of the hurricane, 

the anger of the stormwind. 

But who can find words to speak 

of the ever-daring mind of man

or woman’s love that dares all, 

wedded to disaster? 

When passion overcomes 

the female, it destroys 

the unions of animals, 

the marriages of men and women.” 

The play is full of such wonderful passages. I can see why my friend Himadri thinks the Oresteia is monumental. 

4/ It’s fascinating to see that Aeschylus and Sophocles tackle the same myth in completely different ways. 

In Liberation Bearers, Aeschylus does repeat the point about the cycle of violence, but presents Orestes’s killing of Klytaimestra and Aigisthos (better known as Aegisthus) as fulfilling the wish of many people, even a god: Orestes has doubts but Apollo tells him of “vile and frosty torments” and the pursuit of the Furies if he doesn’t avenge the murder of his father; the Libation Bearers or the female slaves of the house (the chorus) also egg him on, and take an active role in the revenge plot… 

In Elektra—I will stick to Greek transliterations for consistency—Sophocles does something different: he changes the circumstances of the sacrifice, thus making Artemis appear petty and Klytaimestra’s killing of Agamemnon more justified or at least less of a wanton act of violence; concentrates on Elektra and her state of mind; brings in the counter-voices of Elektra’s sister and the chorus, clashing with Elektra’s thirst for revenge; gets the audience to feel compassion for Elektra but also see something perverse in her love of her father and hatred of her mother, etc. 

However, Aeschylus adds some discordant notes towards the end of his play.

“ORESTES […] I’m like a charioteer who’s forced to drive 

outside the course; I am beaten, and cannot control 

my senses. Terror comes prepared to sing its song of hate 

beside my heart, and join the dance…” 

He is haunted. Did Apollo lie? Or did he warn Orestes of the father’s Furies if the murder’s not avenged, and not of the mother’s Furies if Orestes killed her?

“LIBATION BEARERS […] Where will it end? When will it be sated, 

lulled to sleep, the force of destruction?” 

5/ Another notable difference is that Sophocles reverses the order: Aeschylus has Orestes kill Aigisthos first and then Klytaimestra; Sophocles starts with, and focuses more on, Orestes’s killing of his mother Klytaimestra. 

In Libation Bearers, Elektra also seems to be dropped in the latter part of the play—Aeschylus focuses more on Orestes. 

6/ As my main frame of reference is Shakespeare, it’s hard to read these plays without wondering if Shakespeare knew them—just look at Libation Bearers, look at the confrontation between Orestes and his mother Klytaimestra—do you not think about Hamlet and Gertrude? For 400 years, people have debated the phrase “small Latin and less Greek” that Ben Jonson wrote about Shakespeare—most people seem to take it literally, though there is influence of Latin works on Shakespeare’s plays and scholars generally say Shakespeare may just have “small Latin and less Greek” compared to the learned Ben Jonson—I’ve recently read an essay in The Antigone Journal arguing that the sentence may have been misunderstood as “though” also has an archaic sense of “even if”. Do we know if Shakespeare knew these plays? If not in the original then perhaps in Latin translations? I need to look more into this.