Aristotle, one of the most
versatile thinkers of the ancient world, presented the first technical study of
‘poetry’ in his work Poetics (335
B.C.). Though he has allocated some space for other genres, the core of Poetics is undoubtedly the discussion on
tragedy. Before going further into the
discussion, three salient issues on the Aristotelian theory on the perfect
tragedy should be set down:
a. Aristotle’s view on the perfect
tragedy is based on Oedipus Tyrannus
by Sophocles.
b. Aristotle shows a tendency of using
‘binary opposites’ in his definition of the perfect tragedy – qualities are mutually
exclusive.
c. Aristotle is not interested in the
impact of the tragedy on stage or the aspects related to the performance of a
tragedy.
Continuing the topic under
discussion, Aristotle in Poetics proposed the following definition that had
been the yardstick in measuring tragedy till the 18th century and
continues to exert a considerable influence even today:
“Well then, a tragedy is a mimesis of high,
complete action (of proper magnitude), in speech pleasurably enhanced, the
different kinds [of enchantment] occurring in separate sections in dramatic,
not narrative form, effecting through pity and fear the catharsis of such
emotions” (qtd. in Russell 97).
According to the definition, Aristotle’s
view on tragedy is built around the concepts, mimesis and catharsis;
all literature is mimesis
(imitation)- poets imitates life and produces textual mimesis and the reader is
inspired to imitate what s/he reads in the text (audience’s mimesis) which
creates pity and fear in her/his mind. Catharsis is the purgation of pity and
fear which leads to a pleasurable after effect. Tragic poetry allows the reader
to experience alternative and probable lives with aesthetic detachment which
enhance her/him emotionally and intellectually. Unlike Plato, Aristotle
believes that the ‘artistic taming of the horrible’ is good for the human
psyche.
Analyzing Aeschylus’s Agamemnon, one finds that the play
fulfils all the requirements Aristotle demands in a tragedy. The drama contains
“a high complete action (of proper magnitude)” which is neither trivial nor
vast- the fall of Agamemnon, and “rhythm and harmony of song”; “some parts (dialogues)
are in verse alone and others (choral odds) in song” (qtd. in Russell 97).
Agamemnon’s tragic flaw (hamartia) is
his overriding pride in his accomplishments. His fall, nevertheless, creates
pity for him and fear for the reader’s own vulnerability and mortality. These
feelings, intensified by the fates of Cassandra and Clytaemnestra, bring about
an emotional purging. In the end, the experience of reading/viewing Agamemnon, undoubtedly leads to an emotional
and an intellectual edification in the reader/viewer. This, in turn, creates a
healthy variety of pleasure in her/his mind.
As we have already
established the fact that Agamemnon possesses
the basic requirements of a tragic play, let us examine if it also has the qualities
that constitute a perfect tragedy. According to Aristotle, “A tragedy as a
whole will necessarily have six elements, the possession of which makes the
tragedy qualitatively distinct [from the other literary kinds]: they are plot,
the mimesis of character, verbal expression, mimesis of intellect, spectacle
and song writing” (qut. in Russell 97). Let us analyze these elements in
relation to Agamemnon to determine if
it is, in deed, a perfect tragedy.
01. Plot/ the first principle (mythos)
Aristotle says, “A tragedy is [by definition]
a mimesis not of people but of their
action and life” (qtd. in Russell 98). The mimesis
of action – the plot – is the ordering of the particular actions. Therefore, in
a perfect tragedy, the plot should be paramount.
A good plot contains a single
line of development that goes from good fortune to bad; the reversal of fortune
should arise from the arrangement of actions as is in Agamemnon - the king commits hybris and this allows Clytaemnestra
as the instrument of Fate to bring about the reversal of his fortune.
The action should also be a complete
action. The concept of completeness should be analyzed under four subheadings: completeness
in order, amplitude, unity, and in probability and necessary connection.
I. Completeness in order:
A perfect plot should have “a
beginning, middle, and an end” (qut. in Russell 100). Agamemnon begins with Clytaemnestra waiting for the arrival
of her husband; in the middle the king arrives, commits hybris and is murdered; the play ends with triumphant Clytaemnestra
proposing to Aegisthus that they should rule Argos as co-regents.
It must be noted that Agamemnon is the first play of a
trilogy. Consequently, within the play there are many links to the subsequent
plays, The Choephori and The Eumenides. Yet, in itself, Agamemnon is a self-contained whole that
does not require the other two plays to be meaningful.
When it
comes to the independence of plot, it does not mean that the play exist in a
vacuum. The story of Agamemnon is a part of the myth cycle of the returning (nostos) of the heroes of the Trojan War.
The poet has taken the material from the substantial fabric of the myth and
developed an independent unit out of it. Still, the poet, beyond doubt, depends
on the audience’s knowledge of the basic myth to a considerable degree for the
success of the play.
