In Libation Bearers, Aeschylus presents a balanced assessment of the issue of matricide. The audience can see this in the conflicting emotions of Orestes. His conviction and also his doubt demonstrate the balance in presenting the issue of matricide to the audience. The divine presence within the tragedy illustrates that the gods are not only supporting Orestes but are also commanding him to avenge his father’s death. There are other illustrations of the balance of the idea of matricide in the tragedy, such as the balance of good and evil. Within that balance of such opposing ideas, there is the assessment that needs to be made on the crimes of Agamemnon and Clytemnestra. The reasons for their crimes are different to the reasons that Orestes kills Clytemnestra, even if on the surface it does seem very similar.

The personal reasons for Orestes are presented to the audience early on. He is grieving for his father, but most of all wants to remove the influence of the “pair of women” (line 303) from the city. He laments that Clytemnestra and Aegisthus “swore together upon death for my poor father” (977-8) and proclaims that he needs “a witness in justice one day that I pursued this death justly” (987-8). A. Maria van Erp Taalman Kip, in her chapter from Tragedy and The Tragic, has noted here that “Orestes is not racked by despair, either before or after the murder” (p.135). Orestes was not in “despair” because it was a necessary act for him to do. Without committing the action there would be no way that Orestes could honour his father, or get back his property, or even dismiss the rule of Clytemnestra and Aegisthus. It is interesting to note that despite the personal motivations evident in the text, A. F. Garvie believes that Taalman Kip has ignored these in favour of the gods being the main motivation for Orestes.  In response to the chapter by Taalman Kip in Tragedy and the Tragic, Garvie says that “as with Agamemnon at Aulius, and with Clytemnestra in the murder of her husband, Orestes’ actions are doubly determined. He too has to make a choice” (p.142). Despite Apollo’s oracle, Orestes did have the choice, but he knew the consequences of the choice, which is perhaps the reason behind Taalman Kip’s analysis of the text. These opposing analyses highlight that despite the heavy presence of the divine in the tragedy, there is indeed a personal motivation to the actions of Orestes. Without this, the godly commands would have unbalanced Aeschylus’ tragedy by foisting the wishes of the gods onto Orestes, and thus Orestes would indeed have been a puppet that acted as the gods wished.

The divine element of Libation Bearers is very obvious, and largely influences the actions of Orestes. Taalman Kip notices how the working of the divine is very present in the tragedy (p.135). Helm thinks that the reasons Orestes finally acts are “piety” and “in obedience to the demands of Zeus” (p 48). In having such prominent divine figures, the audience sees how much the gods have influenced the action of Orestes; however they are not the only reason that he acts. At first, Orestes mainly speaks about how Apollo has told him things would be if he did not kill Clytemnestra. The audience also finds out the more personal reasons that Orestes wants to kill Clytemnestra. Orestes says that “many desires are falling together into one” (298-299), describing how the will of the gods and the personal will of his is meeting at the same time. This line illustrates that there is not only the command of the gods but also the personal reasons, such as the loss of the family property and his grief for Agamemnon. Kitto, in his book Greek Tragedy, comments that “[h]itherto, divine and human agency have been coincident but independent; this is the first time that a god issues a direct command to a man” (p.83). This aspect of the issue of the matricide is balanced, because while the divine element is very much present, especially in this part of the play, human intent is also a large part of the overall issue. Orestes is not a “puppet” of the gods (Kitto, p.83), although the divine presence could appear to be very oppressive in this tragedy, and thus unbalance the assessment of the matricide issue in the text.

