Literature Humanities 07-08

Why is Agamemnon Portrayed as a Jerk in the Play?

In Agamemnon, the title character Agamemnon in fact appears for very little of the time. For far more of the time we hear from Clytaemestra. When Agamemnon DOES appear, he seems a little cold--he dismisses the (faked) warm welcome from his wife: "Properly to praise me thus belongs by right to other lips, not yours" (916-917). On top of that, it was also revealed early in the work that he killed his own daughter to get a fair wind to Troy. In short, he is portrayed as a jerk in Agamemnon. In light of this,

1) Was Agamemnon justified to kill his own daughter in order to retrieve Helen, his brother's wife? Shouldn't Agamemnon value Iphigenia's life more than Helen's? In choosing Helen over Iphigenia, was Agamemnon adhering to a certain Greek code of conduct?

Furthermore, the sacrifice of Iphigenia was not mentioned in the Iliad. It is noted that the addition of this event in Agamemnon is vital to the work, since it is primariliy this crime of his that drives his wife to kill him, which will bring about another crime from his son.  We further note that this event adds to Agamemnon's assholeness to the audience, in addition to his cold treatment of his wife as observed above. On the other hand, Agamemnon's crime justifies Clytaemnestra's murdering him. In light of this,

2) What kind of image do Agamemnon and Clytaemestra give to the audience respectively in the play? Is this a deliberate manipulation by Aeschylus to have our sympathies with one of them? Are our sympathies still with that same character after the murder? How does this prepare us for the rest of the trilogy?

Clytaemestra's Vengeance

As suggested in class today, a title that would better suit Agamemnon is perhaps Clytaemestra. With her strong and what many critics today would consider "unlady-like" persona, Clytaemestra is considered to be the protagonist of this work and  the individual that sets the ballast for this Greek trajedy. This characterization of her is certainly supported by her own husband in the work as he tells her that surely her "lust for conflict is not womanlike." Furthermore, when compared to Penelope in *The Odyssey*, for example, one is able to see that Clytaemestra certainly lacks the loving, supportive qualities found in Odysseus's wife. Unlike Penelope, who rejoices in seeing her beloved husband after she recognizes the fact that the man who has arrived in Ithaca is indeed Odysseus, when Agamemnon makes his return from Troy, she concerns herself with her plan of vengeance for her daughter Iphigenia,.

This plan, which ultimately resulted in the murder of Agamemnon, was actually in Clytaemestra's mind for some time, as she says in line 1378. Within this verse, Clytaemestra is also able to justify her reasons for committing such an act. She says, "Much have I said before to serve necessity, but I will now take no shame now to unsay it all. How else can I, arming hate against hateful men disguised in seeming tenderness, fence high the nets of ruin beyond overleaping?" She then goes on to say that "[she] glories." The Chorus then reacts to this comment by saying "[...] How can you speak this way, with mouth so arrogant, to vaunt you fallen lord? [...] Great your design, your speech is a clamor of pride. Swung to the red act drives the fury within your brain signed clear in the splash of blood over your eyes."

Beginning in line1560, after a few other exchanges with Clytaemestra, the Chorus then states quite interestingly "Here is anger for anger. Between them who shall judge lightly? The spoiler is robbed; her killed, he has paid. The truth stands ever beside God's throne eternal: he who has wrought shall pay; that is law. Then who shall tear the curse from their blood? The seed is stiffened to ruin."

So is Clytaemestra's rage acceptable? Could she have approached this problem in another way? Should we make a distinction between vengeance and what is just?

In regards to last citation, is it even a matter of right or wrong, just or unjust? - Tracey L

The Contrivance of Chorus

Throughout Agamemnon, Aeschylus uses an array of both and explicit and implicit techniques/mechanisms; whether sequence, syntax, or structure it seems they are each used for a specific purpose.  However, the function of the chorus appears as a device used for rhetorical and yet argumentative purposes as well, posing questions such as: "From divination what good ever has come from men?" (1132) and stating "The truth (that) stands ever beside God's throne eternal: he who has wrought shall pay; that is law" (1562-64). Also, on several occasions the chorus elucidates background and past events as explanation for the circumstances of the present.  At other instances, the chorus serves to foreshadow, emphasize and even question particular events that arise within the story, amongst the characters and even amongst itself.

One of the most profuse examples of the confrontation is the exchange between the chorus and Clytemnestra after she has murdered king Agamemnon and savored in the spill of his blood (1505-1575). To her the chorus asks "How can you speak this way, with mouth so arrogant, to vaunt above your fallen lord…What man shall testify your hands are clean of this murder?" She replies openly, "No shame, I think, in the death given this man. And did he not first of all in this house wreak death by treachery? The flower of this man's love and mine, Iphigenia..?"

The chorus appears as consumed and confused as we, the audience, are as the conflict unravels. In the same light, it reflects the magnitude of complexity and uncertainty of the conflict.  Simultaneously, it clearly articulates the very questions we ourselves  struggle to answer: "Must he give blood for generations gone, die for those slain and in death pile up more death to come for the blood-shed, what mortal else who hears shall claim he was born clear of the dark angel?" (1348-1342).

Often the chorus is purported to be the body of elders in Agamemnon's community. Do you believe this is so? If not who or what is this chorus that provides such engaging commentary and foreshadows the danger of human hubris?

Outside of its use as a mere plot mechanism, what is the function of the chorus?  Why is significant and how does it contribute to the overall meaning of the work?