What do you think?
Rate this book
Oresteia #2
Choephori
This new edition of Choephori takes into account the abundance of recent scholarship on Aeschylus' work. A. F. Garvie's introduction discusses the pre-Aeschylean Orestes tradition in literature and art, the character of the play itself--its ideas, imagery, structure, and staging--and the state of the transmitted text. This edition reprints the Greek text and critical apparatus from the well-received Oxford Classical Text, edited by D. L. Page, and includes 350 pages of commentary devoted to problems of interpretation, style and dramatic technique.
456 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 459
31 people are currently reading
2,237 people want to read
About the author
Aeschylus
1,569 books1,062 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 254 reviews
April 22, 2015
The Course of The Curse
In The Choephori, the bloodshed begun in the first play is continued (see Agamemnon for details, and for a discussion on translations). The theme of revenge and blood-curse continues to haunt the House of Atreus. At first glance it might seem as if there is indeed no end to this recurring tragedy that has been playing itself out in these intrigue-filled halls, but despite all the mirroring Aeschylus effects between the first and second plays (both have legitimate avenging missions, both weave a web of deceit, both murders the unsuspecting, both murderers are accompanied by unidimensional accomplices, both murders leave everlasting stains, both think that the buck will stop with them) that is supposed to show the inevitability of this tragic course/curse with no scope for a resolution, there are significant differences:
1. Clytaemestra acted alone, under her own sense of right and wrong; Orestes acts under the express direction and protection of Apollo himself.
2. Clytaemestra makes a token gesture of atonement by promising to give up her wealth but instead establishes a tyranny; Orestes is racked by guilt and renounces his position and wealth to atone for his crime. (I wonder who ruled the kingdom in his absence...)
3. Clytaemestra defends her actions and takes no steps to alleviate them by rituals, etc. until a nasty dream shakes her up; Orestes accepts his guilt immediately and takes protection under Apollo and does all the ritual cleansing and prostrations required.
4. Clytaemestra is probably egged on by Aegisthus's greed and allows him to benefit by her actions. Orestes turns to Pylades just once who only repeats Apollo's words and has no personal stake in the business. (though could it be that he becomes the regent in Orestes absence?)
5. Clytaemestra never hesitates in her deed of revenge and as an add-on murders an innocent (?) Cassandra too; Orestes shows his reluctance till he very last moment and had to be driven to his deed. He murders only the expressly guilty. (One has to wonder if Apollo was in fact avenging Cassandra and not Agamemnon!)
6. Most importantly Clytaemestra thinks she can be the final arbiter while Orestes is willing to allow himself to be judged by greater powers, be it the Gods, or the Law.
All this allows for hope that the ending of this second installment, of Orestes' story, and the punishment for his crime need not be externally imposed but might in fact be sanctioned by this modern man himself.
How exactly this will play out Aeschylus leaves for his climactic play, but the Greeks of his time would have been in no doubt as to where it was all leading and would have been eagerly awaiting the mythical re-imagination/show-down it would entail. Society is progressing, and like in Hegel it was all going to culminate in the Perfection of the Present!
January 4, 2024
they should perhaps just perhaps stop murdering and cursing each other 🙃 just a silly little suggestion
May 11, 2022
این کتاب دومین کتاب از سه گانهی اورستیای آیسخولوسه و داستانش کاملاً با داستان الکترای اوریپید (و احتمالاً الکترای سوفوکل... چون که هنوز اون رو نخوندم.) برابری میکنه. تنها تفاوتی که داره اینه که اوریپید داستان رو براساس رخدادهایی که برای دختر آگاممنون، الکترا اتفاق میفته تعریف میکنه اما آیسخولوس بیشتر به برادرش، اورستوس میپردازه. به طور کلی هم نمایشنامهی اوریپید بسیار چفت و بستدارتر و قشنگتره، البته باز هم میگم آیسخولوس اولین درامنویس بزرگ تاریخ جهانه که ما اثری ازش در دست داریم و مطمئناً در حال آزمون و خطاهای خودشون بودند.
جدای از همهی اینا، عمر آقای عبدالله کوثری دراز باشه و همیشه در سلامتی به سر ببرند و ترجمههای زیبا بکنند تا ما لذت ببریم.
جدای از همهی اینا، عمر آقای عبدالله کوثری دراز باشه و همیشه در سلامتی به سر ببرند و ترجمههای زیبا بکنند تا ما لذت ببریم.
August 12, 2024
“Think of all men as your enemies rather than the gods!”
Thus Pylades to Orestes when the latter, on the point of killing Clytemnestra, hesitates and asks if he is really justified to commit the great crime of matricide. He points out to the dithering doombringer that Apollo himself revealed Clytemnestra’s murder of Agamemnon in the Oracle of Delphi and that Orestes has taken a pledge to be an instrument of revenge. The Libation Bearers is the second play of Aeschylus’s Oresteia, and on the surface, it seems to follow the same pattern as its predecessor: Somebody is killed in revenge for some wicked deed they have done. In Agamemnon, Clytemnestra kills her husband because he sacrificed their daughter Iphigenia in order to placate Artemis into allowing the Danaan fleet to proceed towards Troy, and in the second play, Orestes kills his mother and her lover Aegisthus for the cowardly murder of Agamemnon in his bath. And yet, there are also differences.