Doubt begins to creep into the conviction that Orestes has. Up until now Aeschylus has presented an almost heroic figure, the long lost son come to save the house of Atreus from falling into corruption at the hands of murderous Clytemnestra. The tone of Orestes’ monologue changes quite suddenly, from conviction in telling the Chorus and Electra that “Loxias’ great and powerful oracle will not betray me, I tell you, which orders me to go through with this danger” (269-70), to a more sober tone. Orestes asks “[a]re not such oracles to be trusted?” (298) and answers himself almost in the same breath: “Even if I do not trust them, the deed has to be done” (298-99). These lines illustrate that Orestes is the only one that can commit the revenge on Agamemnon’s murder, even if he is unsure of how secure the promises of the gods are. The reason that this contributes to the overall assessment of the issue of matricide is because it presents another human side to the matricide. Orestes is wary of putting his full trust in the oracles of Apollo, but in order for him to be successful in this mission and to honour his father he needs to do so. By presenting this moment of doubt, Aeschylus presents a far more human aspect of the character to the audience. Up until now it could have been misconstrued that Orestes is just acting on the wishes of the gods, and not in the interest of himself. This moment of doubt does not mean that Orestes is committed to the matricide; but by questioning the plausibility of the oracle, the audience realises that there is a human underneath the commands of the gods.

Good and evil are evenly balanced in this play, but could be construed as making the tragedy unbalanced. Clytemnestra is the representation of evil – she has taken on a new lover and has murdered her husband. The audience here can see the emphasis on the crimes of Clytemnestra and the lack of such on Agamemnon’s, despite his human sacrifice of his daughter and bringing home Cassandra from Troy. Garvie thinks that Clytemnestra needs to be presented in a light that shows her deserving of her fate, and goes on to say that “it would distract from the main issue if we were to be reminded too strongly that she had some justification for what she did in the earlier play” (p.143). This then could be an unbalanced assessment of the issue of matricide. Orestes is the good presence of this play, and he is backed by Apollo and Zeus in the matricide, reinforcing that ‘good’ image. M. Gagarin, in his book Aeschylan Drama, describes the balance of Orestes’ act in terms of his pursuit by the Furies of Clytemnestra, and his acquittal in Eumenides (p. 65). Also, Gagarin mentions that “Orestes’ need to avenge his father, to regain his inheritance and to restore the oikos is greater than the prohibition against matricide” (p99). Gagarin is saying here that the action of committing the matricide, and the reasons for it, balance out the actual matricide, because of the greater good that will come out of doing so.

The reasoning behind Orestes’ murder, despite the fact that he is killing his mother, is for the greater good of others, and also to avenge the memory of his father. While the portrayal of Clytemnestra’s crimes are skewed, for she is unable to fully justify at any time in the play the reasons for the murder of Agamemnon. For the purpose of the play it does enable Aeschylus to present a balanced argument for the matricide. However the audience may not have had much sympathy for Clytemnestra anyway, as she did take Aegisthus as her lover, and kill her husband in order to keep that lover. This is even in view of the fact that she lost a daughter to human sacrifice at the hands of Agamemnon. Clytemnestra’s earlier actions, according to Orestes, have killed his mother: “Yes, it is my father’s destiny which determines this death of yours” (927) illustrates this, as well as the final line spoken by Orestes before they go off-stage: “You killed the man you ought not; so you must suffer the thing you ought not” (929-30). The emphasis is fully on the murder of Agamemnon, despite the overarching reason that he was murdered in the first place. As Orestes kills his mother, there is no gloating, in contrast to Clytemnestra and Aegisthus at the end of Agamemnon. Clytemnestra has gotten what she deserved. As Orestes sends his mother before him into the palace, the Chorus “lament even these two in their double disaster; but now that Orestes has come steadfastly to the most extreme among these many bloodsheds, our choice is nevertheless for this eye of the house not to fall utterly in destruction” (311-4). If Orestes had had selfish reasons to kill his mother, then the assessment would be unbalanced. It would be a repetition of the earlier crimes of the family and unjustifiable to the audience or for Aeschylus. The reasoning behind Orestes’ actions is the balance of the issue of matricide. Orestes does not have purely selfish reasons to commit the matricide, and this contributes to the overall balanced assessment of the issue of matricide and the balance of good and evil.

