A “Oresteia” é uma peça relevante enquanto extensão do universo de Tróia, já que dá conta dos eventos que se sucedem à chegada a casa do vitorioso Agamémnon, o rei grego que partiu para vingar a honra do irmão Menelau. Tendo a guerra durado 10 anos, no regresso tinha à sua espera a esposa e o seu povo, mas tinha também uma provação. Agamémnon regressa na posse de Cassandra, uma das filhas do rei de Tróia, Príamo. Mas aquando da sua partida, seguindo as profecias, aceitou sacrificar a sua filha Ifigénia, algo que a sua esposa, Clitemnestra, nunca lhe perdoou.

[imagem
https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com...]

A primeira parte da peça, que dá pelo nome de Agamémnon, termina com o desenlace da provação. A segunda parte, Coéforas, traz para a cena os seus filhos, Electra e Orestes, que querem vingar o pai. Na parte final, a Euménides, dá-se o fechamento a elevar a racionalidade acima da emoção, depois de vingança atrás de vingança, Atena é chamada a tomar partido, mas decide pela criação de um tribunal, com direito a litigação e um júri popular.

[imagem]
"O remorso de Orestes" ou "Orestes perseguidos pelas Fúrias" (1862) de William-Adolphe Bouguereau

O valor da peça é indiscutível, mas não sendo a primeira tragédia, da Grécia antiga, que leio, não posso dizer que tenha sido um prazer de ler. Ésquilo, ao contrário de Sófocles e Eurípides, parece-me ficar muito mais refém da representação. Ou seja, estas peças apesar de chegarem até nós escritas, são guiões de representação teatral. Enquanto tal, não contém em todas as dimensões do mundo-história imaginada pelos criadores. O texto de Ésquilo parece servir mais de estrutura e pauta, deixando toda a carga emocional, e corretamente, para os atores. É aos atores que cabe a dramatização, o texto per se não tem poder para sair da narração.

Julgo, também, que outro factor que pode contribuir aqui para o minorar do prazer da leitura tem que ver com a simplicidade da ação e enredo. Ésquilo apresenta uma linha de ação de cada vez, nunca se desviando dos personagens em cena, nem do que os move, fazendo parecer tudo muito estático, e por isso até menos credível. Ainda assim, acredito que o texto quando levado a cena, pela força da representação em modo trágico, possa criar todo um impacto distinto.

A peça final, ou desenlace do todo é o mais relevante e impressiona ler, porque nos dá a perceber como há 2500 anos, o berço da nossa civilização, tinha já uma concepção tão avançada de justiça e democracia, nomeadamente como forma de controlo do instinto humano.

Publicado no Virtual Illusion
https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com...

Really liked this one! I love Ted Hughes a great deal as a poet and as a translator as well, although you should see his translations more like interpretations or very (very, very) loose translations. I loved his translation of Alcestis even more than this one, but this was great as well. It was especially the Agamemnon that really drew me in (that part gets 5 stars from me, the other two both 4).
Instead of arguing why or how, I'm going to quote a little bit so you can see for yourself:

"War is a pawnbroker - not of your treasures
But of the lives of your Men. Not of gold but of corpses.
Give your man to the war-god and you get ashes.
Your hearo's exact worth - in the coinage of war."

For me this was a great read and I recommend it to anyone who's interested in the Classics, Ted Hughes or just a great play in general!

মহৎ সাহিত্য করতে হেন করতে হবে তেন করতে হবে এইটা মনে হয় খুব বেশি সত্য না, এখন, বা অ্যাস্কাইলাসের আমলেও। মানে, এই লোক আর কী করছে, নিজেদের চারদিকে ছড়ানো কাহিনীরে ইচ্ছামত পাল্টাইছেন, নিজের সময়ের সমস্যাগুলি ধরে রাখতে, ব্যস, হয়ে গেলো -

