Orestes I
The Orestes, performed in 408, is one of Euripides' last surviving plays--the poet died only two years later. It was very popular in the Hellenistic and Byzantine eras, much cited and taught in schools. It is a vivid melodrama (in the modern not the ancient sense), but also a profound and difficult meditation on the meaning of friendship.
In the Orestes, Euripides he takes up, and not for the first time, the familiar theme of Orestes' killing of his mother Clytaemestra and her lover Aegisthus, who had murdered his father Agamemnon. When Homer sketched the story in the first book of the Odyssey, there is no mention of the matricide and no hint that Orestes could be considered as anything less than a glorious hero. But Euripides, hardly ever content with a traditional version or conventional attitude, portrays an outraged city of Argos debating--democratically of course--whether or not to punish Orestes and his sister Electra (his collaborator) with death.
When the play begins, six days after the killing of Clytaemestra, the sleeping Orestes is being watched over by Electra who grieves for her brother's spasms of madness that have been inflicted on him by his mother's Erinyes--the Furies that avenge the murder of a relative. Electra hints at a curse that has afflicted her family since Tantalus, most blessed of humans, decided to tempt the gods by serving them--unbeknownst to them--his son Pelops. (The son was restored to life but Tantalus is punished everlastingly in Hell.) Her grandfather Atreus engaged in a terrible and homicidal struggle with his brother Thyestes. She refuses even to name Atreus' crime--again one involving kin-murder and cannibalism. Finally, there was Agamemnon's sacrifice of his daughter Iphigenia (named here but not as victim) and the murder of Agamemnon and the revenge killing of Clytaemestra.
The first family spat breaks out when Electra's aunt Helen asks her to bring libations "to my sister's tomb"--carefully avoiding the word mother. Helen is ashamed to appear in public, but Electra suggests Helen's daughter Hermione as the more appropriate substitute, to which Helen agrees.
The chorus enters in a sort of "Zitti, zitti scene" and have to be quieted. Electra and the chorus debate the delicate subject of Apollo's complicity. If a god commands an act, how can it be wrong? If a god commands an evil act, how can he be worthy of reverence? When Electra (191) claims Apollo has made brother and sister sacrificial victims, the chorus chimes in "δικᾳ"--with right or justly, but she adds καλῶς δ᾽ου--but not well, implying the possibility that while the slaying of their mother was justified, it was still a rotten thing to do. Orestes awakens, depressed but returns to his senses and he takes heart at the news that his uncle Menelaus has arrived, obviously (so he thinks) to rescue his niece and nephew. Orestes, however, feels another fit coming on, and the chorus sings an ode about the Furies and the cycle of retribution that has afflicted the family. Echoing Aeschylus' Agamemnon, they do not, however, invoke the justice of Zeus but pray for mercy.
Thus the stage is set. All the basic elements have been introduced: 1) the unending cycle of violence within the house of Tantalus, 2) the conflict between the family of Helen and the children of Agamemnon, 3) the duties of blood, and 4) the expectation that we can depend upon our kin for support.
II
In his madness, Orestes imagines that he is fighting the divine Furies by means of the bow and arrow Apollo gave him--surely a vivid acting out of his dilemma. Turning to Electra he begs his sister to comfort him and when he sees her down cast, promises to be at hand to reproach her with friendship (φίλα) for such acts of support are good in friends (τοῖς φἰλοις). This passage is one of many that confirms Aristotle's treatment of friendship that includes kinfolks as primary friends.
Menelaus enters, and from the first he is ambiguous. He mourns his brother's death and wanted to comfort Orestes, but now he has heard that Orestes killed his mother, who happens to be Menelaus' sister-in-law. When Orestes explains to him that Apollo ordered the killings, Menelaus (417 ) says Apollo is rather ignorant of the good (kalon) and the right (dike). The first term refers to what is beautiful and of good repute, the second refers to correct behavior, justice. If Apollo is responsible, why does he not come to protect Orestes, the uncle asks. This leads to a sophistical interchange. Gods are wont to tarry (mellei), says Orestes, but, Menelaus counters, these goddesses--the furies--did not tarry. Orestes responds with what I believe to be a key line (424): οὐ σοφός, ἀληθὴς δ᾽εἰς φίλους ἔφυν φίλος. "I was not born/am not by nature wise/clever but a real friend to friends." So Menelaus is intelligent, sophisticated (as we might say) like the sophists of that generation who were excellent at playing upon words, but Orestes' nature is to be loyal to those he is by nature supposed to be loyal to, that is, friends, and the primary class of friends are kinfolks, and the highest kinfolks are parents, father first and mother second. Thus he killed the second most important person in his life in order to avenge the murder of the first most important.