One of the most prominent issues in Libation Bearers is that of matricide. Aeschylus presents in this tragedy a balanced assessment on this issue. The audience sees the conflict of emotions in Orestes in both the conviction and doubt of what he is about to do.  The force of the gods behind him, and the divine presence, enforce that the action he is about to commit is what the gods approve of. However, Orestes has his own vested interest in the matricide, and as such, is not acting purely because of the commands of the gods. The importance of both of these aspects is very high in considering the balance of the view on the matricide issue in the tragedy. The audience also sees a balance of good and evil, reflecting Aeschylus’s assessment of the issue, and there is also a very large difference in the reasons of the matricide, and the previous murders presented in Agamemnon. Overall, the assessment of the issue of matricide is balanced, because of all the different views of the issue presented by Aeschylus throughout the tragedy.

Bibliography

Primary Text:

Aeschylus. Oresteia. Trans. Collard, C. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Books:

Easterling, P. E (ed). The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1997.

Gagarin, M. Aeschylan Drama. California: University of California Press, 1976.

Hogan, James C. A Commentary on the Complete Greek Tragedies: Aeschylus. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1984.

Kerrigan, J. Revenge Tragedy: Aeschylus to Armageddon. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1996.

Kitto, H.D.F. Greek Tragedy. London: Routledge, 1939 (current edition: 2011).

Reid, J. A Re-Examination of Tragedy and Madness in Eight Selected Plays from the Greeks until the 20^th Century. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2002.

Silk, M.S (ed). Tragedy and the Tragic: Greek Theatre and Beyond. Contributors: van Erp Taalman Kip, A. Maria, and Garvie, A.F. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.

Taplin, O. The Stagecraft of Aeschylus: The Dramatic Use of Exits and Entrances in Greek Tragedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977.

Articles:

Carne-Ross, D.S. The Beastly House of Atreus. Kenyon Review. Vol. 3, No. 2, 1981. pp. 20-60.

Catenaccio, C. Dream as Image and Action in Aeschylus’ Oresteia. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies. Vol. 51, No.4. 2011. pp202-231.

Conacher, D. J. Interaction between Chorus and Characters in the Oresteia. The American Journal of Philology. Vol. 95, No. 4, 1974. pp. 323-343.

Euben, J.P. Justice and the Oresteia. The American Political Science Review. Vol. 76, No.1. 1982. pp. 22-33

Helm, J.J. Aeschylus’ Genealogy of Morals. Transagctions of the American Philological Association. Vol. 134, No. 1. 2004. pp 23-54.

Kramer, F.R. The Altar of Right: Reality and Power in Aeschylus. The Classical Journal. Vol. 56, No. 1, 1960. pp. 33-38

Vellacott, P. Aeschylus’ Orestes. The Classical World. Vol 77, No. 3, 1984. pp. 145-147

The tragedy Oedipus the King does not have a single, over-arching message or lesson to teach its audience. It was not intended to be such by the writer, Sophocles. The oracle of how Oedipus’ life would be was unconditional. In this sense the audience cannot learn from the actions of Oedipus outside of the play itself as his actions were all going toward his eventual destiny. There is a flip side to his inability to escape his destiny, as he was able to act as a free agent throughout the play. He has already made his transgressions, as predicted by Apollo, before the audience meets him. The play carries the themes of destiny or fate, and the power of the gods; but these are not the moral messages. The character of Oedipus, being an archetypical tragic protagonist and very noble king, is not a character that one can learn moral lessons from either, as his actions within the play do not contribute to his overall ‘destiny’, and only lead to horror and tragedy.

The tragedy is not about Oedipus being unable to be anything else other than what he is made by the gods. He is a free agent. He does as he likes throughout the play; the only actions which were not his choice were his murder of his father, and his marriage to his own mother, both of which happened outside of the play. E.R Dodds, in his essay titled On Misunderstanding the Oedipus Rex, included in the book Twentieth Century Interpretations of Oedipus Rex, points out that “Had [Thysetes and Oedipus] acted knowingly, they would have been inhuman monsters, and we could not have felt for them that pity which tragedy ought to produce” (p.20). He finds that the character of Oedipus acted unknowingly in the play, which is how the audience has the feelings of tragic pity. The actions of Oedipus as a king with his city in the grip of plague are actions that one should expect of a king in his position, and it is hard to take away any particular lesson from the play in this regard. These actions were not dictated by his oracle, as it had already happened, but by his own free will. If he had not acted as such, then there would have been a moral lesson for the audience to take away from the tragedy, but then it would not have been a tragedy at all.