আমি খুবই অবাক হইলাম বইয়ের শেষের উচ্চারণের লিষ্টি থেকে জানতে পেরে যে অ্যাস্কাইলাসের নাম নাকী অ্যাস্কাইলাস না, ঈস্কিলাস বা আয়স্কিলাস। এদ্দিন ধরে ভুলভাল ডেকে আসছি এই লোকেরে - অবশ্য নামসংহারে কীই বা উল্টে যায়। গল্পে আসি -
প্রথম নাটক আগে একবার পড়া ছিলো, গেলো বছর সম্ভবত। এই তিনের সেরাটা প্রথমটাই আমার কাছে, যেখানে ক্লাইমেনেস্ত্রার মত অসাধারণ চরিত্র আছে, আছে স্বল্প পরিসরে অ্যাগিস্থাস, কোরাসের সাথে ক্লাইমেনেস্ত্রার ঠাণ্ডা যুদ্ধও দেখার মত, আবার ঐদিকে কোরাসের সাথে কাসান্দ্রার গড়মিল। আগামেম্ননের চরিত্রও বেশ গোছানো, প্রচণ্ড কড়া নাটক, ভেলাকটের অনুবাদও নিশ্চয়ই ভালো, মূল ত পড়ি নাই। গ্রীক নাটকের ঐ বিশ মাইল সংলাপ ত থাকবেই, কিন্তু সেই সংলাপ অয়দিপাঊষের মত অবশ্যম্ভাবীর জন্য বসায়ে বসায়ে ক্লান্ত করে না, বরং অবশ্যম্ভাবীর দিকে এগিয়ে যাওয়ার পথটাই মুগ্ধ করে বারবার। পাঠকরে খুব বেশি না ভোগাইলেও, না ভাবাইলেও, নাড়া দেয় নির্ভেজাল।
ভাবায় বরং দ্বিতীয়টা। এইখানে আয়স্কিলাস তার সময়ের ত বটেই, যেহেতু মানব সভ্যতায় আসলে আহামরি পরিবর্তন ঘটে নাই, একটা বেশ কালাতীত সমস্যা দাঁড় করান, প্রথম নাটকের সূত্র ধরে। সেই সমস্যার সমাধান, আমরা জানি, দৈব হতে হয় না, নিশ্চয়ই আমরা জানি, কিন্তু খুঁজে পাওয়ার জো নাই। তৃতীয়টা কথা বলে সেই সমাধান নিয়ে - এই নাটক দুইটা প্রথমটার চেয়ে অনেক নিষ্প্রভ, শেষ পর্যন্ত যে আপাত সমাধানটা দেয়া হয়, সেটা কোথাও কাজ করে না, না আমার ভেতর আর না বাস্তবে, সে কারণে অবশ্য নিষ্প্রভ না, নিষ্প্রভ কারণ একদিকে ইলেক্ত্রা, অরেস্তেস, ফীবাস বা অ্যাথেন কেউ চরিত্র হিসেবে প্রথম নাটকের কারো সাথে পাল্লা দিতে পারে না - আর আরেকদিকে এই নাটক দুইটা, গল্পটা বলার চেয়ে বেশি মনোযোগী ধারণার কথা বলতে, যুক্তি কুযুক্তি ইত্যাদির কথা বলতে। তবে, সেইদিকে মনোযোগ দিয়েও একেবারে পড়ে যায় না এরা, টিকে, টিকে যায় বরং -

কিন্তু এই তিনটার মাঝে আগামেম্নেনই সবচেয়ে শক্তিশালী হয়ে খাড়ায়ে থাকে দণ্ডায়মান। ট্রাজেডি বটে এই তিনটা, বিশেষ করে প্রথম দুই, বিশেষ করে পয়লা নম্বর, যেখানে অভিশাপ আছে জেনেও সে আর তারা প্রয়োজনের ভার নিজেদের কাঁধে তুলে নিচ্ছে, যেখানে ভাগ্য গুণতি-ওলার উপর মানুষের অবিশ্বাসও দুঃখের জন্ম দেয়, অয়দিপাঊষের মত গতিসীমা না জেনে কেউ খাঁদে পড়ে না, খাঁদে পড়ে সামনের গাড়িতে বসা কেউকেটা কাউরে বাঁচাতে গিয়ে, মাঝ দিয়ে একগাদা মানুষের মৃত্যুর কারণ হয় সে, অবিশ্বাসও তেইরেসিয়াসের গোস্বা জন্ম দেয়াতে আটকে থাকে না। সফোক্লিসের চেয়ে আয়স্কিলাসরে আমি বহুদূর আগায়ে রাখবো, কোরাসে কে কম আর কে বেশি সময় দিলো, সেই জিনিসের নিকুচি করি আমি।

এই সময়ের আয়স্কিলাস কারা? কে জানে, কে জানে, আড়াই হাজার, কিন্তু ইতিহাস ত কখনো ফিরে আসবে না, এই আড়াই হাজার বছর নিশ্চয়ই হবে ভিন্নতর আড়াই হাজার।

A mini description of the family of Argos: revenge on revenge on revenge on revenge. Enjoy your read.

Agamemnon: 4 stars
I'll always be team Clytemnestra, you can never make me change my mind. She was right, this is obvious if you read Iphigeneia.  Agamemnon killed her child (it's not his child, he wasn't quite a father) for a war. Is war more important than your own child? And Clytemnestra just waited and waited for ten years to take her revenge. And when Agamemnon returns, he acts like nothing is wrong between them. Like he never sacrificed Iphigeneia. But there's nothing like the rage of a mother whose child has been murdered. Especially when the murderer is her own husband. So she murdered him. She paid blood with blood. Don't try to convince me that Agamemnon was a victim. Because he was not.

