What do you think?
Rate this book
Oresteia #3
Eumenides
Sommerstein presents a freshly constituted text, with introduction and commentary, of Eumenides, the climactic play of the only surviving complete Greek tragic trilogy, the Oresteia of Aeschylus. Of all Athenian tragic dramas, Eumenides is most consciously designed to be relevant to the situation of the Athenian state at the time of its performance (458 B.C.) and seems to have contained daring innovations both in technique and in ideas. The introduction and commentary to this edition seek to bring out how Aeschylus shaped to his purpose the legends he inherited, and ended the tragic story of Agamemnon's family in a celebration of Athenian civic unity and justice. The commentary also pays attention to the linguistic, metrical and textual problems to be encountered by the reader.
320 pages, cloth
First published January 1, 459
30 people are currently reading
2,235 people want to read
About the author
Aeschylus
1,511 books1,051 followersGreek
Αισχύλος
, Esquilo in Spanish, Eschyle in French, Eschilo in Italian, Эсхил in Russian.
Aeschylus (c. 525/524 BC – c. 456 BC) was an ancient Greek tragedian often described as the father of tragedy. Academic knowledge of the genre begins with his work, and understanding of earlier Greek tragedy is largely based on inferences made from reading his surviving plays. According to Aristotle, he expanded the number of characters in the theatre and allowed conflict among them. Formerly, characters interacted only with the chorus.
Only seven of Aeschylus's estimated 70 to 90 plays have survived. There is a long-standing debate regarding the authorship of one of them, Prometheus Bound, with some scholars arguing that it may be the work of his son Euphorion. Fragments from other plays have survived in quotations, and more continue to be discovered on Egyptian papyri. These fragments often give further insights into Aeschylus' work. He was likely the first dramatist to present plays as a trilogy. His Oresteia is the only extant ancient example. At least one of his plays was influenced by the Persians' second invasion of Greece (480–479 BC). This work, The Persians, is one of very few classical Greek tragedies concerned with contemporary events, and the only one extant. The significance of the war with Persia was so great to Aeschylus and the Greeks that his epitaph commemorates his participation in the Greek victory at Marathon while making no mention of his success as a playwright.
Aeschylus (c. 525/524 BC – c. 456 BC) was an ancient Greek tragedian often described as the father of tragedy. Academic knowledge of the genre begins with his work, and understanding of earlier Greek tragedy is largely based on inferences made from reading his surviving plays. According to Aristotle, he expanded the number of characters in the theatre and allowed conflict among them. Formerly, characters interacted only with the chorus.
Only seven of Aeschylus's estimated 70 to 90 plays have survived. There is a long-standing debate regarding the authorship of one of them, Prometheus Bound, with some scholars arguing that it may be the work of his son Euphorion. Fragments from other plays have survived in quotations, and more continue to be discovered on Egyptian papyri. These fragments often give further insights into Aeschylus' work. He was likely the first dramatist to present plays as a trilogy. His Oresteia is the only extant ancient example. At least one of his plays was influenced by the Persians' second invasion of Greece (480–479 BC). This work, The Persians, is one of very few classical Greek tragedies concerned with contemporary events, and the only one extant. The significance of the war with Persia was so great to Aeschylus and the Greeks that his epitaph commemorates his participation in the Greek victory at Marathon while making no mention of his success as a playwright.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 278 reviews
Read
May 17, 2022Does the Eumenides depict the establishment of trial by jury? Or is it an account of the origins of patriarchy?
The Eumenides portrays the trial of Orestes and is the third play in Aeychelus' famous Oresteia trilogy. According to critic Wainmu Njoya, conventional interpretations of the Eumenides emphasize the shift from blood vendetta (family members bearing responsibility for avenging crimes against their kin) to the court system of trial by jury. She states that the playwright Aeschylus lived during Athens's golden age, and he hoped to add legitimacy to the courts by attributing their origins to the end of the mythic age of heroes.
Feminist critics see the play differently. The first two plays in the trilogy, Agamemnon and The Libation Bearers, dramatize the system of a blood vendetta. Clytemnestra murders her husband Agamemnon on his return from the Trojan War to avenge his sacrificial killing of their 16-year-old daughter. Likewise, tradition requires their son Orestes to avenge his father's death. However, loyalty to one's mother is also a traditional value. The god Apollo forces Orestes to choose. He kills his mother, and the Furies, the goddesses who punish breaches in domestic discord, pursue him to the temple of Athena, where The Eumides begins. It is the first drama of a trial in western history.
The goddess Athena decides that blood vendettas are not the way to arbitrate disputes and appoints the first mythical jury of Athenian men.
Since Orestes has murdered his mother to avenge his father, the trial focuses on which parent and invariably which gender is more important.
Apollo argues in defense of Orestes's actions and, in the process, spews some of the most sexist rhetoric I have I have ever come across. However, he can only convince half the jury, and Athena breaks the tie, siding with Apollo. She then disarms the Furies by forcing them to take minor roles, diminishing female powers, and the male hierarchy led by her father Zeus becomes institutionalized in Athens.
I didn't know quite what to make of the play. I was both fascinated and appalled. A new trilogy adaptation is coming from London to an off-broadway experimental theater in New York. I plan to see it and wonder how they handle the issues that make this classic so volatile.
The Eumenides portrays the trial of Orestes and is the third play in Aeychelus' famous Oresteia trilogy. According to critic Wainmu Njoya, conventional interpretations of the Eumenides emphasize the shift from blood vendetta (family members bearing responsibility for avenging crimes against their kin) to the court system of trial by jury. She states that the playwright Aeschylus lived during Athens's golden age, and he hoped to add legitimacy to the courts by attributing their origins to the end of the mythic age of heroes.
Feminist critics see the play differently. The first two plays in the trilogy, Agamemnon and The Libation Bearers, dramatize the system of a blood vendetta. Clytemnestra murders her husband Agamemnon on his return from the Trojan War to avenge his sacrificial killing of their 16-year-old daughter. Likewise, tradition requires their son Orestes to avenge his father's death. However, loyalty to one's mother is also a traditional value. The god Apollo forces Orestes to choose. He kills his mother, and the Furies, the goddesses who punish breaches in domestic discord, pursue him to the temple of Athena, where The Eumides begins. It is the first drama of a trial in western history.
The goddess Athena decides that blood vendettas are not the way to arbitrate disputes and appoints the first mythical jury of Athenian men.
Since Orestes has murdered his mother to avenge his father, the trial focuses on which parent and invariably which gender is more important.
Apollo argues in defense of Orestes's actions and, in the process, spews some of the most sexist rhetoric I have I have ever come across. However, he can only convince half the jury, and Athena breaks the tie, siding with Apollo. She then disarms the Furies by forcing them to take minor roles, diminishing female powers, and the male hierarchy led by her father Zeus becomes institutionalized in Athens.
I didn't know quite what to make of the play. I was both fascinated and appalled. A new trilogy adaptation is coming from London to an off-broadway experimental theater in New York. I plan to see it and wonder how they handle the issues that make this classic so volatile.
January 8, 2024
Lady Athena re-establishing justice as she always does
April 1, 2015
Orestes is vindicated
10 June 2012
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):
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)
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 4th century Athens, not 21st 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.
10 June 2012
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 4th century Athens, not 21st 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.
March 23, 2021
Grčke tragedije donose bol, patnju, neprijatne teme. Ubija oca, spava sa majkom, ćerku žrtvuje bogovima, kolje muža sekirom u kupatilu, ubija majku... Sve ovo se desi samo u dve. A ipak, ta gomila čemera privlači - ovo je Šekspir pre Šekspira, subjektivno i bolje od Šekspira. Setim se početka Ane Karenjine. Kakav bi uopšte bio roman o srećnoj porodici?
Eshilova trilogija Orestija završava se uspostavljanjem prvog suđenja porotom, ali i početkom nečega jedinstvenog, radikalne direktne atinske demokratije, jedinog takvog pokušaja na tom nivou.
Orest je ubio majku Klitemestru (The Libation Bearers), pošto je ta ubila njegovog oca (Agamemnon), koji je pre toga ubio ćerku Ifigeniju. Trilogija prikazuje napredak pravde od lične osvete do pravednog suđenja, od maksimalne lične uključenosti u donošenje pravde do neutralnosti porote, čak i neznanja, nezainteresovanosti.