On the other hand, Oedipus could not avoid his oracle, despite being a free agent. Dodds comments that moralists feel that Oedipus could have “escaped his doom if he had been more careful” (p.20).   He counters this observation with “we are not entitled to blame Oedipus either for carelessness in failing to compile a hand list or for lack of self-control in failing to obey its injunctions” (p.21). The oracle was unconditional, in that there was nothing that Oedipus could have done to avoid it. An incident of coincidence – him killing Laius as he was leaving Delphi – signifies the lack of control over the oracle. An example of these ‘moralists’ is Simon Lesser. In his collection of essays The Whispered Meanings, he states that Oedipus should have gone to Corinth and demanded to know his parentage, after learning of the oracle at Delphi (p.170). Perhaps Oedipus should have done this, but it is very difficult to comment on what happens outside the limits of the play. The evidence that is presented (in reverse) over the course of the play, is that Oedipus’s fate was sealed, and nothing he did up until the point that the audience meets Oedipus could change this fate. The best piece of evidence presented to the audience in this manner is the fact that he meets, and kills, Laius after he leaves Delphi. It is immediately apparent that Oedipus had no way of avoiding his oracle, because it was unconditional. So, despite being a free agent, Oedipus only had to commit two actions to make the oracle true – the rest of the time he could do as he pleased. This really does not present a lesson to the Greek audience, nor to a modern audience, because the oracle was going to come true, and Oedipus was otherwise able to do as he pleased, and the actions within the play are not able to provide any particular lesson for the audience, ancient Greek or otherwise.

The play has major themes of power of the gods, and of destiny. However, it is not the message or a lesson that can be found within the tragedy. As put eloquently by Dodds:

“The immediate cause of Oedipus’ ruin is not “Fate” or “the gods” – no oracle said that he must find the truth – and still less does it lie in his own weakness; what causes his ruin is his own strength and courage, his loyalty to Thebes, and his loyalty to the truth. In all this we are to see him as a free agent: hence the suppression of the hereditary cruse. And his self-mutilation and self-banishment are equally free acts of choice” (p.23)

It is difficult to find a lesson for the audience in this! Robert Bagg, in his translation of the Oedipus plays, comments that “[Oedipus] is the victim of his loyalties – loyalties through which the gods controls his responses and his choices” (p.9). In some ways, this is true, because the gods do take advantage of what he is about to do. In the incident of him leaving Delphi, swearing never to return to Corinth, the gods put Laius in his path. On the other hand, the gods did not have anything to do with Oedipus finding out what he had done, so this does not ring true in that regard.

It is hard to judge the actions of the gods by human standards. Fate and fortune do not touch them in the same way as it does humans. So while the power of the gods is a theme in this play, it is not able to be a message of the tragedy, because the gods and their actions are above the will of humans. It is also interesting to note that the Chorus, or Oedipus, do not put the blame of what has happened onto the gods. As Oedipus emerges with his poked-out eyes, the Chorus ask “What god incited you”? (1328) and while Oedipus replies “It was Apollo, friends, Apollo” (1329) he follows with “He decreed that I should suffer what I suffer; but the hand that struck, alas! was my own, and not another’s” (1330-32). They acknowledge that the gods have had a hand in what has happened, and ‘decreed’ the suffering of Oedipus, but they do not criticise or blame the gods for the events. These lines bring to mind the quote from Baggs: “[Oedipus] is the victim of his loyalties – loyalties through which the gods control his responses and his choices”. The gods did not incite him to take pins and poke out his eyes – this was Oedipus’s choice. This lack of blame or criticism serves to cement further that the power of the gods is not a moral message within the confines of the play. Sigmund Freud, in Twentieth Century Interpretations of Oedipus Rex  believes that “[i]t would be easy to believe that an accusation against destiny and the gods was intended in the story of the myth ” (p.105), however Sophocles showed that this is not the case. The gods are not blamed in the story by either Oedipus himself, who would have a great case for blame, or by the Chorus.

