David Marksons wundervoller Roman "Wittgensteins Mätresse" gab mir den Anstoß, Aeschylus zu lesen, da ich den Inhalt der Geschichte, nicht jedoch die moralische Zuspitzung kannte. Mit Marksons Protagonistin liegen meine Sympathien klar bei Kassandra und stärker bei Klytemnestra, als bei Agamemnon, doch die eigentlich schuldigen dürften die Götter sein, allen voran Apollo. Kurzum ein großartiges moralisches Dilemma, dessen Auflösung nicht vollständig überzeugen kann.

Hervorzuheben ist die großartige Kommentierung und Einleitung dieser Ausgabe.

The Greeks had an intoxicating culture, or at least it seems to us. All of the iniquities and superstitions of the ancient people have been buried or lost, leaving only the perfect skeletons of buildings and the greatest of their literary productions. As a result, they strike us as a race of superpeople. This trilogy certainly furthers this impression, for it is a perfect poetic representation of the birth of justice and ethics out of the primordial law of retaliation.

The most basic ethical principal is loyalty. We are born into a family, establish reciprocal relationships with friends, become a contributing member of a mutually supporting group, and so naturally feel bound to treat this network of people with the proper respect and kindness. But loyalty has several problems. First, one’s family, friends, and group are largely determined by chance—and who is to say that our family and friends are the most worthy? Second, loyalty does not extend outside a very limited group, and so does not preclude the horrid treatment of others. And, as the Greek plays show us, the bounds of loyalty can sometimes cross, putting us in a situation where we must be disloyal to at least one person.

This is the essential problem of Antigone, where the titular character must choose between loyalty to her city or to her dead brother, who betrayed the state. This is also the problem faced by Orestes, who must choose between avenging his father and treating his mother properly. In Sophocles’ play, the problem proves intractable, leading to yet another string of deaths. But Aeschylus shows that by submitting the bonds of loyalty to a higher, impartial court that we can resolve the contradictions and put an end to the endless series of mutual retaliations that loyalty can give rise to.

The rise of judicial procedures, and of concepts of ethics that extend beyond loyalty to fairness, was a crucial step in the rise of complex societies. Aeschylus has given us an immortal dramatization of this epochal step. But, of course, this play is more than a philosophical or historical exercise. It is a work of high drama and poetry, worthy to stand at the first ranks of literature for its aesthetic merit alone. The Greeks continue to enchant.

ძალიან მაინტერესებს ერთი როდის მორჩებით ყველა თავის მოკატუნებას,თითქოს ძველბერძნული ლიტერატურა მართლა გიტაცებთ დაართლა გასწავლით რამეს.

Aeschylus' prose certainly deserves five stars, so dense and moving. Even though his primary focus in Oresteia was ethics, justice, crime/punishment, and changes in social order, the subjective emotions and psychologies of characters are conveyed powerfully. Orestes is not really "heroic" in a Homeric sense, but he presents a less egoistic and more god-fearing type of man in a tormenting pursuit of righteousness. The Oresteia combines both tragic and comic elements, and presents both optimism and pessimism towards justice and morality. I give it four stars only because the ending is a bit too quick and not completely satisfying, especially considering how amazing the opening of the watchman scene is.

gott drama svo spicy

For such an old play the characters speak remarkably clear.
The drama, violence and deceit are rendered in long winding verses which take you through the play in high speed. The third act with a rather sudden verdict made less impact on me but overall highly enjoyable to read this classic.

Clitemnestra apologist.

Highly recommend it if you enjoy Ancient Greek Literature. The trilogy presents the development of early democratic elements in the Greek city-states within the larger narrative of a chain of murders. The character of Clytemnestra, Aeschylus' giving a voice to minor characters in society, and the debate surrounding Zeus' Will, Fate, and Justice are interesting aspects in the plays. Looking forward to studying it for class and writing about it.

Uhvatih se u koštac sa Atrejevcima, ali sam krenuo od kraja – od Euripidove Ifigenije na Tauridi i Ifigenije u Aulidi, tako da je valjalo vratiti se unazad na načalo da zaokružim sagu o deci Agamemnonovoj. Euripid prikazuje završnicu u „Ifigenijama“ kojoj prethodi Elektra, čime objedinjuje sudbine dveju sestara. Kroz njih provlači i sudbinu brata im Oresta. Ali, sam koren ide mnogo pre Euripida – kod Eshila. On u trilogiji „Orestija“ („Agamemnon“ + „Žrtve na grobu“ + „Eumenide“) objedinjuje tragični usud dece Atrejeve i njihovih žena i potomaka.