To begin with, Clytemnestra, who boasts that she can ”plan like a man” [1], decides on her own, or is egged on by Aegisthus, to murder her husband, whereas Orestes is advised by the Oracle of Delphi to avenge his father. Admittedly, quite often people’s gods or their oracles tell them to do what they have been inclined to do, anyway, and Orestes also voices his anger at being ”deprived of my property” but selfish motives do not stand in the foreground as is the case with his mother. From the moment he has taken the vow at the Oracle, he feels, he is no longer at liberty to back down but still, whereas Clytemnestra never thinks twice, Orestes has to wrestle with his own doubts. The same is true of Electra, who eventually confirms her brother in his course, when we find her praying at her father’s grave, doing the honours at her mother’s belated behest, and wondering what words she should use – words of pacification or words of exhortation for retribution. The Libation Bearers allows us to look into Orestes and Electra’s minds and find them trying to mediate a conflict of values, which never happens in Clytemnestra’s mind.
Another point is that Greek audiences probably knew that, for all it was worth, Iphigenia ultimately acquiesced in being sacrificed and that, Artemis relenting, the goddess replaced the girl with a hind in the nick of time and spirited Iphigenia away to Crimea where she became a priestess. This knowledge would have made Agamemnon’s deed seem less reprehensible in the eyes of a contemporary audience than that of the king’s wife.
Be that as it may, at the end Orestes can only lose, or “suffer and learn”, and he quickly falls prey to the Furies that veil him in madness, thus pointing towards the final part, The Eumenides.
[1] In a way, Clytemnestra’s boast reminded me of Lady Macbeth’s invocation to those ”spirits That tend on mortal thoughts” to “unsex” her there, as much as the entire plot of The Oresteia seems to be at the bottom of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, only the Danish prince is a lot more sceptical than the protagonist here.
Thus Pylades to Orestes when the latter, on the point of killing Clytemnestra, hesitates and asks if he is really justified to commit the great crime of matricide. He points out to the dithering doombringer that Apollo himself revealed Clytemnestra’s murder of Agamemnon in the Oracle of Delphi and that Orestes has taken a pledge to be an instrument of revenge. The Libation Bearers is the second play of Aeschylus’s Oresteia, and on the surface, it seems to follow the same pattern as its predecessor: Somebody is killed in revenge for some wicked deed they have done. In Agamemnon, Clytemnestra kills her husband because he sacrificed their daughter Iphigenia in order to placate Artemis into allowing the Danaan fleet to proceed towards Troy, and in the second play, Orestes kills his mother and her lover Aegisthus for the cowardly murder of Agamemnon in his bath. And yet, there are also differences.
To begin with, Clytemnestra, who boasts that she can ”plan like a man” [1], decides on her own, or is egged on by Aegisthus, to murder her husband, whereas Orestes is advised by the Oracle of Delphi to avenge his father. Admittedly, quite often people’s gods or their oracles tell them to do what they have been inclined to do, anyway, and Orestes also voices his anger at being ”deprived of my property” but selfish motives do not stand in the foreground as is the case with his mother. From the moment he has taken the vow at the Oracle, he feels, he is no longer at liberty to back down but still, whereas Clytemnestra never thinks twice, Orestes has to wrestle with his own doubts. The same is true of Electra, who eventually confirms her brother in his course, when we find her praying at her father’s grave, doing the honours at her mother’s belated behest, and wondering what words she should use – words of pacification or words of exhortation for retribution. The Libation Bearers allows us to look into Orestes and Electra’s minds and find them trying to mediate a conflict of values, which never happens in Clytemnestra’s mind.
Another point is that Greek audiences probably knew that, for all it was worth, Iphigenia ultimately acquiesced in being sacrificed and that, Artemis relenting, the goddess replaced the girl with a hind in the nick of time and spirited Iphigenia away to Crimea where she became a priestess. This knowledge would have made Agamemnon’s deed seem less reprehensible in the eyes of a contemporary audience than that of the king’s wife.
Be that as it may, at the end Orestes can only lose, or “suffer and learn”, and he quickly falls prey to the Furies that veil him in madness, thus pointing towards the final part, The Eumenides.
[1] In a way, Clytemnestra’s boast reminded me of Lady Macbeth’s invocation to those ”spirits That tend on mortal thoughts” to “unsex” her there, as much as the entire plot of The Oresteia seems to be at the bottom of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, only the Danish prince is a lot more sceptical than the protagonist here.
November 27, 2020
Dopo la noia dell'Agamennone, per me Eschilo si è riscattato con quest'opera. Dialoghi densi di furore e vendetta, colmi di sentimenti contrastanti e tipici di una famiglia che porta con sé l'eco di una colpa divina. Veramente intensa e piacevole da leggere.
July 10, 2018
"a wise messenger makes a crooked message straight"
February 1, 2021
Drugi deo jedine preživele trilogije antičkih tragedija. Dakle, Agamemnon se vratio u Arg iz Trojanskog rata, ali pored slave, u kupatilu ga dočeka i supruga (Klitemestra) sa sekirom u ruci. Ubija ga zato što je njihovu ćerku žrtvovao bogovima. Preuzima presto i tu smo ostali na kraju Agamemnona.
Pokajnice počinju Orestovim povratkom iz prognanstva i njegovim susretom sa sestrom na očevom grobu. Elektra ne može da voli mrtvog oca pošto joj je ubio sestru Ifigeniju, ne može da voli majku pošto joj je ubila oca, ostao joj je samo Orest. Oboje žele pravdu, a pravda dolazi kroz osvetu. Elektra doduše ne želi brata i osvetnika u istoj osobi, ali šta je tu je - Orest je tu zbog toga.