Perhaps the most important thing that illustrates why the audience cannot take away a lesson from this play is that of the character of Oedipus. Aristotle waxed lyrical over this character because he was an almost perfect tragic protagonist. Oedipus’s curse is not of his making, nor is it his fault. It is difficult to see hamartia in the character of Oedipus. Carvel admits that “it is unclear whether Oedipus has committed an error, least of all an error that calls for spectacular retribution” (p.101, italics in original text). However, in her essay, she maintains that she is trying to challenge the accepted idea that Oedipus did not know of, nor brought about, his own ruin, and goes to sources outside the play to try to pinpoint where Oedipus could have committed hamartia, and thus deserved what he got. Carvel states that “[t]he nature of Oedipus’s knowledge is the vaguest element in the plot” (p.105). While it is true that the audience are left to assume that Oedipus had no idea of his parents or his lineage up until when he does find out, it is difficult to see how else he could have known, with the information presented to the audience in the play. Perhaps he should have gone back to Polybus and Merope and demanded answers, like Lesser suggests. Such a character like this does not present a particular moral lesson or message; he is a tragic protagonist, who may or may not have known about his fate, but in any case, he could not have done anything to avoid it. The pursuit of truth, his strength and courage all are noble qualities, and he is a very noble character himself – but these qualities only highlight further the tragedy of his circumstances. This makes it difficult for an audience to aspire to be like him, when all that his truth-seeking does is bring him horror and unhappiness.

Oedipus the King does not carry a prevalent message or lesson that Sophocles has worked into the tragedy. Nor is it a play about the power of the gods, of destiny and fate, or of hubris. The character of Oedipus is considered a perfect tragic protagonist, especially by Aristotle; yet in his character there is not a particular action or emotion that carries a moral lesson for the audience. The play is not designed to teach a particular lesson, or carry a certain message, despite the power of its themes and motifs and characters. It is a tragedy about a tragic myth that would have been very familiar to the Greek audience of the day, and which is still in modern times the first tragedy that is thought of when discussing a tragic play.

Bibliography

Primary Source

Sophocles, Oedipus the King. Translated by Kitto, H.D.F. (ed. Hall, E). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962 (edition: 1994)

Books

Bloom, Harold. Bloom’s Modern Critical Interpretations: Oedipus Rex, Updated Edition. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2007.

Cameron, Alister. The Identity of Oedipus the King: Five Essays on the Oedipus Tyrannus. New York: New York University, 1968.

Lesser, Simon O. The Whispered Meanings. Edited by Robert Sprich and Richard W. Noland. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1977.

O’Brien, Michael J (ed). Twentieth Century Interpretation of Oedipus Rex. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1968.

Segal, Charles. Sophocle’s Tragic World: Divinity, Nature, Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995.

Silk, M.S (ed). Tragedy and the Tragic: Greek Theatre and Beyond. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996 (paperback edition 1998).

Sophocles, The Oedipus Cycle, translated by Bagg, Robert. New York: Harper Collins, 2012.

Wilson, Emily R. Mocked with Death: Tragic Overliving from Sophocles to Milton. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2004.

Articles

Alford, C. Fred. Greek Tragedy and Civilization: The Cultivation of Piety. Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 46, No. 2, 1993, pp. 259-280.

Dyson, M. Oracle, Edict , and Curse in Oedipus Tyrannus. The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol 23, No. 2, 1973, pp. 202-212

Kekes, John. Moral Depth. Philosophy, Vol. 65, No. 254, 1990, pp. 439-453.

Scodel, Ruth. Hybris in the Second Stasimon of the Oedipus Rex. Classical Philology, Vol 77, no.3, 1982, pp 214-223.

Vellacott, P.H. The Guilt of Oedipus. Greece and Rome, Second Series, Vol 11, No. 2, 1964, pp. 137-148.

Internet sources

Aristotle. Poetics. Translated by Butcher, S.H, 1902. Translated text sourced from http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/ari/index.htm

Carel, Havi Hannah. Moral and Epistemic Ambiguity in Oedipus Rex. Article sourced from http://www.janushead.org/9-1/Carel.pdf

Classic Notes on Oedipus the King. Sourced from: http://www.bsu.edu/classes/magrath/HON201/oedTcrit.html

Exams are done for now. I have returned to full time work for the summer and maybe permanently. I am doing a summer school paper and I am starting tomorrow (I should really be looking at the work now but I’m doing this… priorities). 