II. Completeness in amplitude:
Aristotle says that a tragedy
must have “sufficient amplitude to allow a probable or necessary succession of
particular action to produce a change from bad to good or from good to bad
fortune” (qtd. in Russell 101).
According to this statement,
the extent of the play is determined by the scope of the plot; therefore, it is
unrealistic to have a time limit for a play. Agamemnon is, in fact, one of the longest plays among the surviving
tragedies, but it contains no more than that can be easily embraced at one
sitting. In order to achieve this objective, Aeschylus has selected only what
is absolutely necessary of the entire myth of the return of Agamemnon. Events
and people (i.e. whereabouts of Electra who plays a key role in The Choephori) that are not strictly
necessary to convey the plot are deliberately excluded. Thereby, the focus is
unwaveringly fixed on the vital events and the characters, creating an unadulterated
impact on the reader/viewer.
III. Completeness in unity:
According to Aristotle a “
plot, being a mimesis of action, should be a mimesis of one action that a whole
one, with different sections so arranged that the wholeness is disturbed by the
transposition and destroyed by the removal of one of them” (qtd. in Russell
101). Therefore, each event in a perfect tragedy is located precisely within
its framework in such way that it cannot be shuffled or omitted without causing
a significant damage to the entire plot.
This criterion is very much
applicable to the plot of Agamemnon. The
watchman appears only once at the very beginning of the play, but there is no
question of the relevance of his soliloquy to the success of the play. It is the
watchman who sets the mood for the entire play and provides a powerful picture
of the formidable Queen Clytaemnestra in “whose woman’s heart/ A man’s will
nurses hope” (Vellacott 41). He reveals the ingenious method through which Clytaemnestra
learns about the fall of Troy
so that she would not be taken unawares by the return of her husband. The
watchman also broadly hints at the less-than-warm welcome in store for the
returning king. Therefore, it is essential that the watchman should deliver the
prologue.
Cassandra, sitting silently
on the carriage upon arrival, seems quite superfluous - at least in the text.
Her tragically majestic presence would undoubtedly present a greater impact on
stage. But the very next instance, Aeschylus needs her prophetic prowess to
reveal what is going on behind the closed doors of the palace and to keep the
events rolling. In effect, Cassandra links the past, the present and the future.
The poet also makes use of her dialogue with the Chorus of Elders to air the
contemporary views on sin/retribution and revenge/justice as groundwork for the
subsequent events.
Cassandra also presents a
foil to Clytaemnestra. While the Argive Queen rages against her fate and fights
it, the Trojan Princess calmly accepts a greater tragedy; she has lost her
family, home as well as her freedom, and she is about to be murdered in cold
blood.
The same concept of relevance
applies to Aegisthus as well. Though he appears at the very end of the drama
his presence is felt throughout. It is fit that he should play his role behind
the scene and appear on stage only after the deed is done.
Considering the above
evidence, it is clear that all events in Agamemnon
are absolutely necessary and they appear in the right order.
IV. Completeness in probability and
necessary connection:
M. E. Hubbard commenting on
the Aristotelian definition in Ancient
Literary Criticism says that the poet “cannot say anything that his
audience will not take to be relevant to the picture they assume he is
presenting” (qtd. in Russell102).
According to Aristotle, the
tragedian faced a unique situation in choosing material. The story and the characters
in his play, the heroes and the gods of the Greek mythology, were a part of the
state religion that was still in practice in his society. Therefore, a tragedy
could not destroy the basic framework of the received myth while it may change
the non-essential elements.
In Agamemnon, Aeschylus, maintains the basic myth. But unlike the
historian, who is duty-bound to include incidents that fit as well as those
that do not, the poet picks only those events that are conducive to his
purpose. Other than a passing reference to Theystes as the “the defiler of his
brother’s bed” by Cassandra, why Atreus chose to serve the abominable meal to
his brother is left unexplained without causing any damage to the plot (84). It
is taken for granted that the audience already knows the reason. Also, contrary
to the accepted myth, in Agamemnon,
Aegisthus is the full brother to the dead children. The reason for this is, while
Aegisthus’ parentage may be a critical issue in Theystes, it does not have the same implication to Agamemnon. So Aeschylus, by modifying
this minor fact, makes Aegisthus the rightful avenger of his brothers,
unburdened by an incestuous birth.
The element of probability
and necessity is strongest when the Chorus of Elders refuses to understand the
clues given by Clytaemnestra as to her intention to kill Agamemnon. She is
quite plain when she says:
“If the fleet sails free from the
taint of sin, the gods
May grant them safely to retrace
their outward course
Those whom no watchful anger of
forgotten deed
Waits to surprise with vengeance…” (54)
To this the chorus replies, “Madam, your words are like a man’s, both
wise and kind” (55). Taken independently, the response of the Chorus seems
quite ridiculous. But taken within the context of the play, the Chorus seems to
believe that upon his arrival, Agamemnon would take matters into his hand and
put Clytaemnestra back in her proper place. This understanding seems to prevent
the Elders from taking the Queen seriously, thus the patronizing reply quoted
above.