Surovo ubistvo Ifigenije više se ne spominje i to mi smeta. Da li je Agamemnon zaslužio šta je dobio? Da li je smeo da ubije Ifigeniju, pa makar su to tražili bogovi? I Elektra i Orest znaju šta je učinio, znaju za majčin motiv ali ubistvo oca je jednostavno nedopustivo i mora biti kažnjeno. Zbog čega je dopustivo ubistvo majke? Da li zbog toga što su i Oresta na to nagovorili bogovi?
Zaborav u koji pada Ifigenija je veliko pitanje Pokajnica. Klitemestra se ponela nečim poput: "Briga me za bogove, ona je moja ćerka," ali muškarci oč;igledno smatraju da postoji nešto iznad porodice. I Agamemnon i Orest za svoje zločine poslušaju bogove, bez obzira što se radi o ubistvima ćerke i majke.
Cela trilogija je Eshilov pogled na razvoj Pravde u antičkom svetu. Od osvete (oko za oko) do pravednog suđenja sa porotom, koje Atena u trećem delu uspostavlja u Atini. Ali, kao što će pokazati završetak trilogije, i takvo suđenje je daleko od idealnog.
Pokajnice počinju Orestovim povratkom iz prognanstva i njegovim susretom sa sestrom na očevom grobu. Elektra ne može da voli mrtvog oca pošto joj je ubio sestru Ifigeniju, ne može da voli majku pošto joj je ubila oca, ostao joj je samo Orest. Oboje žele pravdu, a pravda dolazi kroz osvetu. Elektra doduše ne želi brata i osvetnika u istoj osobi, ali šta je tu je - Orest je tu zbog toga.
Surovo ubistvo Ifigenije više se ne spominje i to mi smeta. Da li je Agamemnon zaslužio šta je dobio? Da li je smeo da ubije Ifigeniju, pa makar su to tražili bogovi? I Elektra i Orest znaju šta je učinio, znaju za majčin motiv ali ubistvo oca je jednostavno nedopustivo i mora biti kažnjeno. Zbog čega je dopustivo ubistvo majke? Da li zbog toga što su i Oresta na to nagovorili bogovi?
Zaborav u koji pada Ifigenija je veliko pitanje Pokajnica. Klitemestra se ponela nečim poput: "Briga me za bogove, ona je moja ćerka," ali muškarci oč;igledno smatraju da postoji nešto iznad porodice. I Agamemnon i Orest za svoje zločine poslušaju bogove, bez obzira što se radi o ubistvima ćerke i majke.
Cela trilogija je Eshilov pogled na razvoj Pravde u antičkom svetu. Od osvete (oko za oko) do pravednog suđenja sa porotom, koje Atena u trećem delu uspostavlja u Atini. Ali, kao što će pokazati završetak trilogije, i takvo suđenje je daleko od idealnog.
July 9, 2018
3,5/5
April 27, 2024
2.5
نمیفهمم چرا اون زمان همه باید درباره الکترا مینوشتن:/
الکترای اوریپید باز یکم فرق داشت.
ولی الکترای آیسخولوس و سوفوکل حتی دیالوگها هم انگار کپیان.
بخوام رتبهبندی کنم الکتراهای این ۳نفر رو:
اوریپید
آیسخولوس
سوفوکل
نمیفهمم چرا اون زمان همه باید درباره الکترا مینوشتن:/
الکترای اوریپید باز یکم فرق داشت.
ولی الکترای آیسخولوس و سوفوکل حتی دیالوگها هم انگار کپیان.
بخوام رتبهبندی کنم الکتراهای این ۳نفر رو:
اوریپید
آیسخولوس
سوفوکل
December 18, 2024
آه و ناله همسرایان و حذف کنی نمایشنامه ۶۰ ص میشه ۱۰ ص :) ... نمیدونم چ اصراری بوده بر دوباره داستان و نوشتن. اورپید یبار الکترا نوشت دیگه خوبم نوشت چرا هی تکرارش کردن الله اعلم 😑
May 25, 2023
الکترای پیشتاز آیسخولوس در نسبت با اثر سوفوکلس و اوریپید، بیشتر بر پایهی مونولوگ و خطابه است، و کمتر در آن جدال و دیالوگ میبینیم. حتی بحث و جدل چندانی پیش از قتل نهایی با مقتولان برای توجیه آنها به لایق مرگ بودنشان وجود ندارد. قبل از آن هم، بحث و گفتگویی بین خواهر و برادر (آن طور که در دو الکترای دیگر میبینیم) دربارهی حقانیت کارشان نمیبینیم.
تفاوت دیگر این است که اینجا بیشترِ بار نمایش به دوش اورستس است، الکترا نه چندان حرفی میزند و نه در تغییر جریان نمایشنامه (و شستشوی مغزی برادرش) نقشی دارد، حتی در قتل نیز مشارکتی ندارد و در نیمهی دوم نمایشنامه به کلی حذف میشود. در عوض پیشآهنگ نقش مهمتری پیدا میکند، هم در تحریم اورستس به انتقامجویی، و هم در انتها، زمانی که به دایه میگوید تا شاه را بدون محافظانش ن��د اورستس بیاورد.
نکتهی جالب این بود که از زمان صدا کردن آیگیستوس تا زمانی که او به قتلگاهش برسد، آیسخولوس یک نوع تدوین هالیوودی را تدارک میبیند؛ با کات شدن مدام به جملات پرتحکم همسرایان، زمان انتظار کش میآید و به تعلیق داستان افزوده میشود.