Menelaus, being a practical political type, asks what good this vengeance did Orestes. The answer is obvious: everyone hates him and he cannot even be purged, because no one will let him in a house where his blood-guilt can be washed away. There is an anti-Atridae coalition, it seems. It includes Oiax, the brother of Palamedes who was killed at Troy by the commanders, on false evidence of treachery planted by Odysseus, who hated Palamedes for unmasking his phony madness. Oiax can stand for everyone who had a loved one killed in the war. There are also Aegisthus' friends and supporters who did well under his regime. Now it seems likely that they will have Orestes stoned to death. Menelaus pities the poor young man, who tells him that he, the uncle, is the only hope. Orestes (448 ff.) tells he he should share his prosperity with his unfortunate friends and not hoard his utility/good fortune. He should take a share of their sufferings, paying back/requiting Orestes' father's favors (Charitas) to those to whom he ought, that is, he received favors (e.g., the entire Trojan War to recover his wife) from Agamemnon, and he can only repay his debt of Charis to the children. And now comes the great Euripidean tagline, which does not sound so tinny when it is uttered in the dramatic scene: They have the name and not the fact/action of friends who in misfortunes are not friends. Remember, again, that friendship not only includes but is exemplified by kinship.
II (Continued)
Tyndareus, Clytaemestra's father, enters seeking vengeance. He freely admits his daughter deserved to die but insists that her son should not have killed her. This comes close to Orestes' view that what he did was just but not good. He chides Menelaus for sympathizing with his nephew and accuses him of turning barbarian after spending so many years in foreign parts. "But it is Greek always to honor kinship." (488). Yes, the old man says, but not to want to go ahead of the laws/traditions. Orestes should have turned to "the common law/tradition of the Greeks" and cast her from the home. If murder is to be allowed to avenge murder, the killing will never stop. (The point taken up more profoundly by Aeschylus). In helping Orestes, Menelaus would be striving against the gods (531 ff).
Orestes treats his vengeance-seeking grandfather with due reverence, but if he is stoned for punishing an adulteress who murdered her husband, then women will think it nothing to kill their husbands. Here O. is making the argument from utility. And, had he done nothing, he would equally have incurred the wrath of the Erinyes for not avenging his father. If anyone sinned, it was Apollo, and he is pure.
Tyndareus is all the more enraged by Orestes' defense, and he threatens to strip Menelaus, who holds Sparta as a dowry with Helen, of his possessions. Menelaus, far from being the bravest of men, is perplexed.
Entries(RSS)
"Euripides, hardly ever content with a traditional version or conventional attitude, portrays an outraged city of Argos debating–democratically of course–whether or not to punish Orestes and his sister Electra (his collaborator) with death."
This seems particularly strange to me; even a purely modern mind would be inclined to wonder why the city is less outraged on behalf of Agammemnon than it is on behalf of Aegisthus-Clytaemestra. Is Euripides perhaps implying ("democratically of course") that the former was not as favored among the people as was the latter? Maybe the Aegisthus-Clytaemestra regime had time to subvert Agammemnon's authority and cement its popularity while Agammemnon was away? Although I guess that might be trying to read more out of the text than is actually available...
I've read The Oresteia and Sophocles' Electra, but this is my first time reading Euripides' version. I know little about Euripides and can hardly trust most of the stuff that I've read -- but it is correct that he tends to be less reverential towards the gods than were Sophocles & Aeschylus, yes? The existentialists tended to really like him, I think? This occured to me when noting that Orestes is being punished by the Furies for having slain his mother at the command of Phoebus -- in other words, being on the business end of divine wrath for having obeyed a divine command. A "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation?
I had no idea Helen was Clytaemestra's sister -- is that traditional, or an innovation of Euripides? I don't remember anybody else mentioning it. It certainly seems like their behaviors toward their respective husbands invites the drawing of a parallel.
Excellent questions. Let's start with the easy one. It is the unanimous tradition that Leda bore to Zeus (in the form of a swan) and perhaps Tyndareusher husband four children: Castor and Pollux, Helen and Clytamaestra, each pair having one mortal and one divine. Helen was the divine sister and Clytaemestra the human, though this does not appear to appeal to Euripides.
Many books and articles have been written about Euripides' religion. The most famous theory, now in low esteem, was Arthur Verrall's notion that he was constantly criticizing Greek religion, particularly the Delphic oracle. From the Hippolytus and the Bacchae, it would seem that Euripides viewed some of the gods, at least, as very powerful and not to be messed with. One way of making sense of a world of violence and irrational passion is to view these forces as supranatural, and Euripides seems to have taken that view. I hesitate to go further at this point.