With regard to Cassandra’s
prophecies, it is almost absurd the way the Chorus fails to understand her. The
Trojan Prophetess, when driven to it, most emphatically says, “I say Agamemnon
shall lie dead before your eyes” (85). Still the Chorus would not believe her.
Here, if the Chorus understood her and took action, then the murder of
Agamemnon would not have taken place – the result would be a tragedy with a
different ending. Therefore, Aeschylus makes use of Apollo’s curse which not
only explains why the Chorus would not believe her but also creates a great
deal of pathos for the plight of the captive princess.
In conclusion of this section
of the analysis, it is clear that Agamemnon addresses all the requirements of completeness
in the plot in order, amplitude, unity and probable and necessary connection of
events.
The best kind of plot
according to Aristotle is the complex type “in which change of fortune is
accompanied by peripeteia (reversal)
or recognition (anagnorisis) or both…
The peripeteia and recognition should
arise just from the arrangement of the plot” (qtd. in Russell 104).
Despite its seemingly simple
linear plot, Agamemnon is a highly
complex play. It is true that the tragic hero himself experiences only an
almost imperceptible moment of peripeteia,
but it is this sheer brevity that makes the moment hauntingly piercing.
Agamemnon, who returns home unhurt from a ten-year-long war, seems have assumed
that the gods have forgiven him for the sin of shedding kindred blood in the
sacrifice of his daughter Iphigenia. He also seems to have disassociated
himself from the inherited family curse. In reality, this is natural for a man
at the height of glory. It is this supremely confident man who awaits the
ritual cleansing at the altar in his palace so he could resume the mantle of
kingship and live the rest of his life basking in the glory of his victory. And
it is also at this giddy pinnacle must Agamemnon have realized that nothing is
ever forgiven or forgotten. He must have understood that his hamartia has led him to commit sins of
his own free will which are compounded by the murder of Iphigenia, violation of
Cassandra, the family curse and destiny. The all too brief space of time
allocated to Agamemnon’s peripeteia
is different from the full-blown, drawn-out one experienced by Oedipus;
nevertheless, it is exactly the type of the peripeteia
required by the plot of Agamemnon. It
would be quite unrealistic for Aeschylus to allow Agamemnon to explore the turn
of his fortune and the reality of his fall in leisure as the plot requires him
to die, and die quickly; thus, the absence of an articulated anagnorisis following Agamemnon’s brief peripeteia.
In the play both Cassandra
and Clytaemnestra experience peripeteia
and anagnorisis. Cassandra’s
experience of the reversal and recognition is quite conspicuous. The Trojan
princess must have reached the height of her existence when she became a
priestess and a prophetess of Apollo, but has she consciously committed a sin
in refusing the Archer God: “I gave my word, and broke it – to the God of
Words” (84). She acknowledges her fate – “there is no escape, none – once the
hour has come” (87). The heroic manner in which Cassandra accepts her fate
elevates her even above Agamemnon, the tragic hero of the play.
Clytemnestra’s peripeteia and anagnorisis occur towards the very end of the play. The nervous
tension brought on by the single-handed execution of the murder plot, the
relentless accusations of the Chorus, the ‘death-song’ of Cassandra, and her
own awareness of how justice works have done the damage. The Queen realizes
that her comeuppance is not far off. This is why she, in preventing Aegisthus
from ordering the soldiers to attack the Elders, says:
“When this first harvest ripens
we’ll reap grief enough
Crime and despair are fed to
bursting; let s not
Plunge deeper still in blood” (100)
The result of the three sets
of peripeteia and anagnorisis is pity for all three characters. A man as great as
Agamemnon is brought low at the height of his might; Cassandra, a princess of
mighty Troy, enslaved, dies far away from home un-mourned; regal Clytaemnestra,
the wronged mother and scorned wife, according to Cassandra, would be killed by
her own son. Destiny spares no one, not even the larger-than-life individuals
like Agamemnon, Clytaemnestra, and Cassandra. This truth inevitably creates
fear in the mind of the reader leading to the catharsis of the both pity and fear.
Aristotle commenting on the source
of the perfect tragic effect says:
“Pity and fear can be elicited by the
spectacle, they can also be elicited by the arrangement of the particular
action [that make up the plot], and this is superior consideration and the sign
of a better plot…for the plot ought to be so composed that even without seeing
the action, a man who just hears what is going on shudders and feels pity
because of what happens” (qtd. in Russell 108).
In Agamemnon, denouement and the resulting pity and fear, as discussed
above, are unquestionably elicited by the arrangement of the actions of the plot;
characters only serve to deliver the requirements of the plot. It is inevitable
that the reader should feel pity for the destinies of all the characters in the
play and fear for the mutability of his/her own fortune in comparison despite the
passage of many centuries separating her/him from the characters in the play.