نکتهی نهایی هم اینکه الکترا خودش و برادرش را به گرگ-زادان تشبیه میکند و اورستس نیز خودشان را به مار-زادان؛ و این تشبیه دلیلی میشود بر محق بودن آنها؛ زیرا از این دو حیوان خونریز چه انتظاری میتوان داشت؟ خاصه اینکه تقصیر مادرِ گرگ-ماری است که آنها را چنین زاده است.
تفاوت دیگر این است که اینجا بیشترِ بار نمایش به دوش اورستس است، الکترا نه چندان حرفی میزند و نه در تغییر جریان نمایشنامه (و شستشوی مغزی برادرش) نقشی دارد، حتی در قتل نیز مشارکتی ندارد و در نیمهی دوم نمایشنامه به کلی حذف میشود. در عوض پیشآهنگ نقش مهمتری پیدا میکند، هم در تحریم اورستس به انتقامجویی، و هم در انتها، زمانی که به دایه میگوید تا شاه را بدون محافظانش ن��د اورستس بیاورد.
نکتهی جالب این بود که از زمان صدا کردن آیگیستوس تا زمانی که او به قتلگاهش برسد، آیسخولوس یک نوع تدوین هالیوودی را تدارک میبیند؛ با کات شدن مدام به جملات پرتحکم همسرایان، زمان انتظار کش میآید و به تعلیق داستان افزوده میشود.
نکتهی نهایی هم اینکه الکترا خودش و برادرش را به گرگ-زادان تشبیه میکند و اورستس نیز خودشان را به مار-زادان؛ و این تشبیه دلیلی میشود بر محق بودن آنها؛ زیرا از این دو حیوان خونریز چه انتظاری میتوان داشت؟ خاصه اینکه تقصیر مادرِ گرگ-ماری است که آنها را چنین زاده است.
May 19, 2022
Oreszteia II. - Áldozatvivők
Nos, Agamemnón meghalt, sírja már áll, itt az ideje, hogy mindenki szépen odamenjen a sírhoz áldozni neki. Oresztész, Agamemnón fia a városba érkezik egy évitized után és hajfürtjével áldoz rút csellel meggyilkolt apja emlékének, majd hallja, hogy jön egy csapat gyászruhás asszony, úgyhogy jól elbújik. Ezeket Klütaimnésztra küldte, mert hát nem aludt jól a szentem, és gondolta, hogy majd egy csapat nő áldozata megnyugtatja meggyilkolt férje kedélyeit, de ezek a huncutok inkább azért imádkoznak, hogy érkezzen meg Oresztész és bosszulja meg apja halálát.
A gyászruhások között ott van testvére, Elektra, aki nagyban töpreng, ugyan mit lehet mondani ilyenkor, milyen szavakkal öntse az áldozati bort a sírra, merthogy jó apa volt meg minden, de hát ugye szerető feleségről meg dicső halálról azért nem beszélhetünk. Addig töpreng, addig töpreng, amíg levág egy hajfürtöt, hogy odahelyezze a sírra, erre nem észreveszi azt a pompás hajfürtöt, amit Oresztész hagyott ott? Csodák csodájára felismerte testvére haját (gondolom a fényképek előtti hajfürt fétisnek lehet köze a hajtextúrák szakértelméhez), Oresztész aztán előugrott a bokorból, ahol rejtezett és igyekezett meggyőzni a testvérét, hogy ő bizony ő. Hosszas párbeszédbe bonyolódtak ezügyben, mire megnyugtatóan mindenki egymásra ismert, valóra váltak az asszonyok imái, szuper.
Aztán beszámolnak neki arról, hogy anyja rémálmaiban egy kígyót szoptat, ami nem csak a tejet, hanem a vééért is kiszívja belőle, úgyhogy Oresztész, amellett, hogy Apollón már feljogosította, hogy ölje meg a gyilkost, ezt aztán tuti jelnek veszi, hogy itt az ideje beváltani ígéretét, úgyhogy vándornak adja ki magát, és elregéli, hogy hírt hozott Oresztész haláláról. Klütaimnésztra ezen a ponton már elkezd kétségbe esni, hogy hát nem lesz ez így jó, és Aigiszthoszért küldi el a dajkát, hogy egy csapat fegyveressel menjen már át, aztán beszélgessen el ezzel a vándorral. A dajka közben belefut a karba, akik már ugye tudnak a turpisságról, úgyhogy megkérik a dajkát, hogy hagyja ki a fegyveres csapatokat a hívásból, hogy Aigiszthosz csak egyedül menjen dumcsizni, közben megy a kacsintgatás, hogy jó lesz ez, meglásd.
Aigiszthosz nagyon gyászos képet vág, de persze közben örül, hogy nem kell tartania a trónörököstől, egy gonddal kevesebb, úgyhogy nagy örömmel megy, hogy saját fülével hallja a hírt. Bemegy, Oresztész megöli, aztán Klütaimnésztrának leesik, hogy hát hm, lehet, hogy Oresztészhez köze van a vándornak. Kitárulnak a palota kapui, jön Klüti, Oresztész meg kivont karddal lesújtani kész. Anyja először próbál a lelkére beszélni, hogy hát én tápláltalak, neveltelek, amire Oresztész meg megkérdezi, hogy szuper, de akkor költözzünk össze és úgy tegyünk, mintha mi sem történt volna, vagy mégis mit vársz, jóanyám? Megkérdi Oresztész a kísérőjét, Püladészt, hogy megkímélje-e anyja életét, de az mondja, hogy akkor Apollón meg az istenek haragját zúdítaná magára, meg esküdött is, az esküszegést sem nézték jó szemmel az istenek, úgyhogy még egy sor párbeszéd után szépen bevezeti a palotába anyját és megöli, anyja kiomló véréből viszont kiszállnak a bosszúállás ronda istennői, az Erinnüszök és elkezdik nyomasztani Oresztészt az anyagyilkosság miatt.