But, hopefully now that I have a little bit more time not spent doing assignments (but more doing day job stuff) I can spend more time on here. 

These apology posts, the “sorry I’ve been away” posts are so sad, and you feel guilty for writing one. I hope that I won’t have to write one again for a long time. 

This was a keynote speech for the University of the Arts graduation, 2012. He brings up some very relevant situations and problems with being a creative.

However, he gives good advice.

1. Enjoy the process.
2. Make good art.

Simple ideas right? Sometimes though we all struggle with the two most simplest pieces of advice that any successful creative could give to a budding creative. I know I struggle to set aside time to write, mainly because I have that old niggle in my head, thinking “it’s going to be crap, no one will read it, no one will enjoy it, I need to be careful what I say”… I defeat myself before I even start. Neil Gaiman (on that note) suggests that the day you feel like your walking down the street naked, is the day you are starting to do it right – because that is the day you lay yourself out there for everyone to see.

Perhaps the main idea we should all take out of this, is that we need to feel like we are constantly naked in front of the world, to be doing the best we can be, and that is when we are making good art. And somewhere along the way we enjoy feeling naked, and making good art, and thus, we are enjoying the process.

Thoughts? Comments? Love it, or hate it? Let me know in the comments!

Finally, I have made the changes I wanted to make a year ago. I stopped smoking one month ago. I have started eating fruit voluntarily, and putting a whole lot more veges on my plate. I dusted off my gym membership I set up last September, headed over to the local branch of my gym, and signed up there. I go at least three times a week. I work out in some capacity at least five times a week. I’m carrying 15 kilograms of spare… um, myself?! The weight is not necessarily a problem but it is how it looks that is not nice. I don’t mind how much I weigh, but it is frustrating that I cannot fit my favourite blazers and tops because the sleeves are too tight, or my jeans keep getting tighter.

Now, the ultimate challenge – a marathon! Next April is the Rotorua Marathon. One of my friends has run it already, and is doing it again this year. Now, to be able to run for longer than a kilometer! At the moment I’m working toward the Quarter Marathon in Auckland in October.

To see the changes in me is amazing to me. I have no idea where this has all come from! I’m wondering how long this enthusiasm will go on for (I wanted to work out again as soon as I got home from the gym!) and I hope that it will continue, because it’s feeling mighty good right now!

In smoking, eating like crap, and never working out, I disrespected my body. The feeling of feeling BETTER is fantastic, even if I still want to smoke every now and then.

I posted up on the Quitline blogs this little gem today:

You know what’s really cool? Seeing all of these people signing up and starting their smoke free journey! It takes three weeks to form new habits… so check in with yourself after three weeks and see if you still have the same old cravings as before. Try incorporating something else into your daily routine… whether it be a walk around the block (with the free time you have NOT smoking) or eating a really healthy yummy breakfast (my current one is coffee/tea and small bowl of All bran with milk before the gym and after the gym, peanut butter on toast, a banana, and another coffee). Maybe crank out the coffee plunger and start making awesome strong plunger coffee in the morning, to give you a kickstart! Or you can use the time you’d spend smoking, sleeping in a bit more… Once you don’t have it, you wonder how you used to get anything done, and how you got so good at shaping your life around a habit!

I just feel like I’ve made some better, happier, and healthier decisions for me, and I want to share with everyone I know.

And now… back to study!

Happy hump day!

After thinking about it, I realised that I didn’t want to come here to write about classical history, or the Stoics, or how the Greeks thought about religion and their gods. I do that every day as a student.

So this will be more of a place for me to use, to record the wins, the losses, and such things. I am not sure how it will go from here.

In about a month I will be done with university for around three weeks, then, back to it! I have another couple of years to go on my degree.

I’m excited about doing this again, I can’t wait to get started here and make this my lil corner of the Internet.