Aristotle also says that a
poet must look for cases where “the pathos involves people closely connected”
(qtd. in Russell 108). In Agamemnon,
a father kills a daughter to be in turn killed by the mother of the dead child.
There is also the implication that the mother herself will be murdered in
retaliation by her own son.
Aristotelian analysis divides
the plot as ‘complication’ and ‘dénouement’. In a perfect tragedy, the dénouement
is resultant of the reversal and/or recognition, and the best type of
recognition occurs when the tragic hero “might through ignorance intend to do
something irreparable, and then recognize the victim-to-be before doing it” and
thereby, “give up the course of action” (qtd. in Russell 109). But M. E.
Hubbard in a footnote to the quote points out that this type of situations lead
to happy endings as in Iphigenia in
Tauris of Euripides which in essence is a tragi-comedy.
He further adds that this alludes to a change in the theatre- tradition
from pure tragedy to tragi-comedy.
In Agamemnon, all actions are conscious decisions; the killer kills a
known victim with the full intention of seeing the action through to the bitter
end. This ‘discrepancy’ in the play, instead of reducing it, amplifies the
effect of the anagnorisis. If those
who are nearest and dearest wield a knife against one, then where can one turn
for a haven in the troubled waters of life?
02. Mimesis of Character (ethos)
To Aristotle, it is “[the
mimesis of] the moral character of the personages, namely that [in the play]
which makes us say that the agents have certain moral qualities” (qtd. in
Russell 97).
Tragic characters, according
to Aristotle, should be judged by two qualities – thought and action. The
qualities a person is born with and those s/he develops in the course of a
lifetime shape her/his thought while happiness or wretchedness, on the other
hand, is determined by her/his actions. As in Agamemnon, a good tragedy is mimesis
of those actions at a critical point.
A perfect tragedy has a ‘double
thread’ – two groups of people who meet with opposite ends due to the
differences in their nature- thought and action. The play is basically a
struggle (agon) between these two
character types. In Agamemnon, the central agon
is between Agamemnon and Clytaemnestra. In addition, if the chorus is to be
considered as an actor as Aristotle posits, then the Chorus of Elders become
party to a pair of agons with Clytaemnestra
and Cassandra. Though brief, the agon
between the Queen and Cassandra is also very important to the plot of the play.
Agamemnon is the tragic hero
as indicated by the title of the play. Aristotle, in defining the nature of the
tragic hero says: “He is one who is not pre-eminent in moral virtue, who passes
to bad fortune not through vice or wickedness, but because of some piece of
ignorance, and who is of high repute and great good fortune, like Oedipus and
Theystes and the splendid men of such families” (qtd. in Russell 106).
Agamemnon fits the
description on all but one count. He is a descendent of an established royal
line and had been the commander-in-chief of the army that defeated Troy. He enters the stage
at the height of his fortune. When it comes to ‘virtue’, one should be careful
not to cloud his/her vision with the current interpretation of the term. To the
Greeks of the Heroic Age, virtue equalled stature; therefore, whatever
Agamemnon did in his capacity as the king and the commander (as long as it does
not violate the divine code of justice) was right and good. At Chalkis, when
the fleet was prevented from sailing by the adverse winds sent by Artemis,
Agamemnon had to make a choice:
o
Sacrifice
Iphigenia and obtain fair winds, or
o
Give
up the expedition and disband the army
Agamemnon’s pride, his hamartia,
prevented him from making the second choice which was the ethically right one.
He was unwilling to disband the army due to the fear of earning a deserter’s
badge which would in turn force him to give up the command of the alliance.
Therefore, he rationalized sacrificing Iphigenia by saying:
“Their chafing rage demands it –
they are right
May good prevail, and justify my
dead!” (49)
Agamemnon failed to see that he had actually failed the test and by
making the wrong choice committed a sin that would make him ripe for retribution.
Vellacott in the introduction to The
Oresteian Trilogy says that the Chorus points out that Fate is not
concrete; instead, Fate gives man a choice, and invariably he chooses wrongly
due to his hamartia and commits a
sin. According to M. E. Hubbard, Aristotle points to hamartia as the cause of the misfortune of the tragic hero. In this
capacity, the outcome of the hamartia
has to fulfil two requirements:
- In order to avoid Justified Indignation in the audience at the undeserved misfortune of a good person, the hero should in some sense be responsible for his action
- To avoid Justified Pleasure in the audience at the deserved misfortune of a wicked person, the hero’s fate should be worse than what he deserved
Hamartia, in this respect, is a venal action the hero
is unaware of committing, for a sin committed with knowledge is also a crime.
Yet, Agamemnon cannot plead
ignorance in his defence; all four of his sins - sacrifice of Iphigenia,
defilement of Cassandra, inviting the gods to share his glory and treading on
the crimson silk cloth – are done with full knowledge. At the same time, it is
this awareness that makes the plight of the Argive King more poignant. It is
clear that Agamemnon is aware of the gravity of at least the last of his sins
when he says: “May no watchful envious god/ Glance from afar…” (75). But his
destiny and the in-built tragic flaw prevent him from reversing the course of
actions that is so obviously leading to his downfall.