Boginja Atena uspostavlja prvo suđenje, a postavljanjem porote stavlja odluku u ruke ljudima, kako o krivici više ne bi odlučivali bogovi. Ipak, prvo suđenje porotom ima dosta problema. Sud nema jurisdikciju (Orest je iz Arga, zašto mu sude u Atini?) Porota ne čuje sve informacije (nije ni spomenuta Ifigenija kao motiv za ubistvo Agamemnona). Poroti prete i potkupljuju je (bogovi). Na kraju, donešena je i odluka koja je protivna glasovima porote. Porota glasa 6:5, ali Atena daje izjednačujući glas, ishod je nerešen i Orest oslobođen.
Zašto je loše suđenje izabrano kao model za buduća suđenja? Atena je možda htela da pokaže model nerešenog ishoda i šta se dešava u tom slučaju. A možda i da kaže svojim Atinjanima, da kao i suđenje porotom, i direktna demokratija ima nedostatke, ali je opet bolji sistem od onih pre njega. Većina vlada, većina odlučuje, pa čak i kad ta većina nije u pravu, sistem je ispravan pa tako i odluka koja se na taj način donese.
Ipak, nije sve u pravu. Oresta odluka suda ne može da zaštiti od furija (to su "eumenide" iz naslova). One će ga i dalje goniti unutar njegovog uma - krivica može i treba da ga proganja i dalje. Ovo je bitan deo tragedije. Suđenje se završava na neke 2/3 drame, a nakon toga Atena uverava furije da ostanu u Atini, daje im legalan posao i priznaje njihovu bitnost u konceptu pravde. Ako osećaj krivice ne opstane, ljudi će postati varvari: "Strah treba da opstane tvrda straža srcu ljudskom," kažu furije i Atena se slaže. Zadatak eumenidama: "Podsećajte Atinjane na njihove nedostatke."
Eshilova trilogija Orestija završava se uspostavljanjem prvog suđenja porotom, ali i početkom nečega jedinstvenog, radikalne direktne atinske demokratije, jedinog takvog pokušaja na tom nivou.
Orest je ubio majku Klitemestru (The Libation Bearers), pošto je ta ubila njegovog oca (Agamemnon), koji je pre toga ubio ćerku Ifigeniju. Trilogija prikazuje napredak pravde od lične osvete do pravednog suđenja, od maksimalne lične uključenosti u donošenje pravde do neutralnosti porote, čak i neznanja, nezainteresovanosti.
Boginja Atena uspostavlja prvo suđenje, a postavljanjem porote stavlja odluku u ruke ljudima, kako o krivici više ne bi odlučivali bogovi. Ipak, prvo suđenje porotom ima dosta problema. Sud nema jurisdikciju (Orest je iz Arga, zašto mu sude u Atini?) Porota ne čuje sve informacije (nije ni spomenuta Ifigenija kao motiv za ubistvo Agamemnona). Poroti prete i potkupljuju je (bogovi). Na kraju, donešena je i odluka koja je protivna glasovima porote. Porota glasa 6:5, ali Atena daje izjednačujući glas, ishod je nerešen i Orest oslobođen.
Zašto je loše suđenje izabrano kao model za buduća suđenja? Atena je možda htela da pokaže model nerešenog ishoda i šta se dešava u tom slučaju. A možda i da kaže svojim Atinjanima, da kao i suđenje porotom, i direktna demokratija ima nedostatke, ali je opet bolji sistem od onih pre njega. Većina vlada, većina odlučuje, pa čak i kad ta većina nije u pravu, sistem je ispravan pa tako i odluka koja se na taj način donese.
Ipak, nije sve u pravu. Oresta odluka suda ne može da zaštiti od furija (to su "eumenide" iz naslova). One će ga i dalje goniti unutar njegovog uma - krivica može i treba da ga proganja i dalje. Ovo je bitan deo tragedije. Suđenje se završava na neke 2/3 drame, a nakon toga Atena uverava furije da ostanu u Atini, daje im legalan posao i priznaje njihovu bitnost u konceptu pravde. Ako osećaj krivice ne opstane, ljudi će postati varvari: "Strah treba da opstane tvrda straža srcu ljudskom," kažu furije i Atena se slaže. Zadatak eumenidama: "Podsećajte Atinjane na njihove nedostatke."
February 24, 2021
Última parte da Oresteia. Após vingar a morte de seu pai Agamêmnon, Orestes é perseguido pelas Fúrias vingadoras enviadas pela sua mãe Clitemnestra.
Orestes chega até o templo de Apolo seu protetor e é instruído a buscar a deusa Atena que promove um julgamento do seu caso onde ele finalmente é absolvido.
Orestes chega até o templo de Apolo seu protetor e é instruído a buscar a deusa Atena que promove um julgamento do seu caso onde ele finalmente é absolvido.
November 5, 2019
Eumenides deals with Orestes' trial for the murder of his mother Clytaemestra.
Hounded by the Furies for the murder of a blood relation, Orestes seeks assistance from Apollo who advises him and bades Hermes to guide him to Athens, to seek sanctuary from Pallas Athena. This is essentially a courtroom procedural drama, with Orestes and the Furies giving testimony and the citizens of Athens casting votes for guilty or not guilty.
The primary characters are the Furies (Erinyes) and that is interesting. The play brings up the transition from chthonic gods to the sky gods, the transition of matrilineal lines to patrilineal lines, and the particular translation I read (Smyth, 1926) is endowed with messianic qualities. I'm not sure if it is Smyth and his bias bleeding through so I want to find another version. I saw instances of biblical similarities in the preceding two plays of the trilogy, but Eumenides was even more so with the comparison of Athena and Jesus evident.
This is the critical aspect of the argument for Orestes' innocence and heralds a change in the "old ways". Fascinating. Anyway, there's more, but a good third of the play is Pallas Athena negotiating with the Furies to bring them under her fold in Athens, ideological sublimation--to be blessings of the earth instead of curses.
This must be beautiful to watch staged.
Hounded by the Furies for the murder of a blood relation, Orestes seeks assistance from Apollo who advises him and bades Hermes to guide him to Athens, to seek sanctuary from Pallas Athena. This is essentially a courtroom procedural drama, with Orestes and the Furies giving testimony and the citizens of Athens casting votes for guilty or not guilty.
The primary characters are the Furies (Erinyes) and that is interesting. The play brings up the transition from chthonic gods to the sky gods, the transition of matrilineal lines to patrilineal lines, and the particular translation I read (Smyth, 1926) is endowed with messianic qualities. I'm not sure if it is Smyth and his bias bleeding through so I want to find another version. I saw instances of biblical similarities in the preceding two plays of the trilogy, but Eumenides was even more so with the comparison of Athena and Jesus evident.
APOLLO: And I will show you proof of what I say: a father might exist without a mother. A witness is here at hand, the child of Olympian Zeus, who was not nursed in the darkness of a womb, and she is such a child as no goddess could give birth to.
This is the critical aspect of the argument for Orestes' innocence and heralds a change in the "old ways". Fascinating. Anyway, there's more, but a good third of the play is Pallas Athena negotiating with the Furies to bring them under her fold in Athens, ideological sublimation--to be blessings of the earth instead of curses.
This must be beautiful to watch staged.
August 15, 2024
“[F]or who among mortal men is righteous if he fears nothing?”
This rhetorical question, put forth by Athena, broaches the problem of what keeps people in their moral tracks, and it suggests a very bleak answer, namely that it is just the fear of retribution and punishment. In The Eumenides, the last play of the Oresteia, we see Orestes appealing to Athena for help against the Furies and their terrible persecution as a consequence of the matricide committed by him, and the goddess’s answer is to establish a court of law on the Areopagus, consisting of eleven human jurors and herself, in front of which both the Furies and Orestes (and Apollo, who frankly admits that responsibility for Orestes’s action lies with him) may plead their case. After the jurors and Athena have cast their ballots, the result is a tie, which means that Orestes is acquitted and the Furies have to leave him in peace. In order to placate the Furies, Athena offers them a place of honour in Athens where they have to watch over the town’s mores.
On the surface, the play seems to celebrate the introduction of a legal system, both based on divine principles and human understanding of what is right and wrong, to replace the rather wilful force of revenge, which has degenerated into a vicious circle in the first two plays of the trilogy. No longer is one entitled to take justice into one’s own hands, even though one feels prompted into doing so by a deity, but from now on, a court of law has to mete out justice after hearing both parties’ arguments. Linking the origins of the Attic legal system to the time-honoured myth of the curse of the Atreides is a clever move by Aeschylus because it both underlines the divine sources of the law and points out the eminence of Athens as a place where the gods ushered in a new era of legal certainty.