Csodás idézetek:
12-13 (Oresztész)
Miféle újabb sorscsapást kell sejtenem?
Tán otthonunkat éri újabb gyötrelem?
50-54 (Kar)
Jaj, házi tűzhely, jajszavas,
jaj, összeomló ősi ház!
Sugártalan s iszonytató
homály borul rád: hisz urad
mind a sírba került már.
183-186 (Elektra)
Epének árja szállt szivemre nékem is,
s miként a nyíl, hasítja át a mellemet:
s viharzó áradatnak szomju cseppjei
omolnak két szememből.
212-213 (Oresztész)
A teljesítő istenektől kérd tehát,
hogy adják meg tovább is szíved óhaját.
338-339 (Elektra)
ugyan hol nem igáz keserv?
Győzhet e jó az átkon?
410-417 (Kar)
Remeg kedves szivem megint, mikor
hallom e bús kesergést;
s már odavan reményem,
elfeketűl a bensőm,
hogyha a szód megértem;
de aztán, ha ismét erős vagy,
visszakerül mind a remény,
gondom ismét eltünik.
451-452 (Kar)
Füledbe fúrd ezt a szót,
s az elméd csöndes mélye légyen otthona.
647-648 (Kar)
Diké üllője áll s szilárd,
és kardot ver rajta kardkovács sors.
668-671 (Klütaimnésztra)
Csak mondjátok meg, vándorok, mi kell; hiszen
van minden, mit házunknak illik adnia,
meleg fürdő, s mitől a fáradtság kiszáll,
jó ágy, s baráti jó szemek tekintete.
781-782 (Dajka)
Megyek, s amint te megkívántad, úgy teszek:
sorsunk bár jóra váltanák az istenek.
1063-1064 (Karvezető)
Úgy hát szerencse óvjon, nézzen istened
kegyelmesen, s jobb sorsra őrizzen tovább.
Nos, Agamemnón meghalt, sírja már áll, itt az ideje, hogy mindenki szépen odamenjen a sírhoz áldozni neki. Oresztész, Agamemnón fia a városba érkezik egy évitized után és hajfürtjével áldoz rút csellel meggyilkolt apja emlékének, majd hallja, hogy jön egy csapat gyászruhás asszony, úgyhogy jól elbújik. Ezeket Klütaimnésztra küldte, mert hát nem aludt jól a szentem, és gondolta, hogy majd egy csapat nő áldozata megnyugtatja meggyilkolt férje kedélyeit, de ezek a huncutok inkább azért imádkoznak, hogy érkezzen meg Oresztész és bosszulja meg apja halálát.
A gyászruhások között ott van testvére, Elektra, aki nagyban töpreng, ugyan mit lehet mondani ilyenkor, milyen szavakkal öntse az áldozati bort a sírra, merthogy jó apa volt meg minden, de hát ugye szerető feleségről meg dicső halálról azért nem beszélhetünk. Addig töpreng, addig töpreng, amíg levág egy hajfürtöt, hogy odahelyezze a sírra, erre nem észreveszi azt a pompás hajfürtöt, amit Oresztész hagyott ott? Csodák csodájára felismerte testvére haját (gondolom a fényképek előtti hajfürt fétisnek lehet köze a hajtextúrák szakértelméhez), Oresztész aztán előugrott a bokorból, ahol rejtezett és igyekezett meggyőzni a testvérét, hogy ő bizony ő. Hosszas párbeszédbe bonyolódtak ezügyben, mire megnyugtatóan mindenki egymásra ismert, valóra váltak az asszonyok imái, szuper.
Aztán beszámolnak neki arról, hogy anyja rémálmaiban egy kígyót szoptat, ami nem csak a tejet, hanem a vééért is kiszívja belőle, úgyhogy Oresztész, amellett, hogy Apollón már feljogosította, hogy ölje meg a gyilkost, ezt aztán tuti jelnek veszi, hogy itt az ideje beváltani ígéretét, úgyhogy vándornak adja ki magát, és elregéli, hogy hírt hozott Oresztész haláláról. Klütaimnésztra ezen a ponton már elkezd kétségbe esni, hogy hát nem lesz ez így jó, és Aigiszthoszért küldi el a dajkát, hogy egy csapat fegyveressel menjen már át, aztán beszélgessen el ezzel a vándorral. A dajka közben belefut a karba, akik már ugye tudnak a turpisságról, úgyhogy megkérik a dajkát, hogy hagyja ki a fegyveres csapatokat a hívásból, hogy Aigiszthosz csak egyedül menjen dumcsizni, közben megy a kacsintgatás, hogy jó lesz ez, meglásd.