Strangely
enough, both the Chorus and Cassandra do not seem to hold Agamemnon’s sins as
serious as the single act Clytaemnestra commits out of necessity as much as
from the desire to avenge her affronted wifehood and motherhood. The reason for
this the concept of royal goodness - as the king, Agamemnon will be excused of
many acts that would be frowned upon in others and still be called good.
Therefore, it is ironic that Agamemnon fails to draw the same amount of pity
Cassandra and Clytaemnestra draw. The reason for this lies in the way the
characters are depicted. The male is depicted as vainglorious and abrasive
while the females stand tragically noble. And this would be a good opportunity
to move the discussion to the four qualities required by Aristotle in the
characters of a good tragedy: moral goodness, suitability, life-likeness, and
consistency.
I. The character represented should be
morally good:
According to Aristotle, “The character represented will be good if the
choice is good” (qtd. in Russell 110). As the ‘goodness’ of Agamemnon is
already established, let us look at his queen. Clytaemnestra has been
unfaithful to her husband and kills him upon his return. This is hardly the
picture of a virtuous Greek woman. But a deeper examination of the portrayal of
the character of the Queen in the play shows that Clytaemnestra acts the way
she does out of necessity. As the mother of Iphigenia, it is Clytemnestra’s
duty to avenge her death. If she did not, the Avenging Furies would victimize
her.
Under these circumstances, it
is obvious Aeschylus does not propose to brand Clytaemnestra as a heartless villain.
As she aptly points out, “dressed in (her) form, a phantom/ Of vengeance has
taken revenge for sins old and new” (94). According to Aeschylus’ portrayal, Clytaemnestra
is ultimately an instrument of Justice, Furies, and Destiny; therefore, her
action, in itself, is not evil.
II. The character represented should be
suitable:
“The character represented is
brave (and therefore, meets the requirement of being morally good), but it is
not suitable for a woman to be brave or clever this way” (qtd. in Russell 110).
When examining Agamemnon, the king as
the conqueror of Troy is undoubtedly brave, therefore, morally good. The
watchman, the chorus and the herald make repeated references to Agamemnon’s
goodness. The herald says:
“To you and every Argive citizen,
Agamemnon
Brings light in darkness” (61)
According to Aristotle’s definition, his goodness and stature makes
Agamemnon ideal hero material.
Aeschylus’s female characters,
on the other hand, do not comply with the Aristotelian definition of moral
goodness. Both Clytaemnestra and Cassandra are fully developed tragic
characters. The Argive queen is intelligent and assertive. Clytaemnestra by
nature is not someone who would accept being wronged or belittled lying down.
As depicted by Aeschylus, the heroic spirit of her age is very much alive in
the Queen; unfortunately, being a woman, Clytaemnestra does not have the means
to explore it. Aeschylus repeatedly
proves Clytemnestra’s superiority over the other characters - with the possible
exception of Cassandra - through out the play. The Argive Queen is a brilliant
tactician. She knows her weaknesses and strengths. In the male dominated world
she is a part of, Clytaemnestra needs the helping hand of a man, and who would
be better than Aegisthus, another victim of the House of Atreus? Through her
illicit affair with Aegisthus, Clytaemnestra acquires a helpmate in carrying
out her revenge plot. Nothing is left to chance; Clytaemnestra devices a method
to learn of the fall of Troy
in advance and weaves the special robe that would entrap her husband for his
execution upon his arrival. It is the Queen that compels Agamemnon to walk on
the crimson silk despite his apparent reluctance. Towards the end, she almost
compels the Chorus to acknowledge that it is just for a sinner to be killed. The
play closes with Clytaemnestra proposing to Aegisthus that they should be co-regents.
P. Vellacott in the introduction to The Oresteian Trilogy says, “The deepest
spring of her tragedy is the knowledge that she, who has it in her to be the
head of a kingdom, if need be, as well as of a family, can be freely ignored as
a wife and outraged as a mother by a man she knows her inferior” (22).
Cassandra proves her astuteness
when she alone realizes the real meaning behind Clytemnestra’s victory cry. She
is brave in the way she calmly accepts the inevitable and walks into the palace
to meet her death: “I have done with tears, I will endure my death” (87).
The fact that female
characters do not meet the specification given by Aristotle at a much later
date does not diminish the stature of Agamemnon
as an ideal tragedy. A powerful man like Agamemnon needs an equally or more
powerful enemy to bring about his downfall, and Clytaemnestra – said to be a
daughter of Zeus in some myths – is just that, a strong enemy who
incidentally is a woman.