I wouldn't worry about the Existentialists. They got Greek drama wrong almost always.
Euripides assumes we know something of the story, of course, though how much we don't know. He was a bookish man--very unusual for an Athenian of that time--and was certainly familiar with his predecessors' works. However, I think it would be a mistake to think he was inspired by a desire to revise their approach. He feels free--as they did--to reshape the story in any way he likes, not because he thinks he is getting at a truth that Homer or Aeschylus missed, but because he has an agenda. It is that agenda we should be trying to discover. Having said that, I think there may be something to your supposition about Agamemnon's lack of popularity. There are some very unkind words in this play about democracy and demagogues, as we shall see. I'll try to post something on the next scenes today.
ides"One way of making sense of a world of violence and irrational passion is to view these forces as supranatural, and Euripides seems to have taken that view. I hesitate to go further at this point."
When one raises this issue there is one important question to be decided. Moderns tend to see "making sense of the world" as something that men mentally or subjectively impose upon their environment i.e. but for the human imagination, desires or ideas which order the universe for us, it would be a meaningless chaos. w Traditionalists tend to view the order in their environment as something dscovered or something pre-existing in the thing itself independent of what we may think or believe about it. Euripides seems to see depravity, darkness and derangement as a condition influenced by the furies and is not less wise for thinking so, although I do not believe it is his thinking that makes this so.
"He feels free to reshape the story in any way he likes, not because he thinks he is getting at a truth that Homer or Aeschylus missed, but because he has an agenda." Indeed and it is, like the Existentialists, a tragic agenda.
A revision and brief addition:
The chorus enters in a sort of "Zitti, zitti scene" and have to be quieted. Electra and the chorus debate the delicate subject of Apollo's complicity. If a god commands an act, how can it be wrong? If a god commands an evil act, how can he be worthy of reverence? When Electra (191) claims Apollo has made brother and sister sacrificial victims, the chorus chimes in "δικᾳ"--with right or justly, but she adds καλῶς δ᾽ου--but not well, implying the possibility that while the slaying of their mother was justified, it was still a rotten thing to do. Orestes awakens, depressed but returns to his senses and he takes heart at the news that his uncle Menelaus has arrived, obviously (so he thinks) to rescue his niece and nephew. Orestes, however, feels another fit coming on, and the chorus sings an ode about the Furies and the cycle of retribution that has afflicted the family. Echoing Aeschylus' Agamemnon, they do not, however, invoke the justice of Zeus but pray for mercy.
Thus the stage is set. All the basic elements have been introduced: 1) the unending cycle of violence within the house of Tantalus, 2) the conflict between the family of Helen and the children of Agamemnon, 3) the duties of blood, and 4) the expectation that we can depend upon our kin for support.
II
In his madness, Orestes imagines that he is fighting the divine Furies by means of the bow and arrow Apollo gave him--surely a vivid acting out of his dilemma. Turning to Electra he begs his sister to comfort him and when he sees her down cast, promises to be at hand to reproach her with friendship (φίλα) for such acts of support are good in friends (τοῖς φἰλοις). This passage is one of many that confirms Aristotle's treatment of friendship that includes kinfolks as primary friends.
In his madness, Orestes imagines that he is fighting the divine Furies by means of the bow and arrow Apollo gave him--surely a vivid acting out of his dilemma. Turning to Electra he begs his sister to comfort him and when he sees her down cast, promises to be at hand to reproach her with friendship (φίλα) for such acts of support are good in friends (τοῖς φἰλοις). This passage is one of many that confirms Aristotle's treatment of friendship that includes kinfolks as primary friends.
Menelaus enters, and from the first he is ambiguous. He mourns his brother's death and wanted to comfort Orestes, but now he has heard that Orestes killed his mother, who happens to be Menelaus' sister-in-law. When Orestes explains to him that Apollo ordered the killings, Menelaus (417 ) says Apollo is rather ignorant of the good (kalon) and the right (dike). The first term refers to what is beautiful and of good repute, the second refers to correct behavior, justice. If Apollo is responsible, why does he not come to protect Orestes, the uncle asks. This leads to a sophistical interchange. Gods are wont to tarry (mellei), says Orestes, but, Menelaus counters, these goddesses--the furies--did not tarry. Orestes responds with what I believe to be a key line (424): οὐ σοφός, ἀληθὴς δ᾽εἰς φίλους ἔφυν φίλος. "I was not born/am not by nature wise/clever but a real friend to friends." So Menelaus is intelligent, sophisticated (as we might say) like the sophists of that generation who were excellent at playing upon words, but Orestes' nature is to be loyal to those he is by nature supposed to be loyal to, that is, friends, and the primary class of friends are kinfolks, and the highest kinfolks are parents, father first and mother second. Thus he killed the second most important person in his life in order to avenge the murder of the first most important.
Menelaus, being a practical political type, asks what good this vengeance did Orestes. The answer is obvious: everyone hates him and he cannot even be purged, because no one will let him in a house where his blood-guilt can be washed away. There is an anti-Atridae coalition, it seems. It includes Oiax, the brother of Palamedes who was killed at Troy by the commanders, on false evidence of treachery planted by Odysseus, who hated Palamedes for unmasking his phony madness. Oiax can stand for everyone who had a loved one killed in the war. There are also Aegisthus' friends and supporters who did well under his regime. Now it seems likely that they will have Orestes stoned to death. Menelaus pities the poor young man, who tells him that he, the uncle, is the only hope. Orestes (448 ff.) tells he he should share his prosperity with his unfortunate friends and not hoard his utility/good fortune. He should take a share of their sufferings, paying back/requiting Orestes' father's favors (Charitas) to those to whom he ought, that is, he received favors (e.g., the entire Trojan War to recover his wife) from Agamemnon, and he can only repay his debt of Charis to the children. And now comes the great Euripidean tagline, which does not sound so tinny when it is uttered in the dramatic scene: They have the name and not the fact/action of friends who in misfortunes are not friends. Remember, again, that friendship not only includes but is exemplified by kinship.
I'll try to contribute more to the discussion tomorrow when I get a bit more free time. At the moment I'm chewing on the comparison of Euripides' depiction of Menelaus vs. Homer's depiction.
One of the most memorable parts of the Illiad for myself is Menelaus & Co. rescuing Patroclus' corpse from the battlefield, and reflecting to himself as to the shame & disgrace he would incur if he let the Trojans desecrate the body of a man who had fought nobly on his (Menelaus') behalf.
I.e., "pragmatic" is not the first attribute that would come to mind for me in regards to the younger Atreidae. Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe I just let myself develop an undue affection for his character -- but I don't see how Menelaus (as portrayed by Homer) would hesitate for a second to come to the defense of his own nephew, especially given his (Menelaus') debt to Agammemnon. (I've read ahead just a little bit.)
I'm trying to recall Aeschylus' portrayal of this tale. I'm pretty sure Menelaus doesn't appear in it at all -- nor Helen either, unless my memory is totally shot. Even though Euripides got Helen's relationship to Clytaemestra from tradition, he was dramatically changing the well-known story as told by his predecessor, yes?
I'm guessing Euripides is more interested in tying the Trojan War and its destructive consequences more tightly into the drama. I'd have to have better knowledge of Greek history to even speculate idly on reasons.
One thing I noted on reviewing the reading so far: Electra gets outraged by how Helen spares the divinely-lovely locks, when Helen cuts some of her hair for an offering at Clytaemestra's grave. I'm trying to figure out whether Electra is overreacting out of impassioned hostility, or whether Euripides is making some sort of commentary about the Trojan War, through his characterization of its famous cause.
Electra seems to imply that Helen is to blame for... well, everything.
It is a mistake to look for continuity in character. Euripides is even inconsistent with himself in his portrayals of Menelaus, who is, for example, a love-stricken husband in the Helenm, a complete villain in Andromache, whereas here he is weak and cowardly. This play and its characters must be taken on its own.
Right, got it. Unfortunately straying off from the text is a bad habit, though I'm better about it now than I used to be.
Anyhow, trying to back on point... could one sensibly say that Menelaus' weak and cowardly attitude fundamentally flows directly from a sort of impiety? An utter neglect for both the divine and the past, in favor of the here-and-now?
I mean, in his questioning of Orestes he seems to indicate skepticism about Apollo. And when Menelaus demands to know what good his avenger did for the dead Agammemnon ... well, that strikes me as akin to some creep asking why we would waste money buying flowers to put on our ancestors' tombs on commemeration days. It doesn't do either them or us any good -- depending, that is, on how one defines "good".
Since you mentioned Aristotle's discussion of friendship -- would maybe the distinctions between the higher & lower forms of friendship be useful in considering the differences between Orestes' outlook and that of Menelaus? Or am I reaching?
I think it would be more fair to read Aristotle in the light of Euripides than vice versa. Your point about Menelaus' glib impiety is something to think about. It had not occurred to me, perhaps because I am still poisoned by the assumption that Euripides is hostile to religion, Apollo in particular.
Am I reading too much into the story or is the mercy shown to the Phrygian an attempt to reverse the family curse?