On a more subterranean level, however, the play also cements the claim of patriarchy over matriarchy because the Furies haunted Orestes as a matricide, claiming that the killing of one’s own mother is a more heinous crime than the killing of a husband by his wife since the son owes his life to his mother whereas there is no blood-relation between spouses. This argument is countered by Apollo with a rather shifty and tenuous claim according to which the true parent is always the father, not the mother. Apollo justifies this claim by pointing out the example of Athena herself, who was not born by a mother but fathered nevertheless. When Athena finally casts her vote in favour of Orestes, she has nothing more substantial to say than
Besides, by inviting the Furies to take up their residence in Athens and watch over the town according to the laws she, the younger goddess, has given it, she also forces these more ancient deities to relinquish their preoccupation with haunting matricides and instead to accept the code of laws set up by herself. And we have seen what spurious arguments can be given priority in such a court of law.
Still, we might be relieved to find Orestes off the hook and the Furies having been given a more rewarding career opportunity, after all, and simultaneously have our reservations.
This rhetorical question, put forth by Athena, broaches the problem of what keeps people in their moral tracks, and it suggests a very bleak answer, namely that it is just the fear of retribution and punishment. In The Eumenides, the last play of the Oresteia, we see Orestes appealing to Athena for help against the Furies and their terrible persecution as a consequence of the matricide committed by him, and the goddess’s answer is to establish a court of law on the Areopagus, consisting of eleven human jurors and herself, in front of which both the Furies and Orestes (and Apollo, who frankly admits that responsibility for Orestes’s action lies with him) may plead their case. After the jurors and Athena have cast their ballots, the result is a tie, which means that Orestes is acquitted and the Furies have to leave him in peace. In order to placate the Furies, Athena offers them a place of honour in Athens where they have to watch over the town’s mores.
On the surface, the play seems to celebrate the introduction of a legal system, both based on divine principles and human understanding of what is right and wrong, to replace the rather wilful force of revenge, which has degenerated into a vicious circle in the first two plays of the trilogy. No longer is one entitled to take justice into one’s own hands, even though one feels prompted into doing so by a deity, but from now on, a court of law has to mete out justice after hearing both parties’ arguments. Linking the origins of the Attic legal system to the time-honoured myth of the curse of the Atreides is a clever move by Aeschylus because it both underlines the divine sources of the law and points out the eminence of Athens as a place where the gods ushered in a new era of legal certainty.
On a more subterranean level, however, the play also cements the claim of patriarchy over matriarchy because the Furies haunted Orestes as a matricide, claiming that the killing of one’s own mother is a more heinous crime than the killing of a husband by his wife since the son owes his life to his mother whereas there is no blood-relation between spouses. This argument is countered by Apollo with a rather shifty and tenuous claim according to which the true parent is always the father, not the mother. Apollo justifies this claim by pointing out the example of Athena herself, who was not born by a mother but fathered nevertheless. When Athena finally casts her vote in favour of Orestes, she has nothing more substantial to say than
”I do so because there is no mother who gave me birth, and I approve of the masculine in everything – except for union with it – with all my heart; and I am very much my father’s: so I will set higher value on the death of a woman who killed her husband, a house’s guardian.”
Besides, by inviting the Furies to take up their residence in Athens and watch over the town according to the laws she, the younger goddess, has given it, she also forces these more ancient deities to relinquish their preoccupation with haunting matricides and instead to accept the code of laws set up by herself. And we have seen what spurious arguments can be given priority in such a court of law.
Still, we might be relieved to find Orestes off the hook and the Furies having been given a more rewarding career opportunity, after all, and simultaneously have our reservations.
Read
July 16, 2016Το αγαπημένο μου έργο από την τριλογία «Ὀρέστεια». Ο χορός των Ευμενίδων ήταν εντυπωσιακός και δεν απορώ που οι Αθηναίοι ένιωσαν δέος όταν τον πρωτοαντίκρυσαν 2.474 χρόνια πριν...
June 15, 2024
Im dritten Teil der Orestie geht es um das Schicksal Orestes nach dem Mord an Klytämnestra. Er wird von den Erinnyen deswegen verklagt. Apoll verteidigt die Tat, Orest handelte in seinem Auftrag. Da die Göttin Athene nicht allein entscheiden will, urteilt der Hohe Rat -ein Geschworenengremium-. Die Abstimmung des Hohen Rates ergibt eine Patt-Situation. Athene spricht Orest von seiner Tat frei. Die erzürnten Erinnyen werden von ihr beruhigt und verwandelt in die Eumeniden -die Wohlgesinnten-.
May 11, 2022
دربارهی آیسخولوس تو دو نمایشنامهی قبلی سه گانهی اورستیا صحبت کردم. این نمایشنامه که عبدالله کوثری به اسم «الاهگان انتقام» ترجمهش کرده، فکر کنم قدیمیترین نسخهی موجود یه درام دادگاهیه... اگه قدیمیتر از این داشته باشیم من تا حالا باهاش برخورد نداشتم. اما چیزی که من رو گیج کرد اینه که این نمایشنامه با پایان خوش و شیرینش آیا تو دستهی تراژدی قرار میگیره؟
January 25, 2021
A pretty good trilogy! I would give the whole series a 3.5/5
September 8, 2024
"Le Eumenidi", la terza tragedia della trilogia "Orestea", rappresenta la risoluzione del caso degli Atridi, famiglia segnata da vendette sanguinarie. In questa ultima parte del ciclo Atrideo, Oreste, colpevole di matricidio, affronta il giudizio di Atena, dea nota per la sua razionalità e giustizia. Il dramma si svolge in un tribunale dove si scontrano due forze: Apollo, che cerca di scagionare Oreste e interrompere il ciclo di vendetta che affligge la sua stirpe, e le Erinni, divinità vendicative che puniscono il matricidio. Atena, che detiene il vero potere decisionale, decide di assolvere Oreste, facendo prevalere la giustizia terrena e la fiducia nell’umanità sulla perpetuazione della colpa e sullo spargimento di sangue che ne consegue. Le Erinni, fino a quel momento figure di vendetta e terrore, si trasformano in Eumenidi: protettrici della giustizia e della pace e perdonano Oreste. Attraverso questo mito, Eschilo esplora una concezione profondamente umana della giustizia, riflettendo i cambiamenti dell’Atene del V secolo a.C.: un'epoca di rinnovamento democratico. In contrasto con le tragedie precedenti, dove la volontà divina prevaleva sulla libertà umana, “Le Eumenidi" celebra il sistema giuridico come il garante della giustizia terrena e della redenzione.
March 30, 2016
Brief review:
The highlight of this play for me was the Furies actually appearing on stage and being given the chance to speak, and of course the poetry/language was great as always, but I still have a few gripes with it.
This is another Greek play that features a lot of annoying sexism (and from Athena at that) and another play in which a case reaches its verdict for trivial reasons through misguided arguments (see also: Aristophanes' Frogs). Even if you can excuse the argument that relies on the idea that women are less than men, I still felt that the dilemma of the case was not so fully explored as I would have liked. I also felt that the chorus didn't provide as strong a force towards the verdict as I was expecting, given their relatively heavy involvement in the rest of the trilogy, and there was not much opportunity for any of the characters to argue against Orestes, which they potentially could have done.
The first half (before the trial) would have awarded it at least four stars, but I felt that the verdict and conclusion brought it down and made it a slight disappointment in the end.
The highlight of this play for me was the Furies actually appearing on stage and being given the chance to speak, and of course the poetry/language was great as always, but I still have a few gripes with it.
This is another Greek play that features a lot of annoying sexism (and from Athena at that) and another play in which a case reaches its verdict for trivial reasons through misguided arguments (see also: Aristophanes' Frogs). Even if you can excuse the argument that relies on the idea that women are less than men, I still felt that the dilemma of the case was not so fully explored as I would have liked. I also felt that the chorus didn't provide as strong a force towards the verdict as I was expecting, given their relatively heavy involvement in the rest of the trilogy, and there was not much opportunity for any of the characters to argue against Orestes, which they potentially could have done.
The first half (before the trial) would have awarded it at least four stars, but I felt that the verdict and conclusion brought it down and made it a slight disappointment in the end.
March 28, 2017
If only I'd read this yesterday... as it would've helped with my argument for my Greek mythology essay. Just a day late.
May 25, 2017
In the final piece of the Orestria, everything escalates to a grandiose level. The characters aren't human except for Orestre.
The Pythia begins the play with a superb monologue in which she covers the origin of the Delphi oracle, tracing back to the goddess earth, down to Apollo or Loriax as he is often called by Eschyle.
Then enter the most exciting group of righteous women spirits, the Eumenides or Furies and they have some serious beef with Orestre. I tell you, the accusations and lamentations of these old and impressive souls are still relevant today. They demand Orestre pay for spilling his mother's blood and a public debate ensues.