III. The character should be lifelike:
Here The
Poetics does not specify what Aristotle meant by the term ‘life-like’. In
his discussion on poetic imagination Aristotle says, “(F)or given natural
endowments, people who actually feels passion are the most convincing” (qtd. in
Russell 113). All major characters in Agamemnon
have the larger-than-life quality inherent in ideal tragic characters. Despite
this, Agamemnon, Clytaemnestra, and Cassandra are compellingly lifelike in the
way they think, speak, and behave.
Agamemnon as a returning hero
of the Trojan War is full of himself and invites gods to share his glory. The
abandoned wife and the wronged mother in Clytaemnestra thirst for revenge. In
Cassandra, the final rebellion against Apollo when she tramples on her
prophetic insignia is quite natural. After all, what can be more frustrating
than to know everything to happen and not being able to prevent even one’s own
death?
IV. The character should be consistent:
“In the representation of
character…one ought to look for the necessary or probable, so that it is
necessity or probable that a person like this speaks or acts as he does” (qtd.
in Russell 110/11).
Looking at Agamemnon, all characters match this
requirement. Agamemnon’s behaviour as the proud, blustering patriarch of the
House of Atreus - as seen in the way he invites the gods to share his glory and
the dismissive tone he uses to address his wife - is quite consistent
throughout the parts he physically appears. Aeschylus’s characterization of
Agamemnon is consistent with that of Homer in The Iliad and The Odyssey,
too. Any sense of inconsistency is due to the fact that the reality of
Agamemnon does not match the extraordinary hero-king created by the watchman,
the chorus, and the herald through the images of hunting lions and soaring
eagles. When it comes to their rulers, people often seem to blur the difference
between the reality and the ideal.
The caricatures of Cassandra
and Clytaemnestra found in the myths are shaped by Aeschylus into full-bodied,
dynamic characters. Yet, they retain the essential qualities that have been
allocated to them in the myths. Clytaemnestra is the vengeful, adulterous wife
and Cassandra continues to be the unfortunate priestess of Apollo whose
prophecies no one believes.
Aristotelian definition of a
perfect tragedy requires the dénouement of the plot to arise from the mimesis
of character, not from dues-ex-machina.
Dependence on such external features, according to the critic, would ally the
plot with the spectacle rather than poetry which is usually a mark of poor
craftsmanship. In this respect, in Agamemnon,
Cassandra’s prophesies given to her by Apollo can be construed as a type of dues-ex-machina, but a closer
examination reveals that the prophecies do not bring about any change in the
plot proper. Their only function is to create tension and pathos as events
spiral into a culmination behind the scene. Ultimately, the denouement in Agamemnon arises from the actions of the
characters whose fates are locked on a collision course and not by the caprice
of any god that descends timely from the episkene.
03. Mimesis of Intellect (dianoia)
“Mimesis,” according to
Aristotle, “is their (characters’) ability to say what the situation requires
…those passages in which they prove that something is or is not the case or
deliver themselves of some general statement” (qtd. in Russell 99).
The main instrument used in
producing the mimesis of intellect is speech. “Its sections are proof and
disproof, rousing emotions (pity, fear, anger, and so on), making a thing look
important or unimportant” (qtd. in Russell 116). According to M. E. Hubbard,
here, Aristotle is referring to the characters making use of persuasive
language in order to elicit a specific reaction from other characters. According
to the definition, when speech is used, effects should emerge from the speech
itself without the necessity of accompanying actions.
In Aeschylus’s plays, in
general, the mimesis of intellect is the main tool used by characters to elicit
reactions from one other. In fact, Aeschylus uses both speech and the absence
of speech as tools. Clytaemnestra and Cassandra’s long silence upon entering
the stage are ridiculed by Euripides in Aristophanes’ Frogs, but a closer examination of the plot reveals that their
silence in fact speaks volumes. Clytaemnestra stands imperially aloof at her
prayers and speaks only when she chooses to despite earnest requests to do so
by the Chorus of Elders. Thereby, the Queen asserts her superiority over the
Elders. The reader/viewer realizes that Clytaemnestra is no weeping Penelope
but a strong assertive woman. Cassandra stays tragically silent among the booty
on the second chariot that arrives with Agamemnon and refuses to speak even
when directly addressed to by Clytaemnestra who by then has outsmarted the hero
himself. This is the only incident in the play in which Clytaemnestra is truly
bested.
When they choose to speak,
all characters use language in such a way that the desired effect is created by
the spoken word alone without the necessity of the support of accompanying
actions. The best example in the play for mimesis of intellect is the agon between Agamemnon and Clytaemnestra
between lines 857 – 957. Here, Clytaemnestra uses a series of arguments and
counter-arguments to convince Agamemnon that he should walk on the crimson silk
cloth. Embedded in her lines, are messages that should rouse fear and call for
caution in anyone who is a little less sure of himself than Agamemnon. The
reader/viewer, on the other hand, is all too aware of the rage of the Queen
hidden behind the highly metaphorical utterances. Between lines 856 – 892,
Clytaemnestra refers to Agamemnon’s death five times and she ends by saying:
“……….Justice herself
Shall lead him to a home he never hoped
to see
All other matters fore thought,
never lulled by sleep,
Shall order justly as the will of
Heaven decrees” (73)
Upon being snubbed by
Agamemnon, she resumes the seemingly subservient persuasion and talks of
“purple dye” and “stores of crimson” – which according to Vellacott, are
references to blood and the family curse. Towards the end, she talks of “unripe
grape” being pressed to make wine – a reference to the sacrifice of Iphigenia.