Aigiszthosz nagyon gyászos képet vág, de persze közben örül, hogy nem kell tartania a trónörököstől, egy gonddal kevesebb, úgyhogy nagy örömmel megy, hogy saját fülével hallja a hírt. Bemegy, Oresztész megöli, aztán Klütaimnésztrának leesik, hogy hát hm, lehet, hogy Oresztészhez köze van a vándornak. Kitárulnak a palota kapui, jön Klüti, Oresztész meg kivont karddal lesújtani kész. Anyja először próbál a lelkére beszélni, hogy hát én tápláltalak, neveltelek, amire Oresztész meg megkérdezi, hogy szuper, de akkor költözzünk össze és úgy tegyünk, mintha mi sem történt volna, vagy mégis mit vársz, jóanyám? Megkérdi Oresztész a kísérőjét, Püladészt, hogy megkímélje-e anyja életét, de az mondja, hogy akkor Apollón meg az istenek haragját zúdítaná magára, meg esküdött is, az esküszegést sem nézték jó szemmel az istenek, úgyhogy még egy sor párbeszéd után szépen bevezeti a palotába anyját és megöli, anyja kiomló véréből viszont kiszállnak a bosszúállás ronda istennői, az Erinnüszök és elkezdik nyomasztani Oresztészt az anyagyilkosság miatt.
Csodás idézetek:
12-13 (Oresztész)
Miféle újabb sorscsapást kell sejtenem?
Tán otthonunkat éri újabb gyötrelem?
50-54 (Kar)
Jaj, házi tűzhely, jajszavas,
jaj, összeomló ősi ház!
Sugártalan s iszonytató
homály borul rád: hisz urad
mind a sírba került már.
183-186 (Elektra)
Epének árja szállt szivemre nékem is,
s miként a nyíl, hasítja át a mellemet:
s viharzó áradatnak szomju cseppjei
omolnak két szememből.
212-213 (Oresztész)
A teljesítő istenektől kérd tehát,
hogy adják meg tovább is szíved óhaját.
338-339 (Elektra)
ugyan hol nem igáz keserv?
Győzhet e jó az átkon?
410-417 (Kar)
Remeg kedves szivem megint, mikor
hallom e bús kesergést;
s már odavan reményem,
elfeketűl a bensőm,
hogyha a szód megértem;
de aztán, ha ismét erős vagy,
visszakerül mind a remény,
gondom ismét eltünik.
451-452 (Kar)
Füledbe fúrd ezt a szót,
s az elméd csöndes mélye légyen otthona.
647-648 (Kar)
Diké üllője áll s szilárd,
és kardot ver rajta kardkovács sors.
668-671 (Klütaimnésztra)
Csak mondjátok meg, vándorok, mi kell; hiszen
van minden, mit házunknak illik adnia,
meleg fürdő, s mitől a fáradtság kiszáll,
jó ágy, s baráti jó szemek tekintete.
781-782 (Dajka)
Megyek, s amint te megkívántad, úgy teszek:
sorsunk bár jóra váltanák az istenek.
1063-1064 (Karvezető)
Úgy hát szerencse óvjon, nézzen istened
kegyelmesen, s jobb sorsra őrizzen tovább.
May 24, 2023
I really enjoyed this play.
The final confrontation between Orestes and Clytemnestra was really worthwhile. So was the ending in which Orestes begins to see the Furies chasing him. Aeschylus did a great job of capturing the suspense and dread involved with seeing the Furies, especially because the chorus can't see them, and Orestes appears to them to be crazy.
But I came to love this play right off the bat. The opening of the play with Orestes paying tribute to his father, and then Electra stumbling upon his lock of hair and reuniting with Orestes -- it's a powerful moment after seeing what befell their family in the *Agamemnon*.
The final confrontation between Orestes and Clytemnestra was really worthwhile. So was the ending in which Orestes begins to see the Furies chasing him. Aeschylus did a great job of capturing the suspense and dread involved with seeing the Furies, especially because the chorus can't see them, and Orestes appears to them to be crazy.
But I came to love this play right off the bat. The opening of the play with Orestes paying tribute to his father, and then Electra stumbling upon his lock of hair and reuniting with Orestes -- it's a powerful moment after seeing what befell their family in the *Agamemnon*.
June 9, 2013
I read the Robert Fagles' translation.
It's better than Agamemnon, No more long dialogues, The chorus role is limited, But no big deal happened. the whole first half is about Orestes meet his sister Electra and tell her about his revenge plan, the second half is revenge in action.
I still think that Sophocles is better than Aeschylus, I don't think it'll be a fair point of view about Greek plays taken depending on Aeschylus' plays only.
It's better than Agamemnon, No more long dialogues, The chorus role is limited, But no big deal happened. the whole first half is about Orestes meet his sister Electra and tell her about his revenge plan, the second half is revenge in action.
I still think that Sophocles is better than Aeschylus, I don't think it'll be a fair point of view about Greek plays taken depending on Aeschylus' plays only.
February 20, 2021
Orestes retorna a casa para vingar a morte de seu pai Agamêmnon matando assim sua mãe Clitemnestra e seu amante Egisto.
Apesar de convicto de seu dever e do oráculo de Apolo, Orestes se vê assombrado e perseguido pelas Fúrias (personificação do remorso, demônios vingadores dos crimes de morte entre consanguíneos) e a maldição iniciada com Pêlops (senhor da península de Peloponeso) avô de Agamêmnon e bisavô de Orestes continua.
Apesar de convicto de seu dever e do oráculo de Apolo, Orestes se vê assombrado e perseguido pelas Fúrias (personificação do remorso, demônios vingadores dos crimes de morte entre consanguíneos) e a maldição iniciada com Pêlops (senhor da península de Peloponeso) avô de Agamêmnon e bisavô de Orestes continua.