And what a debate it is.
I mean, Apollon and Athena vs a chorus of bannished but revered Furies?
Orestre hides behind Apollo's golden skirts, whining that it was he who encouraged him to take revenge on his unfaithful mother. Orestre makes for a pitiful man.
There is a brief appearance by Clytemnestre's ghost but she is indeed a ghost of her portrayal in Agamemnon. Kind of meek.
Okay high points; Eschyle obvious love for Athens and the way he glorified the city and its so called democracy through Athena's pure and noble speeches.
Low points; that whole argument about what's worst...killing your mother or your father and all the misogyny that spews out.
I've now read all of the plays and have to say that for its scope this one is great but my favorite is probably everone else's, Prometheus Bound.
This was a cool few weeks of reading but it's time to move on!
The Pythia begins the play with a superb monologue in which she covers the origin of the Delphi oracle, tracing back to the goddess earth, down to Apollo or Loriax as he is often called by Eschyle.
Then enter the most exciting group of righteous women spirits, the Eumenides or Furies and they have some serious beef with Orestre. I tell you, the accusations and lamentations of these old and impressive souls are still relevant today. They demand Orestre pay for spilling his mother's blood and a public debate ensues.
And what a debate it is.
I mean, Apollon and Athena vs a chorus of bannished but revered Furies?
Orestre hides behind Apollo's golden skirts, whining that it was he who encouraged him to take revenge on his unfaithful mother. Orestre makes for a pitiful man.
There is a brief appearance by Clytemnestre's ghost but she is indeed a ghost of her portrayal in Agamemnon. Kind of meek.
Okay high points; Eschyle obvious love for Athens and the way he glorified the city and its so called democracy through Athena's pure and noble speeches.
Low points; that whole argument about what's worst...killing your mother or your father and all the misogyny that spews out.
I've now read all of the plays and have to say that for its scope this one is great but my favorite is probably everone else's, Prometheus Bound.
This was a cool few weeks of reading but it's time to move on!
January 27, 2014
From BBC Radio 3 - Drama on 3:
The Oresteia: The Furies
By Aeschylus.
A new version by Rebecca Lenkiewicz
The final play in Aeschylus' classic trilogy about murder, revenge and justice. Orestes has avenged his father Agamemnon by murdering his killer, his own mother Clytemnestra. Now the Furies, deities of revenge, are on his trail and baying for blood. Can the young gods Apollo and Athena stop this cycle of revenge?
BBC Concert Orchestra Percussionists: Alasdair Malloy, Stephen Webberley and Stephen Whibley
Sound design: Colin Guthrie.
The Oresteia: The Furies
By Aeschylus.
A new version by Rebecca Lenkiewicz
The final play in Aeschylus' classic trilogy about murder, revenge and justice. Orestes has avenged his father Agamemnon by murdering his killer, his own mother Clytemnestra. Now the Furies, deities of revenge, are on his trail and baying for blood. Can the young gods Apollo and Athena stop this cycle of revenge?
BBC Concert Orchestra Percussionists: Alasdair Malloy, Stephen Webberley and Stephen Whibley
Sound design: Colin Guthrie.
September 27, 2014
Giving it 2 stars because Apollo's "logic" at the end is so stupid. Sorry.
July 12, 2018
Fantastic. Although some strange discussions around the point that mothers aren't actually parents and only father's are parents so males are better
August 30, 2013
I found the last part of Aeschylus' Orestia trilogy to be rather surprising -for I did not expect the respective course of events to actually take place. Now, I do not know if this thing -or feeling -is for the best or not, howsoever I did find myself mumbling out loud ”what kind of tragedy is this, mister Aeschylus?” because, to me, it didn't feel as a tragedy anymore (because of its ending). However, I have already said that I do not know what to really think about this occurrence, it was indeed unexpected...
I thought, at some point, that this was a very nice continuation of the previous two plays and I filled myself with an overwhelming desire to read more and more, to see what's going to happen -and then, there I was, in the end, wondering if I liked it or it just stunned me too much that I cannot express my fondness or the missing of it. I do not know why, but a tragedy that does not end tragically is almost unable to touch my 'wretched - in need of tragedy-' soul. I was, indeed, looking for some adventurous (to be read wiping) drama in which at least one friggin' character will die. Well, I now shall behave myself. I find myself in a very intriguing position: what shall I do? It is, indeed, a good play and I have liked so many passages out of it, even the idea, but I can't put myself together regarding the ending. What to do, what to do!?
I have, nevertheless, appreciated quite enormously Aeschylus' style and with finishing this last play of the Orestia trilogy, I finish for the being moment my journey through Aeschylus' work. My general opinion about him is one favourable to his works: I have, of course, enjoyed them very much, even though I quite incline to think that Sophocles' plays are more intense because of their directness and the beauty of adventure, tragedy and course of events are somehow different from Aeschylus'. For some reason or another, I find myself liking Sophocles' work better than his, but this might be -as I have already and repeatedly stressed in another reviews- just a matter of personal desires and inclinations. Aeschylus' has some beautiful works here, and this one is one of them, even though I cannot bring myself to relate in any way to the peculiar ending. Maybe I should have expected it, regarding the title (Eumenides, the good-willing rather than the bad-willing, the Furies).
_
SPOILER
_
I was glad to find more about these apparent malicious gods -are they gods, or are they something else, unspeakable and terrible?- the Eumenides, told to be the daughters of the Night (Nyx) or the daughters of the last cries of Zeus' father, poured over the Earth, come to haunt Orestes, to revenge a mother who was killed by the hand of her own son. From this we actually see that these Eumenides, the Furies, are not at all reasonable, they do not behave out of logical and rational thinking, but out of fury and traditional principles. In their vengeance, they truly believe in the fact that a crime is most punishable if the murderer kills someone of his/her own blood. That makes the crime so much more dramatic and they are willing to punish it, with fury, always unreasonable and not wanting to listen to any rational motives, nor explanations. Their behaviour is, indeed, fascinating -they do not listen to Apollo's reasons for defending Orestes, they barely want to bow in front of Pallas Athena -they want the crime to be punished, because a mother has been killed by her own son, and the reasons why the circumstances became to be as they are, is not a matter of importance to them. it does not matter, as it is, whether the mother was right or wrong -she has been punished already, a victim or not, she became a shadow because her own son killed her! that is what the Eumenides think -Orestes is guilty, and we hear them (mentally, of course) cry out loud that he is guilty, guilty, guilty and he shall be punished, his shadow shall be exiled in the land of Unhappiness, in the land of the Death God. The Eumenides plan to devour his body while he is still alive -so furious they are because of the matter. Of course, their fury has been hastened because of the gods' involvement. They even accuse Apollo that he had not listened to the ancient, traditional rules, that no god should interfere with the business of another, if it doesn't concern its business. And the Eumenides think, justly they believe, that the punishment of Orestes is theirs and only theirs to take care of.
Yes, I admit it, I was quite taken away because of this scenario -it's simply beautiful, isn't it? intriguing, shameful and, somehow, rather human. It's as Maurice Croiset said about Aeschylus', that everything he wrote about is a conflict, is a reverberating catastrophe -that's what he needs; what is only human, means too little for him, but what is not human, is equally foreign to his art. I happen to agree to Maurice Croiset's opinion.
This play is more about Gods than it is about humans -and, even so, even if we are voided of a human tragedy, we can perceive the play to be fully captured by a ...humanly allure. The furious Eumenides are, indeed, the outrageous representation of human fury and irrationality. Aeschylus' completes his art, his style, his way of seeing and writing the tragedies: the Eumenides, bits of gods and bits of humans. In this course of events, the end cannot be tragical -the Eumenides, now the good-willing-gods, shall be praised and not damned for their failure, they are no victims, but neither persecutors. They are only gods -and their fury can be mollified by only another god, and that is Athena's harmonious intervention.
What happens to Orestes is now... history. This play is about Orestes' escape (for gods have shown him mercy and benevolence, and Fate has shown him signs of good omen), but it is also about the Furies, about their rage and the power they shall or could have over humans. It is beautifully decorated in a context in which Gods appear to be righteous, but not impartial, showing once again faces that are and should be, somehow, similar to humans.
