Tragedy in the Oresteia
The human will desires transcendence. Instead of recognizing the physical and mental limits of our species, we labor to circumvent them. The desire for immanent achievement, transcendence and supremacy becomes especially apparent whenever man attempts to intervene against nature: in medicine, we attempt to secure immortality through antibiotics and surgery; in contemporary moral culture, we attempt to justify and defend sanguineous deeds of the past and present through constant objectification and qualification; and in psychology, we attempt to simultaneously separate and unite the brain and mind through psychoneurological principles. Mysteries of the natural universe are unhidden by the scientist; conventional societal customs no match for the renegade individual. The ideal of transcendence is further glorified in myth and bolstered in social culture: firefighters, who can control the uncontrollable, are deemed heroes and death camp survivors, who triumphed against the worst odds, are called heroic. The desire for transcendence is no longer different from the desire for progress or for whatever else a society might deem desirable. Transcendent ideals themselves—among them to be stronger and smarter, go higher and faster, live longer and happier—have become desired ends in social culture. As such, when we wish for progress and betterment we really wish for transcendence. Aeschylus’s Oresteia is a tragedy which reflects progress in its own right.
Early evidence of this transhumanist and thoroughly romantic modern human will, i.e., a will that is idealistic, intuitive and independently-critical, can be traced to ancient Greece. Cleisthenes’ establishment of a stable Athenian democracy in the early sixth century BCE marked a progressive revolution in political organization. Ancient Greeks from that point on recognized the novelty and significance of a political system which placed sovereignty in the hands of the collective individual. Athenian citizens grew comfortable in a democratic regime: with comfort came confidence, and with confidence came cockiness, insolence, and ebullient hope. Thus were sown the seeds of the western will.
Greek tragedy, which Aristotle claims evolved from hymn-like dithyrambs performed at festivals honoring the God Dionysus, negated the supremacy of the individual and denied man’s freedom from fate. The establishment of democracy was strong evidence that attested to the transcendental capabilities of the human will, but the tragic drama exposed several potential problems. Certain vague commonalities seemed to govern every man, and if man could not escape his own limits, especially those imposed by emotion, family, and duty, how could the individual will be truly supreme?
Throughout Aristophanes’ “Clouds” there is a constant battle between old and new. It makes itself apparent in the Just and Unjust speech as well as between father and son. Ultimately, Pheidippides, whom would be considered ‘new’, triumphs over the old Strepsiades, his father. This is analogous to the Just and Unjust speech. In this debate, Just speech represents the old traditions and mores of Greece while the contrasting Unjust speech is considered to be newfangled and cynical towards the old. While the defeat of Just speech by Unjust speech does not render Pheidippides the ability to overcome Strepsiades, it is a parallel that may be compared with many other instances in Mythology and real life.
In the trilogy Oresteia, the issues concerned are the transformation from vengeance to law, from chaos to peace, from dependence to independence, and from old to new. These four significant changes all take place throughout the play and are somewhat parallel to the transformations that were going on in Ancient Greece.
There may be no greater fact known than that of human beings seeking a purpose in this life. Are we here simply because of our parents meeting or are we here because God ordained it for some divine reason unfathomable by yourself, but seen by those in your community? What would the world be if Gandhi had not examined himself in his writings? Ultimately we will never know the consequences of unexamined lives because it is simply human nature to seek a purpose, no matter the situation you are born into; meaning, rather King or citizen we all seek to examine our lives to find reason. This brings us to Achilles, the main hero of Homer’s The Iliad and the life that he eventually found a purpose in. This essay will seek to explore through Socrates quotation, “The unexamined life is not wroth living” how Achilles longing for a purpose affected the Achaean community at large both militarily and politically.
In the ancient myths from the Aegean seas, much political theory is derived. Lessons on the dangers associated with monarchical political forms are brought to light. The connection between gender and power along with violence, war and necessity raise questions to enact a democracy and depersonalize the government.
