Aeschylus’ Oresteia provides illustrations of several characteristic features of tragic myth. First, the trilogy exemplifies tragedy’s general practice of inspiring reflection upon fundamental cultural values by dramatizing moments of violent conflict and crisis. In the first play Clytemnestra murders her husband Agamemnon and defends her act as retribution for the murder of their daughter. In the second Orestes is obligated to honor his dead father by murdering his mother and her accomplice. And in the third play Orestes stands trial against the Furies on charges of matricide. Together these three depictions of conflict examine failed kinship relations, competing claims of maternal and paternal authority, differing conceptions of justice, and the community’s power to intervene in private disputes.
Secondly, the characters and plot of the Oresteia, as of Greek tragedy in general, are partly traditional and partly invented. The Odyssey repeatedly invokes Agamemnon’s homecoming and Orestes’ vengeance as potential models for Odysseus’ return and Telemachus’ maturity to manhood, thus recognizing these stories as already firmly established several centuries before the production of the Oresteia. Fragments of the epic Returns (see Proclus’ plot summary, in West 2003) and the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women (fr. 23a.27-30 Merkelbach and West) also preserve references to Orestes, and in the early sixth century Stesichorus composed an extended lyric account of Orestes’ matricide and subsequent confrontation with the Furies (fr. 219 Page). Aeschylus adopted from these earlier poets not only a basic plot outline, but also specific narrative details. A prototype of the watchman who opens Agamemnon appears already in Odyssey 4 (524-28), and Stesichorus’ poem provided a model for
Clytemnestra’s prophetic dream in Libation Bearers. Aeschylus’ own contributions to the mythic tradition, on the other hand, include major plot innovations such as the reunion of brother and sister at the tomb of Agamemnon, possibly the introduction of Electra herself, and the resolution of Orestes’ conflict with the Furies in an Athenian court of law.
Third, the myth treated in the Oresteia is culturally authoritative and prestigious not simply because it had been recounted by preceding poets, but because of the wider cultural significance of its subjects. Tragedy is populated by characters of greater than normal social stature, characters whose ancestry, political power, and personal achievements commanded respect. The Greeks regarded many of these figures not as fictional poetic creations, but as semidivine heroes of the distant past. And while not all of them merited emulation, many were judged worthy of veneration through sacrifice and other ritual observances. Herodotus records that the Spartans, acting on advice from the Delphic oracle, retrieved the bones of Orestes from Tegean territory as a prerequisite to their conquest of this enemy in the middle of the sixth century (1.68). This tale implies the existence of an Orestes cult at Sparta and reflects the belief that after death the heroes exercised a talismanic power to protect and to harm. Aeschylus’ drama accords Orestes a similarly privileged cultural status. Apollo’s patronage and Athena's intervention alone identify him as an extraordinary mortal, but Orestes' promise to punish from the grave any Argive who raises arms against Athens and to bless those who support Athens (Eumenides 767-74) boldly anticipates his eventual status as a cult hero with power to harm and to help. Agamemnon too, incidentally, enjoys a form of hero-worship in Libation Bearers, when son and daughter honor their father at his tomb and seek his aid in their struggle against Clytemnestra. Moreover, the drama regards Orestes’ confrontation with the Eume-nides as paradigmatic and foundational, serving to establish both the Athenian court of the Areopagus (482-88, 570-74, 681-710) and the shrine of the Eumenides (804-7, 927-29). Similarly, a myth first attested in Euripides’ Iphigenia among the Taurians explains the practice of drinking from individual rather than shared vessels at the Athenian Anthesteria festival as ritual commemoration of Orestes' visit to Athens (947-60), when the pollution of his matricide barred him from participating in communal activities.
Finally, tragedy represents a contemporary, predominantly Athenian appropriation and reconfiguration of myth. The Oresteia celebrates the city of Athens as a distinctive site of conflict resolution, a city that tames violence with persuasion and transforms the weaknesses of other states into its own strengths. Aeschylus' choice of the Areopagus as the setting for conflict resolution alludes conspicuously to recent political controversy over the functions appropriate to this ancient court (see Debnar, chapter 1 in this volume). While conservative aristocratic forces had advocated wider powers for the largely aristocratic institution, progressive democratic forces wished to restrict the court's jurisdiction - a dispute evoked by Athena's establishment of the Areopagus court and by the Furies' initial rejection of its authority. More generally, the contrast between the austere older Furies and the innovative younger gods (77879) recalls the continual political opposition of conservative and progressive elements in fifth-century Athens, and the ultimately peaceful resolution of the mythic dispute to the satisfaction of all involved suggests a hope that present-day Athens too can peacefully accommodate the differing political views of its inhabitants. In addition,
Orestes’ pledge of continued friendship with Athens (762-74) provided mythic confirmation of a contemporary military alliance between Athens and Argos. While not all dramas praise Athens or mirror Athenian affairs so overtly, most view myth from a distinctly fifth-century perspective, and democratic institutions and Athenian values, though not always part of the plot machinery, are frequently invoked.
World History