--
end of spoiler
--
In the end, I know I liked the play - I rated it 4 out of 5 stars because I haven't liked it so much, I suppose, even so I do not denature its power nor its beauty. I expected a tragedy -it was a tragedy, but not until the end. Variety, that is what shows in a modern context, but we can see here a lot of themes and motives one should gladly discuss or think about. It's a beautiful play -very beautifully written, as well as the others in the trilogy. I think highly of this trilogy of Aeschylus' and I guess that there were two things that made me rate this play 4/5... the fact that it had a happy, unexpected ending (which I didn't see, nor expected, nor desired -but this is not necessarily a good argument) and the fact that the ending was prolonged too much (in a matter of language). This fact tends to get tired at some point -the chorus' cryings are too long and too many (even though everyone has already understood the respective point and loved/adored the chorus' lamentation or good-willing prayers). Howsoever, I tend to prefer Sophocles' direct style in which they don't cry, nor talk that much in the end -I love the suspense, the rapid ending, it intensifies somehow the tragedy. However, this thing is in itself debatable because of the play's ending.
I thought, at some point, that this was a very nice continuation of the previous two plays and I filled myself with an overwhelming desire to read more and more, to see what's going to happen -and then, there I was, in the end, wondering if I liked it or it just stunned me too much that I cannot express my fondness or the missing of it. I do not know why, but a tragedy that does not end tragically is almost unable to touch my 'wretched - in need of tragedy-' soul. I was, indeed, looking for some adventurous (to be read wiping) drama in which at least one friggin' character will die. Well, I now shall behave myself. I find myself in a very intriguing position: what shall I do? It is, indeed, a good play and I have liked so many passages out of it, even the idea, but I can't put myself together regarding the ending. What to do, what to do!?
I have, nevertheless, appreciated quite enormously Aeschylus' style and with finishing this last play of the Orestia trilogy, I finish for the being moment my journey through Aeschylus' work. My general opinion about him is one favourable to his works: I have, of course, enjoyed them very much, even though I quite incline to think that Sophocles' plays are more intense because of their directness and the beauty of adventure, tragedy and course of events are somehow different from Aeschylus'. For some reason or another, I find myself liking Sophocles' work better than his, but this might be -as I have already and repeatedly stressed in another reviews- just a matter of personal desires and inclinations. Aeschylus' has some beautiful works here, and this one is one of them, even though I cannot bring myself to relate in any way to the peculiar ending. Maybe I should have expected it, regarding the title (Eumenides, the good-willing rather than the bad-willing, the Furies).
_
SPOILER
_
I was glad to find more about these apparent malicious gods -are they gods, or are they something else, unspeakable and terrible?- the Eumenides, told to be the daughters of the Night (Nyx) or the daughters of the last cries of Zeus' father, poured over the Earth, come to haunt Orestes, to revenge a mother who was killed by the hand of her own son. From this we actually see that these Eumenides, the Furies, are not at all reasonable, they do not behave out of logical and rational thinking, but out of fury and traditional principles. In their vengeance, they truly believe in the fact that a crime is most punishable if the murderer kills someone of his/her own blood. That makes the crime so much more dramatic and they are willing to punish it, with fury, always unreasonable and not wanting to listen to any rational motives, nor explanations. Their behaviour is, indeed, fascinating -they do not listen to Apollo's reasons for defending Orestes, they barely want to bow in front of Pallas Athena -they want the crime to be punished, because a mother has been killed by her own son, and the reasons why the circumstances became to be as they are, is not a matter of importance to them. it does not matter, as it is, whether the mother was right or wrong -she has been punished already, a victim or not, she became a shadow because her own son killed her! that is what the Eumenides think -Orestes is guilty, and we hear them (mentally, of course) cry out loud that he is guilty, guilty, guilty and he shall be punished, his shadow shall be exiled in the land of Unhappiness, in the land of the Death God. The Eumenides plan to devour his body while he is still alive -so furious they are because of the matter. Of course, their fury has been hastened because of the gods' involvement. They even accuse Apollo that he had not listened to the ancient, traditional rules, that no god should interfere with the business of another, if it doesn't concern its business. And the Eumenides think, justly they believe, that the punishment of Orestes is theirs and only theirs to take care of.
Yes, I admit it, I was quite taken away because of this scenario -it's simply beautiful, isn't it? intriguing, shameful and, somehow, rather human. It's as Maurice Croiset said about Aeschylus', that everything he wrote about is a conflict, is a reverberating catastrophe -that's what he needs; what is only human, means too little for him, but what is not human, is equally foreign to his art. I happen to agree to Maurice Croiset's opinion.
This play is more about Gods than it is about humans -and, even so, even if we are voided of a human tragedy, we can perceive the play to be fully captured by a ...humanly allure. The furious Eumenides are, indeed, the outrageous representation of human fury and irrationality. Aeschylus' completes his art, his style, his way of seeing and writing the tragedies: the Eumenides, bits of gods and bits of humans. In this course of events, the end cannot be tragical -the Eumenides, now the good-willing-gods, shall be praised and not damned for their failure, they are no victims, but neither persecutors. They are only gods -and their fury can be mollified by only another god, and that is Athena's harmonious intervention.
What happens to Orestes is now... history. This play is about Orestes' escape (for gods have shown him mercy and benevolence, and Fate has shown him signs of good omen), but it is also about the Furies, about their rage and the power they shall or could have over humans. It is beautifully decorated in a context in which Gods appear to be righteous, but not impartial, showing once again faces that are and should be, somehow, similar to humans.
--
end of spoiler
--
In the end, I know I liked the play - I rated it 4 out of 5 stars because I haven't liked it so much, I suppose, even so I do not denature its power nor its beauty. I expected a tragedy -it was a tragedy, but not until the end. Variety, that is what shows in a modern context, but we can see here a lot of themes and motives one should gladly discuss or think about. It's a beautiful play -very beautifully written, as well as the others in the trilogy. I think highly of this trilogy of Aeschylus' and I guess that there were two things that made me rate this play 4/5... the fact that it had a happy, unexpected ending (which I didn't see, nor expected, nor desired -but this is not necessarily a good argument) and the fact that the ending was prolonged too much (in a matter of language). This fact tends to get tired at some point -the chorus' cryings are too long and too many (even though everyone has already understood the respective point and loved/adored the chorus' lamentation or good-willing prayers). Howsoever, I tend to prefer Sophocles' direct style in which they don't cry, nor talk that much in the end -I love the suspense, the rapid ending, it intensifies somehow the tragedy. However, this thing is in itself debatable because of the play's ending.
Read
February 15, 2023Tengo sentimientos encontrados con esta trilogía. Me parece muy interesante cómo muestra el comienzo de lo que será el sistema judicial, o por lo menos lo que es un sistema judicial muy arcaico. Eso si, es inevitable no percatarse de la completa misoginia tan característica griega en la que la mujer es la causa de todos y cada uno de los males. Al final, todo se resuelve en que Orestes no es tan culpable del matricidio no solo porque fue ordenado por Apolo, sino porque matar a Clitemnestra no es tan grave como el gran crimen que cometió ella: asesinar a su esposo y, el peor de todos, el adulterio. Importa muy poco que lo hiciese en defensa de su hija que, como mujer, sólo está presente para iniciar la tragedia (pues no se le da apenas importancia). A pesar de ello, el tema de la venganza frente a la justicia (y de cómo estás dos tienen una línea que las divide excesivamente fina) me parece súper interesante, y me ha gustado descubrir que es algo que lleva tanto tiempo presente en las preocupaciones humanas.
October 10, 2021
Neither the life of anarchy
nor the life enslaved by tyrants, no,
worship neither.
Strike the balance all in all and god will give you power;
Many laughs to be had in the final installment of the trilogy as well.
Athena stresses the importance of oaths in Athens, so much so, that she sees mariticide a greater sin than matricide.
Through the "wedded life," citizens take part in a voluntary contract that extends beyond the individual self, becoming enmeshed within society as a whole.
nor the life enslaved by tyrants, no,
worship neither.
Strike the balance all in all and god will give you power;
Many laughs to be had in the final installment of the trilogy as well.
ORESTES: I have my trust; my father will help me from the grave.
LEADER: Trust to corpses now! You made your mother one. (l. 605)
Athena stresses the importance of oaths in Athens, so much so, that she sees mariticide a greater sin than matricide.
Injustice, I mean, should never triumph thanks to oaths. (l. 445)
Through the "wedded life," citizens take part in a voluntary contract that extends beyond the individual self, becoming enmeshed within society as a whole.
September 16, 2024
at some point i thought "wow fighting against tyranny was really their roman empire" and then i realised the roman empire didn't even exist back then and that i should cut back my instagram reels consumption
October 11, 2022
thinking about the person on tumblr who said the only way to play this apollo is like a sleazy defense attorney completely winging the case. life changing. (review of the full oresteia here)
October 3, 2014
Eumenides is the third and final installment in the Oresteia trilogy, bringing the "tragedy" to a finish (you'll find out soon enough why that word was in quotations). While I am a little diappointed that this wasn't as good as Agamemnon, I still am generally satisfied with this finale. Overall, I am very happy that I read this trilogy because Aeschylus, as I said before, was a very, very influential playwright that was an inspiration to other great Greek dramatists such as Sophocles and Euripides, whose works I will start reading, beginning with Sophocles.