Western thought and culture grew out of Greek ideals. Since “there is nothing new under the sun,” (Ecclesiastes 1:9) many of the ideals expressed by Homer, Sophocles, and Hesiod ring true for Westerners today. Part of the myth of a tragic hero includes a leadership position of some sort: often noble birth, kingship, or military leadership. Tragic plays like Oedipus Rex, Antigone, and the Iliad served as worship, entertainment, examples of virtue, and cautionary tales. Modern Americans can look back at such works and apply the ideas to selecting and serving as leaders on a national, community, or family level. Some of desirable qualities illustrated in Archaic and Classical Greek works include self-control, fairness, respect for moral law, service to one’s community, courage, and honor.
Jevons, Frank B. (1997) “In Sophoclean Tragedy, Humans Create Their Own Fate.” In Readings on Sophocles, edited by Don Nardo. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press
For Aristotle happiness is the criteria through which the natural goal or telos of a man is assessed (Roberts and Sutch, 2004: 51). Although the Greek word commonly translated as “happiness” is eudaimonia, it is a far more intricate concept than physical pleasure. Barnes describes Aristotle’s highest human good, eudaimonia, as ‘the activity of the soul in accordance with excellence’ (Barnes, 1982: 78). However, it begs the question as to how one becomes virtuous or excellent. In this way, there are disagreements as to what constitutes eudaimonia and the role of the political participation in order to attain it (Duvall and Dotson, 1998: 23). By establishing happiness as an inadequate translation for eudaimonia, this essay seeks to establish that happiness or eudaimonia does not entirely depend ‘upon citizenship or full membership of political society’ (Roberts and Sutch, 2004: 53).
Two lovers took their own lives to avoid the consequences, and in contrast while a man gouged his eyes out to deal with his flaw. Although Romeo and Juliet and Oedipus the King were great tragedies, Oedipus the King contains more of the tragic figures described in Aristotle’s definition. First, the protagonist endured uncommon suffering. Second, the tragic hero recognized the consequences of their actions and took responsibility for them. Third and lastly, the audience experienced catharsis. Ignorance and impulsiveness can cause one to stumble and it can ultimately lead to their fate.
An interesting and important aspect of this Greek notion of fate is the utter helplessness of the human players. No matter the choice made by the people involved in this tragedy, the gods have determined it and it is going to come to pass. T...
In the Greek play, the Oresteia, suffering acts as a vital role in the lives of the main characters. One character, the chorus, discusses suffering at great length. The chorus is made up of old men who were too old to fight against Troy, and who often give the audience an inside view to the actions happening on stage.
The cyclic thread of vengeance runs like wild fire through the three plays in Aeschylus’s Oresteia. This thread, with its complexity of contemporary and universal implications lends itself quite well to – in fact, almost necessitates – deeply interested study. While a brief summary of the Oresteia will inevitably disregard some if not much of the trilogy’s essence and intent, on the positive side it will establish a platform of characters, events, and motives with which this paper is primarily concerned. As such, I begin with a short overview of the Oresteia and the relevant history that immediately precedes it.
In Ancient Greece the existence of gods and fate prevailed. In the Greek tragedy King Oedipus by the playwright Sophocles these topics are heavily involved. We receive a clear insight into their roles in the play such as they both control man's actions and that challenging their authority leads to a fall.
Matthaei, Louise E. “The Fates, the Gods, and the Freedom of Man's Will in the Aeneid.” The
Jevons, Frank B. “In Sophoclean Tragedy, Humans Create Their Own Fate.” In Readings on Sophocles, edited by Don Nardo. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1997.
Aristotle once stated that, “But if happiness be the exercise of virtue, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be the exercise of the highest virtue; and that will be the virtue or excellence of the best part of us.” (481) It is through Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics that we are able to gain insight into ancient Greece’s moral and ethical thoughts. Aristotle argues his theory on what happiness and virtue are and how man should achieve them.