The entire sequence of exchanges between the king and the queen is a test of
wills, and ultimately, despite his blustering, it is Agamemnon who gives in.
according to P. Vellacott, Clytaemnestra achieves three objectives by making
Agamemnon walk on the crimson silk:
a. Establishes her superiority over her
husband
b. Makes Agamemnon feel guilty
c. Makes the audience aware that the
ultimate responsibility of the fate of Agamemnon lies in his own actions
Clytaemnestra once again uses
her intellect to bend the Chorus of Elders to listen to her side of the story
in their exchange of words after the murder. In the end the Chorus almost
concedes:
“Reproach answer reproach; truth
darkens still
She strikes the striker; he who
dares to kill
Pays the full forfeit. While Zeus
holds his throne,
This maxim holds on earth: the sinner
dies” (96)
Cassandra’s futile efforts to
make the Chorus see the impending disaster and their subsequent bewilderment are
also examples of mimesis of intellect.
The chorus through their long
choral odds and incessant questioning irritate both Clytaemnestra and Cassandra
and make them speak; their conversations are means through which a lot of
information on their state of mind and intentions come into light.
04. Verbal Expression (lexis)
Composition of the verse part
of the dialogue is called the verbal expression. According to Aristotle,
elements, syllables, linking words, articulatory words, nouns, terminations and
statements are the parts constituent of verbal expression. Verbal expression is
good, according to Poetics, if
the poetry involved is “clear without being mean” (qtd. in Russell 121). In
order to achieve clarity devoid of meanness, the poet should strive for a
proper mixture of strange expressions (dialect terms, metaphors, etc.) and the
standard words. This way, strange expressions will keep the style from being
commonplace and the standard words would help to maintain the clarity.
As we are dealing with a
translation of the Agamemnon, it is
unproductive to analyze the elements, syllables, linking words, etc. of the English
text in this regard. Yet, it is a credit to the skills of the translators that
some of the often talked about Aeschylian grandeur in verbal expression has
survived the translation for the gratification of the readers who are not
conversant in the language of the original text. As a reference to what the
other poets thought of the verbal expression of Aeschylus’ dramas, it is worth
looking at Euripides’ criticism of Aeschylus in the Frogs for redundancy and bombast.
Nevertheless, there is one aspect
which falls under strange expressions, that can be examined for its
effectiveness even in the translated form, and that is the use of imagery, especially
metaphors and similes. According to Aristotle, the use of metaphor is the only
aspect of verbal expression that cannot be learnt; it is something inherent in
a poet. Aeschylus is clearly a poet that does not suffer from a dearth in this
respect, for he uses a large number of metaphors and similes that quite
majestically and clearly drives home the desired effect. One of the most
chilling metaphors used by Clytaemnestra refers to the impending doom of her
husband:
“…but when Zeus
From the unripe grape presses his
wine, then through the house
Heat dies, and coolness comes, as
through this royal door
Enters its lord, perfected, to
receive his own” (74)
Later on Clytaemnestra compares Cassandra to a newly captured wild mare
when she refuses to answer her or get off the carriage:
“Yet has not sense enough to accept
her owner’s bit
Till she has frothed her rage out
from a bloody mouth” (79)
Cassandra’s analysis of happiness also falls under the use of metaphor:
“…..man’s happiest hours
Are pictures drawn in shadow. Then
ill fortune comes,
And with two strokes the wet sponge
wipes the drawing out
And grief itself’s hardly more
pitiable than joy” (88)
As it is beyond my capacity
to do justice to this section of the argument at present due to lack knowledge
in the original Greek text, let us turn towards the remaining sections.
To Aristotle the art of
tragedy is inherent in the structure of the written text; therefore, he does
not consider the performative context of a tragedy as important. According to this concept, both song writing (melos) and spectacle (opsis) are devices that cater to
pleasure alone, therefore, they do not have much in common with the art of
poetry. As a result, Aristotle does not say much about song writing and
spectacle in his analysis of the elements that constitute a perfect tragedy.