In this installment, Orestes is judged by the gods Apollo and Athena, as well as by the Furies, who are kind of not welcome to begin with. You would think that since this is labeled as a tragedy, Orestes would meet his own bloody end just as his mother and father did. Actually, the gods decide that he is not guilty, thus letting him go along his merry way.
I have a few things I would like to discuss. Firstly, the ending of thisd play is about as far from a tragic ending as you could get. I was expecting the Furies to eat Orestes or something along those lines, considering the gory deaths of many other people in the trilogy. Forgive me for being morbid, but I was a little disappointed that he didn't die in the end; maybe that is the tragedy in itself. Orestes technically should have been found guilty; letting him free seems wrong.
Secondly, I found the chorus of Furies particularly interesting, especially in context of what was popular to write about at the time. Apparently, a lot of people were very frightened of the very idea of a Fury, so when this play was presented, legend has it that even grown men fainted from the terror. In fact, Aeschylus never mentions that they are Furies, save for the cast of characters list. Thinking of the play in context of how people would have reacted makes it so much better in the long run, doesn't it?
Lastly, I just want to share my opinion on the whole trilogy. It only took me 2 days to read the whole thing, but it felt like it lasted longer in a good way. I've heard the story before because I've been interested in Greek mythology in the past, but I really appreciated reading this because Aeschylus was good with many different elements of what essentially makes a play great. His ability to get me invested in the tension is top-notch. Therefore, I think that this is a great trilogy to read if you're already into Greek mythology; you won't regret the experience.
In this installment, Orestes is judged by the gods Apollo and Athena, as well as by the Furies, who are kind of not welcome to begin with. You would think that since this is labeled as a tragedy, Orestes would meet his own bloody end just as his mother and father did. Actually, the gods decide that he is not guilty, thus letting him go along his merry way.
I have a few things I would like to discuss. Firstly, the ending of thisd play is about as far from a tragic ending as you could get. I was expecting the Furies to eat Orestes or something along those lines, considering the gory deaths of many other people in the trilogy. Forgive me for being morbid, but I was a little disappointed that he didn't die in the end; maybe that is the tragedy in itself. Orestes technically should have been found guilty; letting him free seems wrong.
Secondly, I found the chorus of Furies particularly interesting, especially in context of what was popular to write about at the time. Apparently, a lot of people were very frightened of the very idea of a Fury, so when this play was presented, legend has it that even grown men fainted from the terror. In fact, Aeschylus never mentions that they are Furies, save for the cast of characters list. Thinking of the play in context of how people would have reacted makes it so much better in the long run, doesn't it?
Lastly, I just want to share my opinion on the whole trilogy. It only took me 2 days to read the whole thing, but it felt like it lasted longer in a good way. I've heard the story before because I've been interested in Greek mythology in the past, but I really appreciated reading this because Aeschylus was good with many different elements of what essentially makes a play great. His ability to get me invested in the tension is top-notch. Therefore, I think that this is a great trilogy to read if you're already into Greek mythology; you won't regret the experience.
July 11, 2022
Oreszteia III. - Eumeniszek
Az Eumeniszek nemcsak az Oreszteia pompás lezárása, de a teljes aiszkhüloszi életműnek is mintegy megkoronázása. Oresztész, miután meggyilkolta anyját Klütaimnésztrát, aki meggyilkolta férjét, Oresztész apját, Agamemnónt, Apollón szavát követve Athénba jut, az Erinnüszök hada kergeti őt, az anyagyilkost.
Az Erinnüszök a bosszú istennői, a családi gyilkosságok üldözői, kedvelt módszerük volt őrületbe kergetni a bűnösöket, meg korbáccsal csapkodni őket. Még a mitológiában is ősinek számító időkben születtek, amikoris Uranosz és Gaia, az ég és a föld istene a tizenkét titánt nemzette. Az egyik titán Kronosz volt, azonban Uranosz a Tartaroszba zárta őket, ami miatt az anyjuk, Gaia, hát finoman szólva nem volt boldog. Úgy döntött, hogy szül egy sarlót, és megkérdezte a fiait, ugyan kinek lenne kedve kicsit megbirizgálni a férjurát azzal a sarlócskával, amire aztán Kronosz nagy lelkesen jelentkezett, és egy alkalmas pillanatban lenyisszantotta Uránusz férfiasságát. Uranosz kihulló véréből aztán teszűzmária a fél világ megszületett, köztük a három Erinnüsz, egy halom gigász, és a Meliák, a tengerbe dobott hímtagból pedig Aphrodité, aki hát ugye, Aphrodité.
Ezek a Meliák ilyen testvérközösségben élő kőrisnimfák voltak, állítólag Zeuszt őt táplálták Krétán a mannával, ami pedig a kőrisfának az édeskés nedve, amit hogy, hogy nem mélinek, azaz méznek neveznek, és ha békén hagyta az ember ezt a mézszerű, édeskés anyagot egy megfelelő korsóban, ez a dolog megerjedt, és aztán ez a mézbor lett az a szer, ami nos, lássuk be, hallucinogén szerként jóslásra és isteni látomásokra egészen alkalmatos eszköz volt.
Ezeknek a tesói, a gigászok nem vették jó néven, amikor Kronosz fia, Zeusz a tesóikat, a titánokat letaszajtotta egy elegáns mozdulattal a Tartaroszba, úgyhogy ezek elhatározták, hogy háborút indítanak, és elkezdtek hegyeket egymásra pakolni, hogy elérjék az Olümposzt. Olyannyira jól haladt ez az építkezés, hogy végül Héraklésznek kellett a segítségükre sietnie, mind elpusztultak, de így kapcsolódtak be a Héraklész mondakörbe.
No de visszatérve a történethez, Oresztész Apollón javaslatára Athénba menekül, az Athéna-templom szobrára veti magát, és kérte, hogy jöjjön már elő és tegyen igazságot, mert itt kellemetlenkedik ez a három Fúria (a római mitológiában hívták így őket). Athéna arra jutott, hogy rendben, hát Apollón is nagy arc, de nem szívesen húzna ujjat az Erinnüszökkel se, úgyhogy Árész dombjára összehívta a város bölcseit, hogy ítélkezzenek ebben az ügyben.
Először a vádlók kaptak szót, tehát az Erinnüszök sorolták fel, micsoda mocskos egy anyagyilkos ez az Oresztész, családgyilkosság, örök átok, halál reá, hadd marcangolom szét és hasonló szépségek, aztán Oresztész kapott szót, hogy álljunk már meg egy pillanatra és tegyük rendbe a dolgokat, hogy a drága jó anyám aljas célból, különös kegyetlenséggel, a fürdőkádban megölte apámat, a híres Agamemnónt, a királyt, a trójai csata egyik hős hadvezérét, az Átreidák dinasztiájának dicsőségét és még Apollón is bujtogatott, hogy rajta, rajta, szóval ne én legyek már az üldözött, aki megtorolom apám halálát és kinyírom a cselszövőt, aki történetesen az anyám, meg a szeretőjét, aki a nagy aki hatalomra akart törni, bemocskolva Spárta dicsőségét.
Athéna hümmögött egy sort, és akkor kérte, hogy döntsenek városának polgárai, de ha egyenlő lesz a szavazat, az az ártatlanságot fogja bizonyítani, ugye manapság is 50%+1 szavazati aránnyal lehet győzedelmeskedni. No mindenki megtette a voksát, a szavazás eredménye pedig egyenlő lett, úgyhogy Oresztész mentesült a bűnöktől, élhetett boldogan. Nem így szegény Erinnüszök, akik már annyi energiát belefeccöltek az üldözésbe meg már olyan jó kis módszereket kieszeltek, hogyan kergessék őrületbe Oresztész, erre tessék, fuccs az egész. Athéna ötölt-hatolt, és arra jutott, mégiscsak meg kéne békíteni ezeket a rigolyás istennőket, úgyhogy felajánlotta nekik, mi lenne, ha lenne egy templomuk itt, Athénban és akkor lehetnének kicsit kedvesebbek, az emberek meg áldoznának nekik a házibéke megőrzése érdekében meg hasonló cukiságok.