May 6, 2014
THE POST IS SPOILED
The second part of Aeschylus' Orestia, "The libation bearers" tells the story of Orestes returning home, to revenge the death of a beloved father... But it is not only this what the play is about, of course. I found myself thinking, at some point (while going through my read) that I will rate this play 5 out of 5 stars, having liked it more than I have liked Agamemnon. But after finishing reading the play, I reconsidered the fact. Not because i did not like the play anymore, but because there was a small thing that influenced my rating -that is, Orestes' attitude, also compared to Sophocles' Orestes from "Electra". But I shall get there immediately. Before that, I should like to express some other feelings and opinions.
I found the play interestingly well written -in a certain manner that made the play seem better written (in my mind), than the others. But it should have been the translation and also the imaginary/mental tone I used for reading this piece. Now, that I use my retrospective memory, I realize that this is actually the reason why I believed it to be so. I felt a little arrogant and infatuated, therefore I mentally read with all my might and the play seemed so much more dramatic in my head than the others. And thus i have discovered that this should be the right way in which one ought to read these kind of works (or at least this is the way I actually should do it to better understand the circumstances ). Even so, I think the chorus to be quite fascinating, the cries infinitely dramatic, and -somehow- full of an unspoken evilness that is, of course, hidden in the utmost desire of vengeance.
"The libation bearers", a story of cries, of death, the mark of the utmost desire of vengeance, as I have already pointed out already... This scene is beautifully pictured: the chorus and Electra, at Agamemnon's grave, her beloved and loved father. Her cries seem endless and too innocent, for she does not know what to ask for, she is not able to fully understand how she should cry out the name of her father. She is aware, nevertheless, that her mother did not love her father so why should she call the name of her father like that, how could she possibly speak up the name of her mother -loving her husband -in her prayer to her father? An ugly lie, that should be. Confused as she is, she asks for advice from the servants -many foreign women, probably wined in the trojan war. This scene is entirely beautiful because it stresses the main point of the first tragedy: treason of the wife, treson of Aegisthus and, more importantly, the death of Agamemnon, and his right of being buried as king taken away from him (from his own wife that he has left behind to wait for him, entrusting her with his home and land, for whom she should have cared more than anything else). Electra, suffering from the curse of these tragic events, calls out for the name of a righteous killer, to come here and vengeance what should be taken revenge on. And then, Orestes appears to become his destiny...
However, we should realize at this point that both Agamemnon and Clytemnestra, his wife, have been in the wrong. Not only the last one. Both have chosen wicked ways regarding the good of their children, they have not sincerely shared any feelings of love between them and, therefore, they both are traitors of some kind (to each other). But the Gods should now see the bigger done, and that is the wife's murder, Agamemnon becoming only a victim. Because nobody should be speaking bad of a man who died by the hand of his woman, in the given circumstances. Therefore not only is this the divine wish, but also the only way in which things are being seen by the others : by Electra, by Orestes and his friend, by the chorus, by the people. The one who did wrong is Clytemnestra, and her beloved Aegisthus, a mere traitor who deserves nothing but to die his righteous death/getting killed by the hand of an indebted and bereaved son.
Therefore, the tragedy of Orestes does not come with the killing of Aegisthus -because this was the utmost right thing to do in the given circumstances, but when he desires and succeeds in murdering his own mother. The mother has been in the wrong : the mother put her name under treason, she betrayed her husband, her children and her home, her own kingdom. She had put the reasons of her crime on the shoulders of her killed daughter, the one that Agamemnon sacrificed in the trojan war. She gave herself to treason and to lies, not being honest not even in the moment of her betrayal, of her crime. She had been affected by pride and she betrayed and killed everything she should have loved. Instead of protecting the home, as she should have done, she has been carelessly seduced by Aegisthus to whom she entirely entrusted her heart and kingdom. Therefore, she was in the wrong and Orestes had more than sufficient motives to murder her. Even so, things are not so simple - while the murder of Aegisthus shall be forgotten and even applauded, the murder of one's own mother is not so easily forgotten, and nonetheless, never applauded... Orestes has doubts -but he has to listen to Apollo's prophecy... And he does listen, he gets revenge for his father : he kills the two lovers, the traitors of the realm, the traitors of Agamemnon, the ones who betrayed Orestes' family and clan, he kills the evil Aegisthus and his concubine, the queen, the mother, Clytemnestra...
What is left for Orestes to do now? He can hardly stay, he can hardly listen because all he sees and hears is his fault -his fault of being the murderer of his own mother, the one that gave him birth, however bad the circumstances came to be in the end. So he has to go -he has to run from the Furies, the ones that give revenge, the ones that came after him after his mother's curses... Or this is what Orestes feels and believes.
They play is itself is a real big success and I admit I was quite lost in it, having liked it enormously. Even so, there is a reason why i gave it 4 out of 5 stars, and I shall now explain it. I have not liked the first attitude Orestes had towards the acts he was supposed to carry out. He was afraid, somehow like a coward he was ready to give up and run from his duties -he needed an impulse, he needed to be told that he was just supposed to revenge his father and nothing more. I think this thing should have been more than clear in his mind, nothing to be doubted. This, I may suppose, seems a rather silly reason for which I should retreat one star from my rating. But i cannot but do as I already did -this fact deeply affected me. You see, I am quite conscious of the fact that these works of art are in themselves works of 5 stars, i am quite aware of the fact, but as I have already and repeatedly stressed in my reviews, i cannot but be subjective in my comments. Therefore, I respect my subjectiveness, my desires and my feelings at a respective moment when I rate the books I read. So this is how it is.