The Liberation Bearers: 5 stars
Okay, this one was my absolute favorite of the three. I've seen this play so many times, both as a theatre play and as a movie. I've read it many times, both as an original story and as a retelling (Electra, Mourning Becomes Electra, The Flies / Les Mouches) and yet I don't think I'll ever get bored of it. It always makes my heart beat faster. Orestes taking revenge on his mother because she took revenge on his father because he killed his daughter (Orestes' sister). How much more complicated can this get? I think it really shows how, once rage has awaken, it won't stop until everyone is affected. And it doesn't care who is family and who is not, revenge will be taken no matter what. This theme is just so strong. But this play also makes me wonder when did Clytemnestra change so much? She did what she did for her child, Iphigeneia, and yet now we see her not caring for the rest of her children. I suppose that this also means that, once you've felt hate, real hate, not just dislike, you can never unfeel it.  And probably just the act of murder changed her so much, even if her revenge was reasonable  

The Eumenides: 3 stars
Okay, so this one wad my least favorite. I don't know, perhaps I had too high expectations because the other two were perfect. But this one was basically a trial. It did have some interested parts, but I guess I kinda liked it just because it included Orestes, whom I love. Otherwise I probably wouldn't like it. A bit of a disappointment but who cares? The other 2 were great.

On the surface the Oresteian trilogy appears to be a dramatization of what happened to Agamemnon and his family. Dig a little deeper and the reader may find a dramatization of newer ways of being trumping the old ways.

Generational Changes.

The Oresteian trilogy reveals the dictomy between worldviews
1. Of the gods. The old and the new. According to legend, the old ones were killed or subdued by the new ones. The Fates are among the old ones. Apollo and Athene are among the new ones. A court scene allows the old and new to come to terms with each other.

2. Of the humans. The older and the younger. The older generation provides retribution for murder. The younger wants the retribution to stop. Apollo and Athene of the new gods come to help the younger human generation represented by Orestes.
__________

How the three plays work as a whole.
__________

In the first play Agamemnon, Clytemnestra has calculated how to make Agamemnon pay for his killing their daughter Iphigenia, a payment for fair winds as Agamemnon and the Achaeans leave for Troy. While performing the ritual bathing service, Clytemnestra kills Agamemnon. Then she kills Cassandra, the concubine of Agamemnon.

In the second play The Libation Bearers, Orestes struggles with the decision to kill Clytemmestra or not. The Furies warn Orestes that his killing Clytemnestra for revenge will cause him to be killed in retribution. Apollo assures Orestes of protection against the Furies and of the family curse of murder and retribution to end with Orestes. Orestes decides to trust Apollo. Together Electra and Orestes make a plan. Orestes kills Clytemnestra and her lover Aegisthus.

In the third play, Orestes' case is tried. Will Orestes be chased by the Firies all the days of his life or will Apollo be allowed to protect Orestes for as long as he lives? Clytemenstra's Ghost shows up, demanding that the gods provide retribution for her death by murder. Athene agrees to hear the arguments of the Furies and of Apollo. This play gives Athene an opportunity to shine with the light of Wisdom. She decides how to resolve the argument with Apollo, the Furies, and Orestes happy with the judgment. The new gods have won more power. Orestes is free of the Furies. The Furies accept their loss with amazing amount of grace. A little unbelievable, but acceptable because the new gods must win and further overshadow the old gods. Athene institutes a new way of resolving arguments.
________

Rhetorical Comments.

The Oresteia: Agamemnon, The Libation Bearers, The Eumenides seems to have been written at the very dawn of formal rhetorical practice. Rhetoric has commonplaces-- when this happens, do this/say that. In this trilogy, we see that when this happens--a dispute, Athene does this--calls a jury--and says that--asks questions and asks for judgment. She has a form or process to follow. Resolution of of disputes led to the earliest practice of rhetoric. Perhaps in Eumenides in the Oresteian trilogy we see the first courtroom play.

Read in preparation of reading Mourning Becomes Electra by Eugene O'Neill.

this is why family therapy is important

M'ha costat, he suat, però l'he acabat i m'ha agradat. A l'equip de Clitemnestra sempre!

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.

