I have seem some recent adaptations of Greek myths in the cinemas of late and to say that they were rubbish was an absolute understatement. Mind you, that is Hollywood and Satre is anything but, and when I discovered that the last play in the book that I had picked up at a second-hand bookshop was based on the myth of Orestes my immediate thought was 'this is going to be good'. As it turned out it was good – really, really good. In fact I would love to see it performed. Actually I would so love to see it performed that I want to join an amateur theatre company and force them to stage it (though I know for a fact that that is not going to happen – having a full time job makes it really difficult to become involved in the arts, unless of course you devote your entire time to the project, which I simply cannot do).

The problem with writing a review of this play, in the way that I write reviews, is that I cannot do it without actually spoiling the play, especially since there is one enormous twist in it that reveals what is actually going on – and it all has to do with the flies. So, I will try to say as much as possible about the play without revealing the twist, and when I do I will put up a spoiler alert. Anyway, like the said Hollywood movies, what is happening is that Satre is putting his own interpretation on the myth, however unlike the aforementioned movies he does a much better job at it. The major themes with the modern interpretation of the ancient Greek myths is the rejection of the supernatural.

The thing with our modern interpretation is that we see these myths as a story of how humanity rejects the gods and takes control of their own lives. Unfortunately Hollywood simply dresses it up with great special effects and huge battles, and then finishes off by saying that humanity no longer has any need for the gods so bugger off and leave us alone. What Satre does is that he goes much deeper into it explaining why humanity, as represented by Orestes, has rejected the gods, and it all has to do with free will. Zeus gave Orestes free will to obey him, and Orestes uses that free will to reject Zeus (which is an interesting analogy to Christianity). However, as I will explain, while Orestes takes on a figure of Christ, this play isn't a Christian allegory (Satre was an atheist), but rather uses the play to create a new interpretation of Christ.

So, first, I should mention the background, though those who have been following my reviews probably already know the story of how when Agamemnon returned from Troy he discovered that his wife Clytemnestra was having an affair with Aegisthus, and they both murder him and Aegisthus takes the throne. Orestes flees as he is the heir to the throne, and for Aegisthus to become king he needs to get rid of the heir apparent. Anyway, the city becomes infested with flies, and these flies remain for over fifteen years. Aegisthus knows what these flies are about, however nobody else does. In a way they are the result of Aegisthus' sin – the murder of the true king, and his adulterous affair with Clytemnestra. The city of Argos, through their acts, has become tainted. However, it goes much further than that, which I have decided that I won't actually reveal.

Anyway, along comes Orestes, and the first part of the play, much like the Ancient Greek versions, has Orestes trying to find out who he can trust and who he can't. He approaches Electra and spends time testing her to see if she will support him or betray him. However, as it turns out it isn't Electra who betrays him, but Zeus. Yet despite Zeus' warning of his impending doom, Aegisthus chooses to do nothing – his crime, his guilt, and his sin has so worn him out that he simply has no desire to hold onto the throne anymore. In a way his claim to the throne is a Phyric victory – sure, he is king, but the guilt that has come upon him has so worn him down that it no longer seems worth it.

It is interesting that we see similar themes pop up in other plays – Hamlet has the usurper who kills the king and marries the queen, while Macbeth as the usurper whose guilt so wears him out that he simply become too exhausted to continue (though he does fight until the bitter end). Yet Shakespeare had a purpose in writing against usurpers, but I'm not entirely sure if Satre was writing in a similar vein – the play was published during World War II while France was occupied by the Nazis. In a way this could almost be a subtle dig at the Vichy government who, after capitulating to the Germans, pretty much became collaborators.

Yet there is also this idea of somebody coming along and taking away a nation's sin. At the end of the play Orestes rejects Zeus, claiming that because he has free will, he has the free will to reject Zeus and go his own way. However, he also acknowledges his crime (killing his mother) – something that Aegisthus (and the city) refused to do. In a way Aegisthus believed that he was in the right, and the fact that the city did not rise up against Aegisthus because he had a hand in murdering Agamemnon, were cursed to be tormented by the flies. However Orestes, while avenging the death of his father, takes ownership of his crime, and leaves the city, and takes the flies with him – in a way a form of Christ figure.

Yet it is interesting how, when he kills his mother, the city rises up against him in revolt – sure, they did nothing when Agamemnon was murdered, but then again he had been away for ten years, and ten years is an awful long time – long enough for the population to become accepting of a new king. Yet Orestes does not take the title – well he does, but he takes the title of a king without a country. In the original version he is driven out of Argos and flees to Athens when he faces trial, and is acquitted, for his crime. No such thing happens here, but he accepts his crime, and he accepts his punishment, and in doing so redeems the city from the curse of the flies.

