tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2745538876989378112.post691488692992866034..comments2022-02-28T12:14:59.451-08:00Comments on L E G E N D U M: Aegisthus - Keystone Cop?Saibanchohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13526852676971703119noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2745538876989378112.post-60438886569191101062014-02-10T14:16:42.410-08:002014-02-10T14:16:42.410-08:00Thanks as always for your extensive and insightful...Thanks as always for your extensive and insightful comments – There is a lot of back story for Aegisthus (Robert Graves etc) with the House of Atreus cycle of stories which tend to present a series of what-ifs and variant endings/beginnings for a lot of the semi-mythic Homeric/Mycenaean King era characters and all kinds of details which must have provided Aeschylus with a rich palette in order to build up his own picture of the man.<br /><br />One implication of your observation of the presence of these back story elements for Aegisthus is that it could lend a bit of extra leverage to my own theory (and it is just a theory by the way!) of this character being a key if not the key character – or a black hole character…invisible (often off stage or referred to and with not a lot of centre stage presence or dialogue) but with quite a gravitational pull. Indeed the question is as you say, why does Aeschylus present his characters in such a way and what are we, the initial 5thBC audience and we the modern interpreters of the work to make of it? One explanation may be in that this damages the character of Clytemnestra and besmirches her – she becomes an adulterer, an intriguer to overthrow the rightful lord of the palace, Agamemnon. In short she is the wrong kind of transgressor...for ignoble ends. I think I mentioned this previously at our last meeting that without such ignoble aspects, Clytemnestra would have been a mere female transgressor. As an adulterer she is female sexuality in its wild unleashed and dangerous-to-male order mode. Paradoxically, Elektra is also a transgressor against the male-order but for good ends...for justice...male justice in the form of restoration of the male line of inheritance and by extension her reinstallation as a dutiful woman.<br /><br />Women are often transgressive in Greek plays in the sense that they are often taking on male roles to achieve their usually just or noble ends. I suspect that for the predominantly male audience this formed part of the ‘frisson’ of the tragedy, women transgressing their traditional societal boundaries in pursuit of justice. Whether or not they are successful in their cause (often not I suppose for the purposes of a satisfying tragedy and perhaps to reassure the audience that women transgressing either achieve male ends through the power of that role or end in failure when the patriarchal order is threatened).<br /><br />Another thing...who were the audience for such performances? If we assume that they were all male with full citizen rights, what kind of message over and above the aesthetic entertainment qualities were they getting from this kind of performance? Are the performances then for men only in order to re-enforce the kind of ordered society they wished reflected? I wonder what they said to their wives when they went home...’I’ve just seen this marvellous play at the Dionysia’, and the ensuing conversation – surely there must have been women that were curious about these performances and even those who may have witnessed them or parts of them. Sadly the record is silent but I feel there must have been some sort of dialogue there. Or could it be that Aeschylus was genuinely seeking to challenge this status quo by showing the double binds that women were cast in when they tried to become genuine agents of justice when the word was turned upside down by evil acts? Or are we imposing ideas from our more ‘enlightened’ era in order to make sense of these plays and reimagine the performances for our own times? I would like to think that some of the later dramatists may have started to become aware of this potential – but in fact with Aeschylus we are still at the stage of fledgling Athenian democracy/order (the polis) against the chaotic disorder of the bad old times of the tyrants (here read Mycenaean rulers) with women cast as the transgressor both for good and bad ends.Saibanchohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13526852676971703119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2745538876989378112.post-13401105900634304562014-02-09T13:00:48.128-08:002014-02-09T13:00:48.128-08:00Thought provoking post, S! Aegisthus does seem to ...Thought provoking post, S! Aegisthus does seem to have a key role to play. I looked the story up in Robert Graves Greek Myths and in other versions Aegisthus does seem to come over in a more positive way. In some versions it is him who avenges his father by killing Atreus, although other versions suggest he was only a baby at the time so in no position to take revenge. Thyestes, following Atreus' death had taken over Mycenae, however, King Tyndareus of Sparta forced him out and installed Agamemnon in his place. Graves says that Aegisthus 'fearing Agamemnon's revenge fled to King Cylarabes, son of King Sthenelus the Argive'. Later, as we know from the play, Aegisthus did not accompany Agamemnon to Troy but preferred 'to stay behind at Argos and seek revenge on the House of Atreus'. Having allied himself with Clytaemnestra on Agamemnon's return he participate with her in Agamemnon's killing. Once she has thrown the net over her husband Aegisthus strikes two blows with a two-edged sword before Clytaemnestra beheads Agamemnon with an axe. Aegisthus then, with his supporters, fights and defeats Agamemnon's bodyguard. <br /><br />In this version we might question Aegisthus' motives and actions, but he is represented as participating fully and displaying physical bravery. Aeschylus obviously presents him in a different way. He doesn't participate in Agamemnon's murder, he appears before the people of Mycenae with his bodyguard and it is they who draw their swords and almost come to blows the crowd. His self-justifications are presented as specious and he himself as a coward - he didn't go to fight at Troy and he let his lover murder Agamemnon. <br /><br />Why would Aeschylus portray him in this way? In the play he does add an element of corruption and decadence to Clytaemnestra's Mycenae. It seems to add to a sense in which she is negatively portrayed, perhaps an element as you suggest, of mysogyny, or that a woman taking on this role of revenge is more 'unnatural' than would be the case for a man. In the Libation-bearers this is given an extra edge by he report of Clytaemnestra's further mutilation of Agamemnon's body. The city Orestes returns to is not one of order but dark, oppressed, corrupt. This then points up the contrast with Orestes as the liberator, and also, although he follows through with his fate as avenger of his father, unlike Clytaemnestra, he has doubts and then is consumed and pursued by his guilt. He is presented in a positive light and we end up on this side, even though he kills his mother, an action that one might think is even worse than killing a husband. And if we see him in this more positive light it might help us overlook Athena's slightly undemocratic cutting off of any further action by the Furies that you point out. <br /><br />Omnia mutanturhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398342216269820004noreply@blogger.com