Az Erinnüszök először azt hitték, gúnyolódik velük Athéna, és kikérték maguknak, hogy ők milyen ősi istenek és így kibabrálni velük azért mégiscsak, de hát Athéna addig-addig győzködte őket, míg csak kötélnek álltak, hát egye fene, ha lesz templomunk, meg áldozatok meg ilyesmi, akkor maradunk, na. És innentől kezdve megfordultak, mint a Gabrovits tikja, hirtelen áldásokat kezdtek szórni és védelmükbe vették a várost és lakóit, amint azt alant az idézetgyűjteménybe is belevettem (ők a Kar), és a csúnya, gonosz Erinnüszök hirtelenjében Eumeniszekké, azaz jóindulatúvá váltak, és boldogan éltek, amíg meg nem. Ezzel lezárjuk Aiszkhülosz életművét, és átevezünk Vergilius vizeire, hamarosan érkezem az eclogákkal.
64-66 (Apollón)
Nem árulód, örökkön őriződ leszek,
ha oldaladnál állok, és ha távol is,
az ellenségeidhez nem leszek kegyes.
104-105 (Klütaimnésztra árnya)
Az elme szemmel tündököl ha álmodik,
s halandók sorsa nappal meg nem látható.
516-524 (Kar)
Van, hogy jó a félelem,
hogy ne légyen féktelen
az ember-elme, üljön ott:
csak haszon,
s józanít a fájdalom:
van, ki hogyha nem hatol félelem szivébe, bár
földi férfiú, akár
város, hogy becsül Jogot?
526-536 (Kar)
Rendezetlen életet,
zsarnok-adta kínt se vedd
példaként:
isten erőt a középnek ad
mindig:a két szélsőt tovavonja.
Illik erre szózatom:
bűnnek a gyermeke, tudd, a dölyf,
így igaz ez, míg a szivek
tisztaságának fia
várt s kegyes-arcu áldás.
537-546 (Kar)
Ezt fogadd meg legkivált:
féld a Diké zsámolyát;
meg ne tedd,
hogy haszonért gonoszul tipord
lábbal: a bűnhődés követ akkor,
vár a vég, mit érdemelsz;
tiszteletet szüleidnek adj
mindig is, és azt, ki betér
otthonodba, megbecsüld,
tisztelet annak is jár.
553-557 (Kar)
A vakmerőről kimondom: ő, aki
visz jogtiporva összerablott holmikat,
idővel majd behúzza vásznát,
hogyha vitorlarúdjait
tördeli szörnyű szélvész.
700-702 (Athéna)
A törvényt félve tiszteljétek, jámborul,
s e város üdve és e föld bástyája lesz
a számotokra, mint amilyen nincs senkinek.
905-913 (Athéna)
S a földről minden és a tenger harmata
s az égbolt és a szél fuvalma jót tegyen
és enyhe napsugárral járja földemet;
a föld termése, barmok dús ellései
mind lankadatlan gazdagítsák népemet,
s az emberi magzatokra üdvöt hozzatok;
de űzd csak el, ki áhitattalan gonosz:
én, mint az ültető kertész, azt kedvelem,
ha itt igaz sarj gaztól sértetlen virul.
925-927 (Kar)
Szerencse érje, jó haszon, s e földre már
sarjasszon dús áldást
fénysugárzó tiszta nap.
937-947 (Kar)
Fákat itt szél ne verjen, vészhozó;
ezt kívánom, ez kegyem;
hőség, mely rügyet s csirákat öl, ne
hágjon át határain,
és gyümölcstelen kór
gyászosan ne lepje meg;
és a föld a nyájakat
s csöpp iker-bárányokat
nevelje föl s időre; és a gazdagon
kincses föld a szellemek
víg kegyét becsülje meg.
955-965 (Kar)
Ifjakat pusztító
sorsot messzeűz szavam;
s a gyönyörü leányokat
jöjjetek áldani násszal, erős hatalomban
uralgó Moirák,
mert az anyánk egy, ti
tiszta-itéletüek,
mind a lakok lakozói,
minden időben igaz s jó
társaságul eljövők,
fennkölt istenek ti mind fölött.
975-985 (Kar)
És a jólnemlakó
csúnya vész, a pártviszály
itt ne zúgjon, esdem én;
itthoni vért, feketét, ne igyon föl a por, hogy
ne kérjen majdan
megtorolón polgár-
vért: s le ne dőljön a vár;
kapjanak, adjanak is jót
kölcsönösen szeretetben,
s egyet is gyűlöljenek:
mert ez annyi földi bajra ír.
986-987 (Athéna)
Lám, ugye leltünk, mert jót akarunk,
szelid ösvényt itt? […]
989.992 (Athéna)
[…] jóakaróitok
jóakarattal ha ti tisztelitek
mindig erősen, áll ez a város,
és ez a föld, s jó s igaz is lesz.
993-994 (Kar)
Éljetek, éljetek
gazdagon és örömben.
1012 (Athéna)
És jóakarók akaratja vezesse a várost.
1028-1031 (Athéna)
Bíborbamártott szép ruhákban jőve hát,
s tisztelve őket, gyúljon már a fáklyafény,
hogy jót akarjon társaságuk mindig is,
bátor fiakkal boldogítsa ezt a hont.
1047 (Kísérők kara)
S rivalogjon a tánc meg az ének!
Az Eumeniszek nemcsak az Oreszteia pompás lezárása, de a teljes aiszkhüloszi életműnek is mintegy megkoronázása. Oresztész, miután meggyilkolta anyját Klütaimnésztrát, aki meggyilkolta férjét, Oresztész apját, Agamemnónt, Apollón szavát követve Athénba jut, az Erinnüszök hada kergeti őt, az anyagyilkost.
Az Erinnüszök a bosszú istennői, a családi gyilkosságok üldözői, kedvelt módszerük volt őrületbe kergetni a bűnösöket, meg korbáccsal csapkodni őket. Még a mitológiában is ősinek számító időkben születtek, amikoris Uranosz és Gaia, az ég és a föld istene a tizenkét titánt nemzette. Az egyik titán Kronosz volt, azonban Uranosz a Tartaroszba zárta őket, ami miatt az anyjuk, Gaia, hát finoman szólva nem volt boldog. Úgy döntött, hogy szül egy sarlót, és megkérdezte a fiait, ugyan kinek lenne kedve kicsit megbirizgálni a férjurát azzal a sarlócskával, amire aztán Kronosz nagy lelkesen jelentkezett, és egy alkalmas pillanatban lenyisszantotta Uránusz férfiasságát. Uranosz kihulló véréből aztán teszűzmária a fél világ megszületett, köztük a három Erinnüsz, egy halom gigász, és a Meliák, a tengerbe dobott hímtagból pedig Aphrodité, aki hát ugye, Aphrodité.
Ezek a Meliák ilyen testvérközösségben élő kőrisnimfák voltak, állítólag Zeuszt őt táplálták Krétán a mannával, ami pedig a kőrisfának az édeskés nedve, amit hogy, hogy nem mélinek, azaz méznek neveznek, és ha békén hagyta az ember ezt a mézszerű, édeskés anyagot egy megfelelő korsóban, ez a dolog megerjedt, és aztán ez a mézbor lett az a szer, ami nos, lássuk be, hallucinogén szerként jóslásra és isteni látomásokra egészen alkalmatos eszköz volt.
Ezeknek a tesói, a gigászok nem vették jó néven, amikor Kronosz fia, Zeusz a tesóikat, a titánokat letaszajtotta egy elegáns mozdulattal a Tartaroszba, úgyhogy ezek elhatározták, hogy háborút indítanak, és elkezdtek hegyeket egymásra pakolni, hogy elérjék az Olümposzt. Olyannyira jól haladt ez az építkezés, hogy végül Héraklésznek kellett a segítségükre sietnie, mind elpusztultak, de így kapcsolódtak be a Héraklész mondakörbe.
No de visszatérve a történethez, Oresztész Apollón javaslatára Athénba menekül, az Athéna-templom szobrára veti magát, és kérte, hogy jöjjön már elő és tegyen igazságot, mert itt kellemetlenkedik ez a három Fúria (a római mitológiában hívták így őket). Athéna arra jutott, hogy rendben, hát Apollón is nagy arc, de nem szívesen húzna ujjat az Erinnüszökkel se, úgyhogy Árész dombjára összehívta a város bölcseit, hogy ítélkezzenek ebben az ügyben.