Yes, Orestes sounds as if he is some sort of Christ figure, and in a way he is, yet there is a twist – Christ came as God in the flesh, while Orestes, through his free will, rejects Zeus. In a way what Orestes is doing is giving the people of Argos their freedom. He takes ownership of the crime and frees them from the curse of the flies, but in rejecting Zeus he shows them that they do not need to be beholden to the gods, but they have their own free will to make their own decisions and decide their own destiny. However, for the people to realise that, they needed a Christ figure to come along and show them – the problem is that people don't actually want to do that, they want to be led, which is why people like Jim Jones are always able to attract so many followers.

1 September 2016 - Paris

Yiannis Ritsos (1909-1990)

A significant portion of the poet Yiannis Ritsos' (Γιάννης Ρίτσος) prolific output was intended, at least in principle, for the stage. And of this portion, the dramatic monologues are reputed to dominate artistically. The New Oresteia of Yannis Ritsos (1991) is a translation of those monologues that involve Agamemnon's legendary family.

Ritsos took up this task partly because he felt a certain affinity with that family, an affinity that makes itself strongly felt in these monologues. Born into an aristocratic family that fell onto hard times after the 1909 revolt, his elder brother and his mother died of tuberculosis within three months of each other when he was twelve years old (he himself suffered from the disease). Both his father and his sister died in an insane asylum. So, though there were no murders and feasting upon relatives in his own family, Ritsos knew familial loss and tragedy from the inside out. 

I have now decided that I will also write a commentary on the three plays as a whole considering that the Oresteia appears to be more like a three act play than three separate plays joined together with a common theme. There are a number of things that I would like to talk about in relation to the Oresteia as a whole. However, there are also a number of things that pertain specifically to this play (or act, however you want to look at it) that I will explore at here.

The first this is that like the Libation Bearers, Aeschylus does not use the traditional unity of time and place. Where in the Libation Bearers the unity of place breaks down, in this play, both the unity of time and place break down (unless one can imagine travelling from Delphi to Athens in one day which, by car is possible, but I highly doubt that Orestes had access to a car three thousand years ago). The play begins in Delphi at the Temple of Apollo, and then jumps over to the Aeropagus in Athens where the rest of the play pans out.

The gods play a much larger role in this play than in the others, and in fact the only human character in the play is Orestes. The rest of the characters with speaking roles are all supernatural entities. Clytaemnestra appears at the beginning as a ghost and commands the chorus of furies to take off after Orestes. The other two major characters are Apollo and Athena. The furies are an ancient Greek demons, and in this play they are in pursuit of Orestes to enact judgement upon him for the crime of matricide. However, Orestes is protected by Apollo so the main conflict arises between the furies, who represent the elder gods, and Apollo and Anthena, who are seen as the younger gods.

The Eumenides is basically a courtroom drama, and though the court is a large rock halfway up the hill upon which the Parthenon is built (having been there and stood on it adds a lot more perspective to the play), known as the Aeropagus, which was in effect the Athenian Supreme Court. In fact the play outlines the setting up of the Aeropagus as the high court, as spoken by Athena (pg 170, 1959 Vellacott Translation, the translation that I am using):

from this day forward this judicial council shall / for Aegeus' race hear every trial of homocide. / Here shall be their perpetual seat, on Ares' Hill.'

It is not the play, but rather the myth behind this granite outcrop in Athens, that held such a special significance to the people of Athens.

I will not dwell too much on the courtcase though, since much of this will be outlined in the commentary on the Orestea, but one thing I wish to point out is the deciding vote of Athena. This is another tradition in that if the twelve jurors came to an impass (and we see how the decisions are made in Athens, namely that pebbles are cast into a vase and guilt and innocence are determined by the number of pebbles in the vase, though unlike our system where guilt is determined beyond reasonable doubt, in Athens it was the balance of probabilities and a tie would always fall in favour of the accused) Athena would be given the deciding vote, and she would also decide in favour of the accused.

It is also noticeable that due to the gravity of the crime that was being judged, matricide, its has been decreed that the verdict will not be decided by humans but rather by the gods, as Athena says (pg 163)

This is too grave a cause for any man to judge; / nor, in a case of murder, is it right that I / should by my judgement let the wrath of Justice loose.

The question is not one of guilt or innocence, because Orestes is guilty, and has also been polluted by the crime of matricide. Rather it was a question of which was the worse act: matricide, or the killing of a husband and father - an act that cries out for revenge.