Za razliku od Euripida koji mi je maestralni pesnik koji naglašava u versama psihološki naboj određenog lika i objašnjava okruženje i razloge te patnje, sve obavijeno lakim mitološkim miljeom kao začinom, Eshilov stil je drugačiji. On je u stanju da plete beskonačne vitice koje neki lik izgovara i čini se nekad da će taj monolog beskonačno da traje dok ne revidira i ne izgovori znanje vaskoliko o datoj temi. To poprilično ume da me umori. Čini se da je akcenat više na samom pričanju nego na onome što se pričanjem donosi, mada ne bih to, ipak, ograničavao na tako uzak pogled.

Agamemnon mi se najviše dopao, jer je tragični naboj možda na vrhuncu i Eshilovi beskonačni monolozi nekako imaju smisao, jer revidira prokletstvo Agamemnonovog oca koje se prenosi i na njega i brata mu Menelaja (kod Tolkina je slična pojava u sagi o deci Hurinovoj) i prikazuje patnju supruge mu Klitemnestre, koja smatra da mora da ga smrću kazni što je na oltar Artemidi priložio kćer im Ifigeniju kao žrtvu, kako bi se njegova jedra iz Argosa napela i otišao u Troju u rat. Ne znajući pravu istinu o Ifigeniji, Klitemnestra ubija muža sekirom u kadi. I to je najupečatljiviji momenat. Orest se smatra pozvanim, i od Apolona dobija odobrenje da zbog toga majci svojoj oduzme život.

Očekivao sam da će u Žrtvi na grobu biti više eshatoloških elemenata, te da će podrobnije da opiše obrede žrtvovanja htonskim božanstvima, ali osim beskonačnih monologa i oklevanja, nije bilo ničeg upečatljivijeg.

Iste su mi nade bile i u Eumenidama. Tu, doduše, svojstvo naratora izmešta na neki način sa hora, dodeljujući mu da bude neovaploćeni glas Furija koje progone Oresta zbog njegovog dela. Ponovo nema toliko upliva htonskih elemenata, i Eshil sada pravi sudnicu, na kojoj je osuđeni Feb-Apolon, a njegov branilac Atina, koje Furije smatraju saučesnicima u tom zlodelu. Završnica je potpuna eukatastrofa i fantastičan je Atinin gest da Furijama dodeli svetilište koje, kao božanstva starijeg reda, nisu nikada imale, te od besnih Srda one postaju Eumenide – milosnice.

Una de las grandes piezas maestras del Teatro Griego, que muestra un panorama muy oscuro e ineludible a los personajes que se involucran en esta historia. Es patético, a pesar de todo lo que representa Agamenón, en cuanto a defectos, cómo un héroe griego recién llegado puede tener semejante destino. Pero luego le toca el turno a los hijos de éste Orestes y Electra para tomar protagonismo. Orestes es un gran personaje y vaya qué antiguo puede haber sido esta obra y cómo puede ser modelo, si no estructuralmente, sí en el argumento y en la humanidad del propio Orestes, sus miedos, sus recelos, su gran culpa. Claro que la humanización con Esquilo no alcanza su máximo punto, pero eso no le quita para nada lo trágico y legendario.

As I finish the Aesquylos trilogy, I also finish reading every known drama about the fall of the House of Atreus, which I have committed to these last months. I never thought it would end this way, but the curiosity of comparing the three authors through the same myth really caught my attention (besides the story being fascinating to me).

Having said that, the A. trilogy has the most poetic and introspective feel of the three, with long dialogues, many of them recalling past events such as the Trojan War. It delves into the themes of justice and the inescapable violence that is looming on the horizon for this family.

I enjoyed this study of themes and expected the culmination of it in the final work, The Euminides. However, this third tragedy was the culmination of something else, and that was the misogyny of the story, which came with the greatest force. It is a courtroom drama in which the expected themes (which are perfectly suitable for discussion, and indeed they are talked about at first) are interrupted by Apollo's defence, and everything turns to the said conversation. With this review, I'm not condemning centuries-old works of misogyny (I think that has already been said and is obvious), but the radical turn of themes of the trilogy, which could lead to the fact that I'm not giving it 5 stars.

Having said that, if you're interested in this tragedy, give it a try anyway, it's beautifully written and well worth the time (although of the plays I've read, Euripides ones are still my favourite).

C’è sempre da commuoversi quando si legge un testo che risale a più di 2000 anni fa, averlo tra le mani e sentire quelle parole lontane, immaginando quel mare della Grecia lontano.
E i sentimenti sono sempre gli stessi, l’uomo è sempre lo stesso: vendetta e giustizia.