Se supone que la Orestíada fue escrita como una trilogía pero cada parte está escrita de forma muy diferente. La primera narra la muerte de Agamenón pero tiene muy poco dialogo (todo son estrofas, antiestrofas y corifeos) así que termina siendo una lectura pesada (sobre todo porque nadie tiene claro cómo se deben leer esas odas). La segunda parte, de lectura más agradable, cuenta la misma historia que encontramos en Electra de Sófocles, pero aquí, rompiendo todos los esquemas, Esquilo expone su versión del drama utilizando dos escenarios. Algo que me llamó mucho la atención pues se repite en la tercera parte. Dicho final, como era de esperarse, resulta bastante cautivador. Las Euménides persiguen a Orestes por matar a su madre, pero resulta que Apolo lo protege, y su tragedia genera un debate entre dioses inmortales que terminan yendo a juicio para defender al Atrida. Tres partes de un drama que parece escrito por autores diferentes en épocas distintas. O Esquilo era un innovador del teatro griego o yo no entendí nada. First time reading through this Greek tragedian's trilogy. According to a friend ( my guide. my Virgil, really ), our modern trilogies trace their lineage back to these works. The Oresteia happens to be the only complete Greek trilogy of plays we have. So, these plays are a pretty big deal if you care anything about our Western literary heritage. I suggest you read Homer's Iliad and Odyssey before sinking your teeth into these works (this work?). Why?If you've read the summary provided by goodreads or elsewhere, you'll perhaps recognize Agamemnon as being a rather central character in the Iliad and more of a sidenote ( albeit an important one as it relates to the Oresteia) in the Odyssey. These works are essentially Aeschylus' source material. Thus, they provide context and background. ...Homer's works are not necessarily essential reading seeing as the Orestiea itself provides some of this context / background, but only some. Think of it this way: Reading Iliad and Odyssey is like watching season 1 and 2 of your favorite show. Oresteia is the spin-off mini-series that follows and that kicks off with that 5 min highlight / summary of the original series. As for translations, I used and enjoyed Lattimore's. A few thoughts about what I read (Note : If you take anything away from this review, may it be the previous advice related to how to most fully experience the Oresteia. What follows, well... apologies in advance... Also: SPOILER ALERT)To start, and not entirely irrelevant, a summary of the thrust of Iliad and Odyssey: Don't cross the godsWhy?Because, in Homer's mythology/theology humanity fate is dependent on the god's disposition. They are sovereign and do as they please. If they want a Trojan war, knowing full well that no one really wins (as the Odyssey consistently suggests) on account of one promiscuous, adulterous woman, they'll make it happen. If they want you stranded on an island miserably serving as a goddess' sex-slave despite a life of relatively consistent homage towards them and on account of one -okay, maybe several- unfortunate lapses of (ir?)reverential judgment, they (or at least one of them) will make it happen. The oscillation of humanity's fortunes are solely dependent on how the gods feel rather than an objective, consistent standard. Each god is a law unto himself. Not even Papa Zeus presents for us a complete standard that all must abide by, jr. gods included. Consequently, decisions are arbitrary and often conflicting within the pantheon. Some are favorable, some are unfavorable towards given person(s), which is what we see especially in the Odyssey with Athena and Posiedon. A case could be made, I think, that the Odyssey could be subtitled "Athena vs. Poseidon." Homer's works are really theological dialectics and we miss this when we focus solely on questions related to their anthropology. Using the Odyssey as an example, we miss the thrust of what Homer is doing when we focus on the sub-character Odysseus with questions such as "Is he a hero or not? If so, what kind?." I don't think these were the primary questions Greeks were preoccupied with following Homer and perhaps are more modern stemming from atheistic, or at least agnostic, individualsitic assumptions. In my view, Homer's work provides a worldview and an ethic, an applied theology, really. It's substance?: Fear the gods (all of them) and live according to how each dictates, do this and you'll be alright (with at least one). What does this have to do with the Oresteia? The Oresteia is a discussion, part of an ongoing one initiated (in terms of literature) by Homer on the nature of justice. And this discussion about justice is highly theological, reflecting on the theology and ethic proferred by Homer and essentially asking the question, “Does this make sense?” Briefly - because I'm tired of writing and this is already much longer than is necessary- the gods decree that the house of Atreus is cursed on account of Agammamenons dad, who pulls a grotesque, sadistic prank on his brother. This curse means Agammemnon has to suffer and die on account of his father’s stupidity and irreverence. The means by which Agamemmnon is to die is his wife, who will betray him upon his return from war. She kills him because Agammenon, before the war, sacrificies one of their daughters for favor from the gods during the Trojan war. The text strongly suggest that this sacrfice had to happen, all according to the god’s will, to catalyze the impetus for the Agamemmnon’s betrayal and death, necessitated on account of the god’s curse. So, Agamamemmnon dies cause the god’s will it. There’s no getting out of it. This is play #1 of the trilogy. In play #2 Orestes( yes, the trilogy is named after him) and his sister Electra vow vengeance for their father’s death. They vow to kill their mother for her betrayal. What?! But didn’t the god’s order the hit? Shouldn’t they be like “thy will be done?” Despite it being the god’s call to take out Agamemmnon, his wife, Clytemnestra (C. hereafter), is held accountable for the betrayal and murder not only by the citizenry and her children, but also by, wait for it, the gods (Apollos the representative.) Should C. have been killed by her children ( in the name of justice! backed by the gods!) for living out her fate as decreed by the gods (a fate meant to exercise justice!)? What is justice and who is truly exercising it?! Enter the Euemenides (ie. Furies/ gods of vengeance) play #3.The arbitrariness of and confusion over the nature of justice is finally most consistently and intensely spotlighted in play #3 wherein the Furies, who side with C. enter into hot debate with the gods Athena and Apollo (who sides with Oresetes).At the climax, the end of the debate, which takes places within the context of a trial where the jurors are the wisest humans of Athena’s city, the final decision is split. Half side with the Furies, half with Orestes (Apollo). So who was just? We don’t know. What is justice? Again, we don’t know! And why can’t we (or rather, the Greeks) know? Again, I believe Aeschylus’ suggests the problem is theological. How can one know truth or justice when the concepts are arbitrarily determined by each god as he/she sees fit? There are many gods, therefore many truths/ conceptions of justice, and if we operate with these assumptions/ with this worldview, we will find ourselves split and unable, as a community, to consistently apply a standard of justice. The implications of this work are staggering and I believe very, VERY relevant.
What do You think about Le Coefore (1978)?
The best Athenian Tragedy I have read...very applicable to any modern or historical nation.
—sticky
An underrated tragic trilogy that ponders the meaning of the word justice.
—chocolatelover
Agamemmnon is a dick though and definitely deserved it
—katnissmellark
