Abstract This paper examines Euripides? "Electra" as a variation of the Electra myth and its relation to Aeschylus? interpretation of the same story in the "Libation Bearers", with particular emphasis on Euripides? "realistic" approach to concepts of character and issues of intertextuality, such as in the 'recognition scene'. Amongst others, it includes in-depth analyses and comparisons of the character of Electra herself and that of Orestes, the role of the Gods and the chorus and the depiction of Aegisthus and Clytemnestra in both plays.
From the Paper "Euripides? Electra starts with a shock: Agamemnon's daughter has been forced to marry a peasant and now lives in squalor, far away from the palace she used to inhibit. In line with his overall more "realistic" approach to the story, Euripides? focus is less on solemn atmosphere and heroic characters as presented in Aeschylus, but instead characterised by an emphasis on a more human depiction of its characters. In his treatment of the Electra myth, Euripides poses fundamental questions about the relationship between class and moral values, which is manifested in the character of the peasant, Electra's husband, a unique Euripidean invention which is not featured in the Aeschylean version of the myth."
Abstract This paper examines how in his play "Agamemnon", the Greek playwright Aeschylus offers a character study of a complex woman, Clytemnestra, the wife of Agamemnon, the Greek ruler who conquered Troy. It looks at how when considering the characterisation of Clytemnestra provided in the "Agamemnon", many have made a comparison to the much weaker and insignificant character presented by Homer and how unlike Homer, Aeschylus creates a strong version of this character, a woman who manipulates the will of men in order to get what she wants. It discusses her duplicity and the complexities of her character, her strong character portrayal and the fact that she was a powerful women of her time.
From the Paper "She stands firm in the continued celebration of a war finally won and stands in opposition to the warnings of the chorus about celebrating too soon. This is a form of action on the part of Clytemnestra. This action speaks volumes as it gives the audience great insight into her strength. The Chorus did not believe what Clytemnestra had told them; rather they had a typical male view of her and seemed to think she was just being a weak hearted person who is blinded by her longing for her husband. The image that the Chorus has of Clytemnestra was very different from the type of woman she proved herself to be at the end of the play. She emerges a stronger person because in comparison to Agamemnon she tends to dominate, thus showing the reversal of roles between herself and her husband."
Abstract The paper is written in the form of a legal argument by the prosecuting counsel. The writer argues that, when her trial began, there was no question that Clytemnestra was guilty of the murder of her husband Agamemnon and the slave Cassandra. The paper discusses how not only was she seen holding the murder weapon by the Chorus, but the prophet Cassandra indicated that Clytemnestra was killing Agamemnon and would be the instrument of Cassandra's death. In addition, Clytemnestra freely admitted that she committed both murders. The paper shows how Clytemnestra deserves the highest penalty possible: the death penalty.
From the Paper "On the surface, Clytemnestra's argument that she murdered Agamemnon for the good of Argos has some appeal; it is unquestioned that he led Argos in war against Troy. However, a deeper investigation of the argument reveals its weaknesses. The first weakness is that the Argonauts supported the war. They believed that Paris had abused Menelaus' hospitality by seducing Helen. In addition, they believed that Paris abused their state hospitality by doing so. The argument's second weakness is that, even if the Argonauts had not supported the war, Clytemnestra's actions did nothing to reduce either the duration or the severity of the war."
Tags:Aegisthus, war, justice, Trojan, revenge, killing
Abstract This paper explains that the trilogy of the great classic dramas by Aeschylus, which comprise the "Oresteia", embodies the competing concepts of justice as administered by a stable and unified state versus justice as administered at an individual or family level that arise out of revenge. The author points out that these dramas show the intense and often brutal conflict that existed between these two very different views of law. The paper relates that, in the end, the dramas succeed not as much in depicting an existing social reality but rather in idealistically propagandizing in favor of the importance of an objective administration of justice. The author examines each of the three Aeschylus plays in order to keep an essentially linear presentation in respect to its dramatic unfoldment and resolution.
Table of Contents
"Agamemnon"
"Choephori"
"Eumenides"
From the Paper "The core problem of subjective justice, or the rule of personal vengeance, is of course its unending cyclical nature ("Act for act, wound for wound!" cries Clytemnestra in the Agamemnon, l. 1555.) Crimes are punished, but the punishment itself becomes the seed of a future crime which itself requires further vengeance, with no obvious end. This has long been recognized as a universal situation with regard to this sort of justice, and the tragedies of the Greeks, most notably the trilogy herein examined, make it their theme to address this ancient cycle."