The contest is not between the state and Orestes, but between the new gods and the old. The elder gods, as represented by the Furies, call for the blood of Clytaemnestra to be avenged; it is not the place of a son to kill his mother. To the Greeks this was wrong. However, the young gods call out for the blood of Agamemnon to be avenged, and it was a deed that was placed upon Orestes by Apollo. Thus the struggle is not a question of justice but rather between the new morality and the old.

Some have suggested that acting on the word of a god is a poor excuse for matricide, however it is clear that those who comment on this do not fully understand the nature of Ancient Greek spirituality. This is 4^th century Athens, not 21^st Century Los Angeles. The Greeks may not have had an established priesthood, but they did take spirituality very, very seriously. It is why I baulk at a lot of the modern movies portraying the Greeks as turning away from their gods. They were not and never did. It is not a contest, as it is now, between the spiritualists and the secularists, it was a contest between the old ways and the new ways. The gods were the gods, no matter how fickle they were, and they were to be respected. If a god told you to do something, you would do it, for fear of earning their displeasure (in the form of divine retribution). It was one of the reasons why they would travel all the way to Delphi to seek their guidance.

Ok. So I can't say this author's name . . . but as far as old plays go, the Oresteia trilogy is pretty good. It was a fast read, had multi-faceted characters, and a lot of topics to think about. As you will see from my one-sentence and one-word summaries below though . . . I would probably put this play under the theme of horror. I mean if it didn't have so many deep topics, I'd probably just plainly list it under horror. I'm extremely surprised I didn't have nightmares last night. Just saying.

One Sentence Summary: 

One Word Summary: 

Murder

Book History: 

So Oresteia is actually a trilogy of plays. (Originally it had four plays but one, Proteus, didn't survive, so we only have the three.) It is (according to Wikipedia) the only surviving example of a Greek Trilogy of plays, so that makes it important. 

Good Quotes:

Wisdom comes through suffering.

(Agamemnon Line 211)

So men against their will 

learn to practice moderation.

(Agamemnon Lines 214-215)

 

There’s no security in riches

      for the insolent man who kicks aside

      and pushes from his sight

      great altars of righteousness.

(Agamemnon Lines 464-467)

 

It’s the unholy act that breeds

more acts of the same kind.

A truly righteous house is blest

its children always fair and good.

(Agamemnon Lines 899-903)

 

 But Righteousness shines out

from grimy dwellings, honouring

the man who lives in virtue.

She turns her eyes away

from gold-encrusted mansions

where men’s hands are black,

and moves towards integrity,

rejecting power and wealth,
which, though praised, are counterfeit.
Righteousness leads all things
to well-deserved fulfillment.

(Agamemnon Lines 913-923)

 

  By nature few men

possess the inborn talent to admire

a friend’s good fortune without envy.

(Agamemnon Lines 976-978)

 

Those who practise moderation

in everything they do

acquire strength from god,

(Eumenides Lines 671-673)

Themes:

• 1) Women Stereotypes and Women Roles
• 2) Retribution vs. Forgiveness
• 3) Pride

Summary of My Thoughts:

I don't know anything about how the Greek stereotype for women, but this play is confusing in trying to set one for me. One minute their female characters seem powerful, e.g. Clytemnestra running her husband's kingdom? in his absence, addressing her subjects with authority, playing a submissive part only to chop her husband up . . . But then there are quotes from the narrator chorus like "Noble men shall not be subject to the heart of a woman" and " You speak wisely, like a prudent man." 

I also couldn't help despising the old chorus women in The Choephoroi because they convinced Oresteus to kill his mother. I just kept thinking that murder in vengeance just begets more murder. Someone has to end the cycle. And this is a great example of how terribly difficult that could be. Who would want to let the murderer who boiled your brothers and fed them to your father live? Nobody! Letting that vengeance go is necessary though. Eventually we have to trust in the system to exact justice (as is done in the last play - albeit with more than a little god control) instead of just going around lopping people's heads off. 

bookshelves: winter-20132014, tbr-busting-2014, radio-3, published-458bc, fradio, greece, tragedy, families, revenge, under-500-ratings

The second part of Aeschylus's Oresteia trilogy in a new version by Ed Hime.

BBC blurb: The second play in Aeschylus's classic trilogy about murder, revenge and justice. Agamemnon's son Orestes returns home from exile to kill his mother in revenge for his father's murder. But where can he find the strength to carry out such a terrible deed?

BBC Concert Orchestra Percussionists Alasdair Malloy, Stephen Webberley and Stephen Whibley. Sound design by Cal Knightley & Colin Guthrie.



"People, look upon this mess of flesh."