Először a vádlók kaptak szót, tehát az Erinnüszök sorolták fel, micsoda mocskos egy anyagyilkos ez az Oresztész, családgyilkosság, örök átok, halál reá, hadd marcangolom szét és hasonló szépségek, aztán Oresztész kapott szót, hogy álljunk már meg egy pillanatra és tegyük rendbe a dolgokat, hogy a drága jó anyám aljas célból, különös kegyetlenséggel, a fürdőkádban megölte apámat, a híres Agamemnónt, a királyt, a trójai csata egyik hős hadvezérét, az Átreidák dinasztiájának dicsőségét és még Apollón is bujtogatott, hogy rajta, rajta, szóval ne én legyek már az üldözött, aki megtorolom apám halálát és kinyírom a cselszövőt, aki történetesen az anyám, meg a szeretőjét, aki a nagy aki hatalomra akart törni, bemocskolva Spárta dicsőségét.
Athéna hümmögött egy sort, és akkor kérte, hogy döntsenek városának polgárai, de ha egyenlő lesz a szavazat, az az ártatlanságot fogja bizonyítani, ugye manapság is 50%+1 szavazati aránnyal lehet győzedelmeskedni. No mindenki megtette a voksát, a szavazás eredménye pedig egyenlő lett, úgyhogy Oresztész mentesült a bűnöktől, élhetett boldogan. Nem így szegény Erinnüszök, akik már annyi energiát belefeccöltek az üldözésbe meg már olyan jó kis módszereket kieszeltek, hogyan kergessék őrületbe Oresztész, erre tessék, fuccs az egész. Athéna ötölt-hatolt, és arra jutott, mégiscsak meg kéne békíteni ezeket a rigolyás istennőket, úgyhogy felajánlotta nekik, mi lenne, ha lenne egy templomuk itt, Athénban és akkor lehetnének kicsit kedvesebbek, az emberek meg áldoznának nekik a házibéke megőrzése érdekében meg hasonló cukiságok.
Az Erinnüszök először azt hitték, gúnyolódik velük Athéna, és kikérték maguknak, hogy ők milyen ősi istenek és így kibabrálni velük azért mégiscsak, de hát Athéna addig-addig győzködte őket, míg csak kötélnek álltak, hát egye fene, ha lesz templomunk, meg áldozatok meg ilyesmi, akkor maradunk, na. És innentől kezdve megfordultak, mint a Gabrovits tikja, hirtelen áldásokat kezdtek szórni és védelmükbe vették a várost és lakóit, amint azt alant az idézetgyűjteménybe is belevettem (ők a Kar), és a csúnya, gonosz Erinnüszök hirtelenjében Eumeniszekké, azaz jóindulatúvá váltak, és boldogan éltek, amíg meg nem. Ezzel lezárjuk Aiszkhülosz életművét, és átevezünk Vergilius vizeire, hamarosan érkezem az eclogákkal.
64-66 (Apollón)
Nem árulód, örökkön őriződ leszek,
ha oldaladnál állok, és ha távol is,
az ellenségeidhez nem leszek kegyes.
104-105 (Klütaimnésztra árnya)
Az elme szemmel tündököl ha álmodik,
s halandók sorsa nappal meg nem látható.
516-524 (Kar)
Van, hogy jó a félelem,
hogy ne légyen féktelen
az ember-elme, üljön ott:
csak haszon,
s józanít a fájdalom:
van, ki hogyha nem hatol félelem szivébe, bár
földi férfiú, akár
város, hogy becsül Jogot?
526-536 (Kar)
Rendezetlen életet,
zsarnok-adta kínt se vedd
példaként:
isten erőt a középnek ad
mindig:a két szélsőt tovavonja.
Illik erre szózatom:
bűnnek a gyermeke, tudd, a dölyf,
így igaz ez, míg a szivek
tisztaságának fia
várt s kegyes-arcu áldás.
537-546 (Kar)
Ezt fogadd meg legkivált:
féld a Diké zsámolyát;
meg ne tedd,
hogy haszonért gonoszul tipord
lábbal: a bűnhődés követ akkor,
vár a vég, mit érdemelsz;
tiszteletet szüleidnek adj
mindig is, és azt, ki betér
otthonodba, megbecsüld,
tisztelet annak is jár.
553-557 (Kar)
A vakmerőről kimondom: ő, aki
visz jogtiporva összerablott holmikat,
idővel majd behúzza vásznát,
hogyha vitorlarúdjait
tördeli szörnyű szélvész.
700-702 (Athéna)
A törvényt félve tiszteljétek, jámborul,
s e város üdve és e föld bástyája lesz
a számotokra, mint amilyen nincs senkinek.
905-913 (Athéna)
S a földről minden és a tenger harmata
s az égbolt és a szél fuvalma jót tegyen
és enyhe napsugárral járja földemet;
a föld termése, barmok dús ellései
mind lankadatlan gazdagítsák népemet,
s az emberi magzatokra üdvöt hozzatok;
de űzd csak el, ki áhitattalan gonosz:
én, mint az ültető kertész, azt kedvelem,
ha itt igaz sarj gaztól sértetlen virul.
925-927 (Kar)
Szerencse érje, jó haszon, s e földre már
sarjasszon dús áldást
fénysugárzó tiszta nap.
937-947 (Kar)
Fákat itt szél ne verjen, vészhozó;
ezt kívánom, ez kegyem;
hőség, mely rügyet s csirákat öl, ne
hágjon át határain,
és gyümölcstelen kór
gyászosan ne lepje meg;
és a föld a nyájakat
s csöpp iker-bárányokat
nevelje föl s időre; és a gazdagon
kincses föld a szellemek
víg kegyét becsülje meg.
955-965 (Kar)
Ifjakat pusztító
sorsot messzeűz szavam;
s a gyönyörü leányokat
jöjjetek áldani násszal, erős hatalomban
uralgó Moirák,
mert az anyánk egy, ti
tiszta-itéletüek,
mind a lakok lakozói,
minden időben igaz s jó
társaságul eljövők,
fennkölt istenek ti mind fölött.
975-985 (Kar)
És a jólnemlakó
csúnya vész, a pártviszály
itt ne zúgjon, esdem én;
itthoni vért, feketét, ne igyon föl a por, hogy
ne kérjen majdan
megtorolón polgár-
vért: s le ne dőljön a vár;
kapjanak, adjanak is jót
kölcsönösen szeretetben,
s egyet is gyűlöljenek:
mert ez annyi földi bajra ír.
986-987 (Athéna)
Lám, ugye leltünk, mert jót akarunk,
szelid ösvényt itt? […]
989.992 (Athéna)
[…] jóakaróitok
jóakarattal ha ti tisztelitek
mindig erősen, áll ez a város,
és ez a föld, s jó s igaz is lesz.
993-994 (Kar)
Éljetek, éljetek
gazdagon és örömben.
1012 (Athéna)
És jóakarók akaratja vezesse a várost.
1028-1031 (Athéna)
Bíborbamártott szép ruhákban jőve hát,
s tisztelve őket, gyúljon már a fáklyafény,
hogy jót akarjon társaságuk mindig is,
bátor fiakkal boldogítsa ezt a hont.
1047 (Kísérők kara)
S rivalogjon a tánc meg az ének!
November 29, 2017
Orestes's trial is a total scam. Orestes was either equally or *more* wrong in killing his mother Clytaemnestra than she was in killing her husband Agamemnon, Orestes's father.
Also, total sexist nonsense that the child doesn't share the mother's blood, and ridiculous set up having Athena- who didn't have a mother- judge the trial. The jury is obviously all male. And Agamemnon was such a bad father that he killed his own daughter.
Also, total sexist nonsense that the child doesn't share the mother's blood, and ridiculous set up having Athena- who didn't have a mother- judge the trial. The jury is obviously all male. And Agamemnon was such a bad father that he killed his own daughter.
January 23, 2016
Athena's manner of calming down the Furies reminded me of a spymaster trying to placate an agent he wants to turn. Again, misogynistic, pointlessly cleared up by divine intervention, Orestes is barely in the story. The trial seems a little pointlessly one-sided. I can now remember why I never finished reading this in college. The beginning of civilization is a little dull.
June 10, 2013
I read Robert Fagles' translation.
Eumenides not as bad as Agamemnon but not as good as The Libation Bearers.
The gods roles seems to me ridiculous, I know they play the big part in every Greek Drama, But as charachters in a drama they are silly.
On the other hand this part would be the most amazing when it presented on the theater.
Eumenides not as bad as Agamemnon but not as good as The Libation Bearers.
The gods roles seems to me ridiculous, I know they play the big part in every Greek Drama, But as charachters in a drama they are silly.
On the other hand this part would be the most amazing when it presented on the theater.
December 3, 2010
A real letdown of an ending to the trilogy. After all the drama of the first two, this one just turns it all into a big moralizing lesson on the justice system.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 278 reviews