Coral odds make up the entirety
of song writing (melos) in tragedy. Aristotle
considers the treatment of the chorus as a necessary element of a perfect
tragedy. According to his definition, “one should regard the chorus too as one
of the actors, and as a part of the whole and taking part in the action” (qtd.
in Russell 116). This is true of the chorus of Agamemnon. Typical of Aeschylus’ plays, the Chorus of Elders enjoy
the loin’s share of the 1673–line drama. They enter just after the entrance of
Clytaemnestra; briefly leave to mark the passage of time between the sighting
of the beacons and the arrival of the king, and immediately return just before
the arrival of the herald. Thereafter, the chorus stays till the end of the
play. Agamemnon’s chorus mostly speak
as a unit in long beautifully crafted choral odds. They use these odds to
convey the poet’s philosophy/world view, give background information, warn/
encourage characters, etc. Through their interactions with the characters, the
chorus assists the progress of the play from one stage to another. Consequently,
the role of the chorus, as Aristotle defines, is as essential to the play as
any of the other characters.
According to Poetics, the spectacle is the least to
do with the art of poetry. The reason for this is that the art of the stage
designer adds more to the excellence of the spectacle than the poet does. For
Aristotle special effects such as costumes, sounds, etc. cannot make up for a
bad plot.
Agamemnon,
beyond doubt, fits the Aristotelian requirement of non reliance on song writing
and spectacle. The text, as amply proven by the heated discussions it initiated
in WCC 201 lectures on the drama, does not require a public performance,
players or the art of the stage designers; the written word itself, through the
sheer power of the plot and characterization, carries the reader along and
creates a stage in his/her mind’s eye where the play comes to vibrant
life. This is clearly pointed out by the
relative scarcity of the stage instructions included in the text itself.
Aeschylus obviously relies very little on the stage craft to convey his fare.
Props such as the small mattress, lights, sacrifice things, two chariots and
spoils of war, crimson silk cloth, emblem of Cassandra, the bloody weapon and
bodies wheeled out on the ekkyklema
undoubtedly would be impressive on stage, but their absence does not reduce the
strength of the poet’s delivery whatsoever in Agamemnon. Moreover, Agamemnon
does not make use of the spectacle to bring about the resolution; the plot inexorably
moves towards the denouement on its own strength.
Lastly, Aristotle says that a
perfect tragedy should be a combination of the four subspecies of tragedy:
a. complex tragedy
b. tragedy of pathos
c. tragedy of character
d. tragedy of spectacle
Agamemnon does combine a fair dose of all four of the types of
tragedies listed above. It has, as discussed above, a complex plot that
contains not one but three peripeteia;
like Ajax of Sophocles, the play
contains ample quantities of tragedy of pathos and character. The sight of
triumphant Clytaemnestra wielding a bloody knife standing over the pitiful
remains of her victims should add a healthy dose of spectacle to the play
despite the lack of gods descending from above and ghosts appearing from below.
Taking all the above discussed features such
as the excellence in plot, the mimesis of character, the verbal expression, and
the mimesis of intellect and the relative unimportance placed on the spectacle
and song writing, it is patent that Agamemnon
is a perfect tragedy. Any ‘discrepancies’ one may note in Aeschylus’ play arise
from the three points stated at the very beginning of the discussion which are
actually weaknesses of the Aristotelian model of a perfect tragedy according to
many critics such as M. E. Hubbard.
a. By presenting Oedipus, the King as his ideal, Aristotle enters the discussion with
a prejudice which is quite crippling in a highly individualistic field such as
drama.
b. Secondly, discrepancies also arise
from the mutually exclusive nature of Aristotelian criteria - Clytaemnestra
cannot be a woman and be heroic at the same time.
c. Thirdly, Aeschylus has included features
such as the majestic silent figures of Clytaemnestra and Cassandra, the sight
of the booty piled up on the chariot, and Agamemnon walking towards his doom on
the crimson carpet that are under Aristotelian model would be listed as irrelevant
performative aspects. A closer examination would reveal that these features, in
truth, enrich the drama instead of reducing its quality.
Therefore, dissimilarities the play display with regard mimesis of
character, placement of multiple peripeteia
ands anagnorisis, etc to the
Aristotelian model, in reality, adds to the success of the play rather than
reducing its quality as a perfect tragedy.
Works Cited
Aeschylus. The Oresteian Trilogy.
Trans. Philip Vellacott. Middlesex: Penguin, 1968.
Mathews, Roy T., and F. Dewitt
Platt, Readings
in the Western Humanities. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 2004.
Russell, D. A., and M. Winterbottom.
ed. Ancient Literary Criticism. Oxford: Clarendon, 1978.
Other Reference Material
“Agamemnon” <http://classics.uc.edu/~johnson/tragedy/summaries/agamemnon.html> “Agamemnon” <http://www.theatrehistory.com/ancient/bates021b.html>
“Aristotle. Poetics. Trans. S. H. Butcher. London:
Macmillan, 1932.
“The
Oresteia: Introductory Note ” <http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/literature/Agamemnon-The-Choephori-and-The-Eumenides-Summary-and-Analysis-The-Oresteia-Introductory-Note.id-231,pageNum-18.html>
“The Plot Of
Aeschylus's Agamemnon Based On Aristotle's Poetics” <http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Plot-Aeschyluss-Agamemnon-Based-Aristotles-Poetics/173290>
.jpg)
just amazing thank you so much
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete