I have not read a lot of Greek plays so it took me awhile to understand what was happening. I should have read the introduction first, which would have made events clearer.

However, I'm also glad I didn't because it allowed me to arrive at my own conclusions.

For those of you who don't know, Agamemnon was Commander-in-Chief of the Greeks who fought at Troy. He sacrifices his daughter to appease Artemis. This play is one of vengeance and also intrigue.

Agamemnon comes home with Cassandra, his prize by lot. Cassandra is a prophetess who has been doomed by Apollo for refusing him. Therefore, she prophesies but is not believed.

In this play she prophecies her own doom and also Agamemnon's.

I won't tell more because some readers might not know the story as I didn't so found the development contained a couple of surprising twists.

But what one really enjoys in reading Greek plays is the form. I found that very interesting.

The dialogue carried on back and forth between a person speaking a monologue and the chorus. Soloist, Chorus, Soloist, Chorus.

This is very much how classical concerto form is structured. As a musician I recognized this. Look at Handel's Messiah. Every chorus is preceded by a soloist. Or a piano or violin concerto, it is the same form. The same is true for Opera.

Even in a Mozart Piano Sonata the melodic line starts with a "soloist", then a chorus.

So my greatest interest in this play was the form more so than the substance, since the storyline was quite simple and also told in the Odyssey.

If you don't already know the story there are some unexpected twists.

A wonderful play, with a beautiful poetic language! It is a play about curse and revenge. First, Clytemnestra seeks revenges for her daughter Iphigenia, whose husband Agamemnon sacrificed her in order to satisfy the Goddess Artemis and obtain her assistance to the fleet. Also it tells about the fall of Troy as result of the ten-year war took place because of Paris, who abducted Helen, the wife of the Greek king Menelaus the brother of Agamemnon. Finally it is about the revenge of Aegisthus, Agamemnon's cousin, who wanted to avenge his brothers who were cooked and severed to his father by his brother, Agamemnon’s brother. However, Clytemnestra kills Cassandra too, and she courageously and confidently admits the kill of both, her husband and his captive and concubine Cassandra. The whole atmosphere of the play is ominous, and prophecies tell about future revenge (Orestes). Although Clytemnestra was a murderer and an adulterous, but she can be partly excused because of the pain she suffered from the slaughter of her own daughter by her husband. The play attracts you from the first page, and you cannot leave it until the end.

Clytemnestra man

¡Entona el canto lúgubre, sí, lúgubre, pero que, al fin, se imponga justicia!

Casandra, yo te creo, hermana

you go, Clytemnestra

Just as verbose as other Greek literature from the same period, if not more. It is infinitely quotable, on the other hand, filled as it is with awesome lines and speeches. Not as interesting as Oedipus Rex or the Iliad, however. It is a must-read, nevertheless.

"Skins can be fair, and the fruit bad inside."

'' Storm's a small word that encompasses hell.''

really a 4.5 but leaning towards a 5 instead of a 4. this is my first greek tragedy and i have realized that it is tragic. why did i not realize that tragedy would truly and devastatingly be tragic? like heart-heavy? anyway no one does it better than aeschylus. this is not very long at all and it is mostly talking if you are just reading it and not watching it being performed. i wish i was watching a performance though. very complex in not that many pages. did he deserve it? did he not? well yes!....but also no? from the secret history about the most gruesome and horrible passages being the most beautiful to us......i get it. i would like to read other translations—clytaemestra "thus, having fallen, he forced out his own soul, and he coughed up a sharp spurt of blood and hit me with a black shower of gory dew—at which i rejoiced no less than the growing corn rejoices in the liquid blessing granted by zeus when the sheathed ears swell to birth" okay. okay. okay. cass tragic. king aga tragic. helen tragic. clytae tragic. im giving these people my own nicknames btw. also btw my version is the Loeb Classic Library one, Aeschylus II, the Oresteia, translated by Alan H. Sommerstein, 2008. great job mr. sommerstein

update: doing a paper on this, 3000 words (pray for me i never write that much), and i love it even more than the first time

Personal Response

The book is good. It would be really captivating to see it performed, however. Even if you just had a small group and read parts, it would be better.

Plot Summary

Agamemnon has just returned after a victory at Troy. He has brought a prize home with him, Cassandra, the daughter of King Priam of Troy, who has been blessed by Apollo with the gift of prophecy. She foretells to the chorus of elders that murder is being planned in the house. She doesn’t directly say it, but she eludes to Clytemnestra, Agamemnon’s wife, killing him and her. The chorus has a hard time piecing together what Cassandra says, so they don’t do anything. When Cassandra passes through the curtain, the audience hears two harrowing screams from Agamemnon. The chorus is not sure what to do, so they do nothing. As the curtain opens, they see Clytemnestra standing over the bodies of Agamemnon and Cassandra. Finally, the play ends with Clytemnestra and her new lover, Aegisthus, arguing with the chorus over the level of crime committed.

Characterization

Clytemnestra, in the beginning, seems like a sweet, peaceful woman who yearns for her husband. After she kills her husband, by today’s standards, she doesn’t seem inherently evil. But then the audience finds out she’s been with her husband’s cousin, who helped plot the murders.

Recommendation

I would recommend this to somebody who has read the Iliad and hates Agamemnon. Even if someone hasn’t read the Iliad, this is still a delightfully entertaining tragedy. Again, if you have a small group of people, this would be fantastic to read.

How far do the classical legends of the past speak to the audience of today? Do they provide universal themes that can be understood in our own age, or is their style and content firmly rooted in their ancient roots, leaving them with nothing to say to us anymore?

The argument for the latter position is stronger than might be first supposed. Outside of scholars of the period, few people read Aeschylus, and few return to read his works again and again.

The style of the plays is not one that is easy to identify with for us. The characters make long declamatory speeches rather than hold conversations. The stories and the people in them are idealised far beyond those in our own age, but they are also more extreme and exaggerated.

It is fair to say that the modern reader does not fully understand the issues that were contemporary to Aeschylus. He is discussing the justice system of his own age, a point that will become clearer when I review the rest of the Oresteian Trilogy. There is also discussion about clashing religious beliefs that are irrelevant to us. The introduction to Philip Vellacott’s translation for the Penguin edition describes this, so I will not repeat it here.

Nonetheless for the reader or theatre audience member who is able to get over these unfamiliar trappings, there is still something in the themes of the play with which we can identify. The play deals in themes such as justice, revenge and fate in a manner that is still familiar today.

The events of the play cover only a small incident, which can be summarised in one sentence. Agamemnon, the leader of the Greek expedition to Troy, returns to his native Argos, only to be murdered by his wife who has taken a lover. Yet how much meaning lies in those few words?

The religious content of the play may be unfamiliar to us in some ways, but traces of it have come down to us in later religions – do not blaspheme, do not anger the gods, do not tempt the gods, do not flaunt your goods, remember that your wealth and happiness is vanity that can be taken away at any moment, and (most unfair of all) the sins of the parents are visited on the children.

This last point may seem deplorable, but it is not without some truth. It is not by karma or divine justice that this happens. The actions of the parents set up a pattern of behaviour that embroils their children, and this is especially so when that pattern is one of vengeance.

The Chorus anticipate this when they discuss the fate of Troy. The overthrow of that great city and the murder of its royal family are blamed on the actions of Paris for abducting Helen, another femme fatale similar to Clytemnestra. The Chorus speak about how the actions of members of a family can start a curse that continues for generations. They little realise that these maxims about retribution will apply equally well to their own royal family.

Agamemnon’s death is partly due to circumstances beyond his control, and which were not his fault. His father Atreus committed a ghastly crime. To dishonour his twin brother Thyestes, Atreus murdered two of Thyestes’ sons and served them to Thyestes as cooked meat. The unwitting Thyestes ate them, and was forced into exile.

However Thyestes had a third son, Aegisthus. It is this son who continues the vendetta now by seducing Agamemnon’s wife and arranging for his murder. Thus he avenges the wrong done by Atreus to his father and brothers by murdering Atreus’ son.

Aegisthus is a repellent character in this play, deplored for his cowardice in not fighting in Troy, and in getting a woman to do his murder for him. He also comes across as threatening to the Chorus and appears to show the makings of a tyrant. Living in a democracy, Aeschylus was well aware of the dangers of a system of governance where one ruler has absolute power.

There are some points however to be said in defence of Aegisthus. His refusal to fight in the Trojan War on the side of Atreus’ two sons is understandable enough, and as he himself says he could not have lured Agamemnon to his death since he was an old enemy of the family. Nonetheless Aegisthus’ action remains damnable. He has perpetuated the cycle of murder and struck in an underhand way, rather than meeting his enemy in fair combat.

I have said that this was no fault of Agamemnon’s, but this is not to say that Agamemnon is not the instrument of his own doom too. Clytemnestra’s act is not motivated by lust or infidelity. She too is seeking revenge for the acts of Agamemnon. Before setting out for Troy, the Greeks were marooned by strong winds, and the only way to propitiate the gods was for Agamemnon to sacrifice his daughter Iphigenia to them.

This act is appalling , and it is this more than anything else that brings about Agamemnon’s death. It is easy to understand why Agamemnon was forced to take this cruel decision. He could not lose face with his men, and honour dictated that he needed to sail to Troy to avenge the abduction (possibly even the rape) of Helen, his sister-in-law.

To understand is not to excuse however. Agamemnon has put his honour and his concern for public affairs over that of his family, and in the most appalling manner possible. Did he have a choice in the matter however, or is everything decided by fate and the gods? The gods presented Agamemnon with an impossible decision, one that would have cost him whatever he did. There is also the question of Fate. If everything is inevitable, then Agamemnon could not change what is to come.

To explore what I mean further, it is necessary to consider the other important figure in the story. This is Cassandra, the daughter of King Priam of Troy, now brought to Argos as a slave to Agamemnon. Cassandra famously has the gift of prophecy, and the curse that nobody will believe her.

When she arrives in Argos, Cassandra has visions of the death of herself and Agamemnon at the hands of Clytemnestra, but the Chorus are confused by her words. Actually they come closer to believing them than anyone has ever done, but they are passive and helpless in the face of events. Foretelling the future does not seem to have any effect in preventing those events from happening.

It is not always clear in Greek mythology whether Fate is set in place by the gods or whether they put the rules in place. However the gods are certainly attributed with much power by the mortals. Cassandra says that it is Apollo who has cursed her because she broke her promise to sleep with him. Agamemnon is anxious not to enter his home in too luxurious a style for fear of provoking the envy of the gods against him.

Call it fate or the gods, this confusion raises issues about free will and morality that remain today. If god or the gods have a plan for the human race and everything we do is fulfilling that plan, then how can any action be good or bad, moral or immoral? We can only condemn the actions of Agamemnon, Clytemnestra and Aegisthus if they have personal responsibility for the bad things that they do. If they are merely fulfilling their role predestined by Fate or the gods, then they are hardly human at all – mere machines following actions about which they do not have any choice.

The ancient Greeks perhaps understood this better than us. They do not make their gods omnipotent and omniscient, or always morally right, because to do so means either removing human responsibility for our actions, or acknowledging that there is no rigid Divine plan. Instead their gods are merely powerful beings whose jealousy needs to be appeased by sacrifice and humbleness, and sometimes not even that will work.

There is one more character whose actions need to be considered, and that is Clytemnestra. This woman, who murders her husband and the king, is often roundly condemned in Greek mythology. For example her actions are deplored by Menelaus in The Odyssey, though this is understandable from Agamemnon’s brother.

Nowadays we may be more inclined to see things from Clytemnestra’s point of view. She is seeking revenge against her husband for the murder of her daughter, and this is a very strong reason indeed.

Agamemnon’s actions on his return are hardly of a kind to win over his wife either. He is brusque in his manner towards his gushing (if insincere) wife, and he has brought back a female slave (Cassandra) who Clytemnestra suspects is there for sexual purposes.

Indeed we can detect the immediate hypocrisy here. Agamemnon can sleep with other women, but Clytemnestra will be condemned for her affair with Aegisthus, even if he was not a hated enemy of the king. However Clytemnestra is doomed because she is continuing the circle of revenge and she has sunk herself further by allowing herself to be the mistress of this man in order to strike at her husband.

‘Agamemnon’ is a tragedy because it ends in the death of a great man. We may not like all that we see of him but he was one of the lead figures of his age, and there is something appalling about watching a man arrive home after a decade of fighting, only to fall victim to a plot against his life. It does however prove to be the beginning of a trilogy.

In the next part we shall see how the cycle of revenge is perpetuated by the actions of Clytemnestra and Aegisthus, just as the actions of Agamemnon and his forefathers brought about the events in this play. Revenge, Aeschylus says, is a futile cycle that continues to claim its share of victims from one generation to the next.

Agamemnon, vở kịch đầu tiên trong bộ ba Oresteia của nhà bi kịch Hy Lạp Aeschylus, kể về những gì xảy ra với vua Agamemnon sau khi ông trở về nhà từ cuộc chiến mười năm thành Troy. Câu chuyện về Agamemnon có thể coi là hoàn toàn trái ngược với câu chuyện của Odysseus. Nếu như Odysseus trải qua bao khó khăn, mất thêm mười năm lưu lạc lênh đênh thì Agamemnon trở về nhà thuận buồm xuôi gió. Nếu như chờ Odysseus ở nhà là một Penelope thủy chung tài trí, chỉ cần chàng dẹp được bè lũ tán tỉnh trơ tráo là mọi chuyện đều tốt đẹp, thì người chờ Agamemnon ở nhà là Clytemnestra. Mạnh mẽ và độc lập, thù hận và quỷ quyệt. Và điều xảy đến với Agamemnon sau đó chỉ có thể gọi là trái nghĩa với tốt đẹp. Mày hiến tế con gái bà để phục vụ chiến tranh rồi đi phang nhau 10 năm. Bà ở nhà cặp kè với chú mày, đợi mày về để giết chết cm mày luôn. Hashtag bình đẳng giới. Hashtag nữ quyền.

Sự việc có thể coi như được bắt đầu khi Agamemnon quyết định tiến đánh Troy nhưng không thể xuất binh vì thời tiết không được thuận lợi. Nhà tiên tri Calchas thông qua hình ảnh con đại bàng giết chết một con thỏ rừng mẹ đang mang thai, giải thích rằng nữ thần Artemis không ủng hộ một cuộc chiến đem lại chết chóc cho những người trẻ tuổi, phá hoại hạnh phúc gia đình, làm những người mẹ mất con. Chỉ có cách hiến tế Iphigenia, con gái của chính Agamemnon và Clytemnestra, mới có thể làm xuôi lòng nữ thần. Nợ máu phải được trả trước bằng máu. Agamemnon, đứng trước lựa chọn giữa gia đình và tổ quốc, giữa thể diện của một vị vua và tình yêu với con gái, đã nghe theo lời tiên tri và tạo nên thù hận trong lòng Clytemnestra.

Mâu thuẫn xung đột giữa gia đình và tổ quốc, nam quyền và nữ quyền, là một đề tài lặp đi lặp lại trong bi kịch Hy Lạp. Trong vở bi kịch Antigone của Sophocles, đứng trước sự phản kháng của Antigone, Creon kiên quyết trừng phạt nàng, bởi vì: I am not the man, not now: she is the man/ if this victory goes to her and she goes free, và hơn nữa bởi vì: better to fall from power/ if fall we must,/ at the hands of man/- never be rated inferior to a woman, never. Một ví dụ khác, Medea, vở bi kịch của Euripides, kể về nàng Medea bị chồng ruồng bỏ theo nhân tình, đã hóa điên và tự tay giết chồng cũng như con ruột của mình. Tuy nhiên, theo ý kiến cá nhân, hình tượng nữ quyền mạnh mẽ, rõ ràng và đạt đỉnh nhất trong bi kịch Hy Lạp phải là Clytemnestra.
Đứng trước những đau khổ và thử thách của số phận, nàng chủ động cân nhắc, chủ động chọn lựa, chủ động lên kế hoạch và cũng là người chủ động ra tay thực hiện. Nàng cho người thức canh thành lũy hằng đêm, sẵn sàng truyền tin thắng trận một cách nhanh nhất có thể vào bất cứ lúc nào, để được là người đầu tiên hò reo mừng rỡ. Nàng không muốn Agamemnon chết trận, nàng muốn chính mình là người tự tay hạ sát. Nàng hiểu rõ chồng, khôn khéo tâng bốc chiến công của Agamemnon, dụ dỗ , thúc ép ông bước lên trên tấm thảm thiêng của thần thánh, để phần nào hợp lý hóa sự giết chóc như một hành động trừng phạt sự báng bổ. Chính tay nàng đưa chồng vào bồn tắm. Chính tay nàng dùng tấm áo choàng của Agamemnon để trói và xiết ông. Và cũng chính tay nàng đâm hai nhát kiếm trả hận. Aegisthus, người chú của Agamemnon và cũng là nhân tình của Clytemnestra, chỉ xuất hiện một thoáng chút ở cuối vở kịch, hân hoan ăn mừng và dương dương tự đắc nhận là người đứng đằng sau toàn bộ kế hoạch. Kể cả điều này có là sự thật, thì có một sự thật khác là khi đứng trước lựa chọn phải hành động, hắn chùn tay ghê sợ và đẩy việc làm tội ác cho một người phụ nữ, như lời tố cáo vạch mặt của các vị bô lão. Và khi đứng trước sự phản kháng của các bô lão, Aegisthus đuối lý, chỉ còn biết viện dẫn đến bạo lực và trừng phạt để đe dọa. Trái lại, Clytemnestra lạnh lùng trở thành luật sư bào chữa cho chính mình. Các người và những lời kết tội của các người ở đâu khi Agamemnon giết con gái của ta? Các người và những lời răn dạy đạo đức của các người ở đâu khi ta gánh chịu tột cùng đau khổ?
And now you sentence me? - /you banish me from the city, curses breathing/down my neck? But he - /name one charge you brought against him then./ He thought no more of it than killing a beast,/and his flocks were rich, teeming in their fleece,/but he sacrificed his own child, our daughter,/the agony I labored into love/to charm away the savage winds of Thrace?
Didn't the law demand you banish him?- hunt him from the land for all his guilt?/ But now you witness what I've done and you are ruthless judges/ Threaten away! / I'll meet you blow for blow/And if I fall the throne is yours/ If god decrees the reverse, late as it is, old men, you'll learn your place.

Trên tất cả, nàng thách thức các vị bô lão, ý thức hoàn toàn và chịu trách nhiệm hoàn toàn vềhành động của mình: Here is Agamemnon/ my husband made a corpse/ by this right hand-a masterpiece of justice. Done is done.

Tạm bỏ qua một bên vấn đề đạo đức có thể gây nhiều tranh cãi, hình tượng anh hùng trong thần thoại và bi kịch Hy Lạp luôn là những con người một khi đã cân nhắc quyết định về điều cần phải được làm, họ chỉ đơn giản là làm điều đó. Và sẵn sàng nhận toàn bộ trách nhiệm cũng như lãnh chịu trọn vẹn hậu quả. Không chần chừ, không do dự, không đổ lỗi cho thánh thần, chúa trời hay số phận. Có thể thánh thần truyền đạt mong muốn và ý chí qua các lời tiên tri, nhưng để đem mong muốn ý chí đó thành hiện thực thì luôn là con người. Giống như Jean Paul Sartre có viết trong cuốn "Thuyết hiện sinh là một thuyết nhân bản": tôi không tin là có các dấu hiệu từ Chúa. Và kể cả có, việc giải thích dấu hiệu và làm theo nó luôn là lựa chọn của con người.

Agamemnon nghe theo lời giải thích của nhà tiên tri, hiến tế con gái để làm dịu lòng nữ thần Artemis và nỗi đau của các bà mẹ mất con ở Troy, nhưng chính điều đó lại làm ông tạo nên bi kịch và thù hận ngay trong ngôi nhà của mình. Clytemnestra giải thích lời tiên tri và mượn quyền lực thánh thần để hợp lý hóa sự giết chồng. Nợ máu phải trả bằng máu.
Vở kịch mang tên Agamemnon, nhưng đáng lẽ nên được đặt tên là Clytemnestra. Vì chính Clytemnestra mới là anh hùng của vở bi kịch.