38. The Oresteian Trilogy: Agamemnon; The Choephori; The Eumenides by Aeschylus, translated by Philip Vellacott
first performed: 458 bce
format: 197 page paperback - 1965 Penguin classics
acquired: 2006, from my neighbor
read: June 9-10, 17-22
rating: 3½ stars

The story of Orestes is told in The Odyssey, where he comes across as a hero of a tragedy, and a role model for young princes. Agamemnon, a valiant warrior but also somewhat incompetent as leader of the Greeks, or Achaens, returns home from Troy with a Trojan Princess, Cassandra, as his prize. He is unaware that his wife, Clytemnestra, has been seething over Iphingenia, and has a taken a lover, the son of Agamemnon's spurned uncle, Aegisthus. Iphigenia was the daughter of Agamemnon and Clytemnestra. When the Achaeans sailed for Troy, the entire fleet got stranded by the winds on a island. Agamemnon sent for Iphigenia and had her sacrificed, and the winds changed. We know from The Odyssey that Agamemnon lands home and is immediately killed, along with Cassandra, by Clytemnestra herself. And that later, Orestes, who feels cheated of his thrown, avenges his father, and kills and his mother and her lover, Aegisthus. And that he is praised for this. This is Aeschylus's raw materials, if you like.

The trilogy was put to verse by Phillip Vellacott. This is the first play I've read in verse. I made quick work on other plays in prose translations, even the slow reader I am, reading a play in maybe 45 minutes. In verse, I had to slow down. (Actually first I had to find the rhythm, and then, once I found it, I couldn't really get out of it. It would hang around. ) It becomes a totally different animal in verse, so much so, that I feel more disconnected from the original than at any other time, just because of how different the prose and verse experience are. I'm reading a translator's creation as much as, or more than that of Aeschylus.

The plays themselves tend to have a few dramatic scenes, and then lots of other dialogue of mixed interest, and dull parts somehow becoming prolonged. n  Agamemnonn will culminate in Clytemnestra, with bloody sword, standing over a bloody bathtub filled with the corpses of Agamemnon and Cassandra, Agamemnon still covered in the robe Clytemnestra used to tangle him up in before she attacked. But first there is the play. Agamemnon and Cassandra arrive, and Clytemnestra welcomes them warmly with a famous speech where everything she says references Iphigenia (There is the sea—who shall exhaust the sea) or her coming murder of Agamemnon (she tells him, in praise, ...if by care and cost I might ensure safe journey's end for this one life.) Poor Cassandra serves almost as dark humor. She is cursed to prophecy but not be understood. So she prophecies her own murder as the chorus, struggling to make sense of what she says, guides her to it.

n  The Choephorin are the libation bearers. They join Electra, Agamemnon and Clytemnestra's surviving daughter, to make a sacrifice at Agamemnon's grave, and there interact with Orestes and make a plan for vengeance. There is a lot of dialogue and reasoning out of things here, and it goes on and on a bit. But for a powerful moment it all seems for naught. Orestes works his plan, kills Aegisthus, and then his mother walks in, unarmed. What takes place is the most dramatic set up I have come across with Aeschylus. She commands him, like a parent, then she pleads, and then she confronts him (Are you resolved, my son, to murder your own mother?) and then she warms him, and then they head off stage...

At least up to this point, very little action happens in these plays. It's all dialogue, and, what appears to be, more and more elaborate sets. The action itself happens off the stage.

n  The Eumenidesn are the Furies, and they are after Orestes for vengeance for killing his mother. There is no escape. But this is a political play, in Athens' heyday. A trial takes place in the temple of Athena. Apollo will prove incompetent at Orestes's defense, but Athena will right everything, relieving Orestes of guilt and while soothing the Furies' anger. There is a cosmology in play. The Furies predate Zeus, they are part of and represent the older gods, the chthonic gods, and follow rules of their own making and nothing can control them. Athena, representing Athens itself, represents the new. She frees Orestes of the blood oaths of continual vengeance, found in the outskirts, bringing peace and order and some legal structure, basically civilizing. It's all very dull when put to drama.

This is apparently the only trilogy to survive from Ancient Greece. I read it while wondering what gave it that extra touch that allowed it to be saved (or was it just pure chance.) There are some memorable scenes - both bloody and dramatic, and also clever and tragically playful. At least that's my take of the moment.

According to the Wikpedia entry for Francis Bacon's Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion

"...The canvasses are based on the Eumenides—or Furies—of Aeschylus's Oresteia...Bacon did not seek to illustrate the narrative of the tale, however. He told the French art critic Michel Leiris, "I could not paint Agamemnon, Clytemnestra or Cassandra, as that would have been merely another kind of historical painting ... Therefore I tried to create an image of the effect it produced inside me."

Aeschylus' phrase "the reek of human blood smiles out at me" in particular haunted Bacon, and his treatments of the mouth in the triptych and many subsequent paintings were attempts to visualise the sentiment.

In 1985, he observed that Aeschylus' phrase brought up in him "the most exciting images, and I often read it ... the violence of it brings up the images in me, 'the reek of human blood smiles out at me', well what could be more amazing than that."

Clitemnestra apologist.

i can excuse matricide but i draw the line at misogyny :/