What is more, the difference between Sophocles' "Electra" and this work of Aeschylus is quite big and intriguing: in the first we find the force that is missing in the second, and that is of course the force I needed in the play, I needed to read and feel that force in Orestes, the force he lacked in Aeschylus' piece, I am afraid. In Sophocles he is so much decided, not a coward at all, he is powerful and adamant, he has no doubts! He acts coldly, as it should be and he feels he cannot but revenge the death of his beloved father (with or without the prophecy). Here, the prophecy's role is one of the main things, the main reason why Orestes could take up his duty... And I did not appreciate that, i did not appreciate it at all. The sparkling Orestes, the powerful son who comes in his right to make Justice and takes upon his shoulders the pain of killing a mother, is gone -that Orestes becomes one conducted by Gods, by prophecy, merely a coward who, without the impulses of his sister and the chorus, would have given up his duty. I feel that this Orestes isn't as strong as Sophocles' Orestes. So here I am, that is why i cannot rate this book 5 out of 5, even though I enjoyed it to the most.
I also recommend reading Sophocles' Electra, much more beautiful and powerful than this one. This one is indeed beautiful and the verses are wonderful -I enjoyed them greatly, Aeschylus did a hell of a job with it, i cannot but agree to that (especially the scene that takes place at Agamemnon's grave and even the discussion between Orestes and his mother)... But something is missing from Orestes' attitude. At least, this is how I feel. :)
The second part of Aeschylus' Orestia, "The libation bearers" tells the story of Orestes returning home, to revenge the death of a beloved father... But it is not only this what the play is about, of course. I found myself thinking, at some point (while going through my read) that I will rate this play 5 out of 5 stars, having liked it more than I have liked Agamemnon. But after finishing reading the play, I reconsidered the fact. Not because i did not like the play anymore, but because there was a small thing that influenced my rating -that is, Orestes' attitude, also compared to Sophocles' Orestes from "Electra". But I shall get there immediately. Before that, I should like to express some other feelings and opinions.
I found the play interestingly well written -in a certain manner that made the play seem better written (in my mind), than the others. But it should have been the translation and also the imaginary/mental tone I used for reading this piece. Now, that I use my retrospective memory, I realize that this is actually the reason why I believed it to be so. I felt a little arrogant and infatuated, therefore I mentally read with all my might and the play seemed so much more dramatic in my head than the others. And thus i have discovered that this should be the right way in which one ought to read these kind of works (or at least this is the way I actually should do it to better understand the circumstances ). Even so, I think the chorus to be quite fascinating, the cries infinitely dramatic, and -somehow- full of an unspoken evilness that is, of course, hidden in the utmost desire of vengeance.
"The libation bearers", a story of cries, of death, the mark of the utmost desire of vengeance, as I have already pointed out already... This scene is beautifully pictured: the chorus and Electra, at Agamemnon's grave, her beloved and loved father. Her cries seem endless and too innocent, for she does not know what to ask for, she is not able to fully understand how she should cry out the name of her father. She is aware, nevertheless, that her mother did not love her father so why should she call the name of her father like that, how could she possibly speak up the name of her mother -loving her husband -in her prayer to her father? An ugly lie, that should be. Confused as she is, she asks for advice from the servants -many foreign women, probably wined in the trojan war. This scene is entirely beautiful because it stresses the main point of the first tragedy: treason of the wife, treson of Aegisthus and, more importantly, the death of Agamemnon, and his right of being buried as king taken away from him (from his own wife that he has left behind to wait for him, entrusting her with his home and land, for whom she should have cared more than anything else). Electra, suffering from the curse of these tragic events, calls out for the name of a righteous killer, to come here and vengeance what should be taken revenge on. And then, Orestes appears to become his destiny...
However, we should realize at this point that both Agamemnon and Clytemnestra, his wife, have been in the wrong. Not only the last one. Both have chosen wicked ways regarding the good of their children, they have not sincerely shared any feelings of love between them and, therefore, they both are traitors of some kind (to each other). But the Gods should now see the bigger done, and that is the wife's murder, Agamemnon becoming only a victim. Because nobody should be speaking bad of a man who died by the hand of his woman, in the given circumstances. Therefore not only is this the divine wish, but also the only way in which things are being seen by the others : by Electra, by Orestes and his friend, by the chorus, by the people. The one who did wrong is Clytemnestra, and her beloved Aegisthus, a mere traitor who deserves nothing but to die his righteous death/getting killed by the hand of an indebted and bereaved son.
Therefore, the tragedy of Orestes does not come with the killing of Aegisthus -because this was the utmost right thing to do in the given circumstances, but when he desires and succeeds in murdering his own mother. The mother has been in the wrong : the mother put her name under treason, she betrayed her husband, her children and her home, her own kingdom. She had put the reasons of her crime on the shoulders of her killed daughter, the one that Agamemnon sacrificed in the trojan war. She gave herself to treason and to lies, not being honest not even in the moment of her betrayal, of her crime. She had been affected by pride and she betrayed and killed everything she should have loved. Instead of protecting the home, as she should have done, she has been carelessly seduced by Aegisthus to whom she entirely entrusted her heart and kingdom. Therefore, she was in the wrong and Orestes had more than sufficient motives to murder her. Even so, things are not so simple - while the murder of Aegisthus shall be forgotten and even applauded, the murder of one's own mother is not so easily forgotten, and nonetheless, never applauded... Orestes has doubts -but he has to listen to Apollo's prophecy... And he does listen, he gets revenge for his father : he kills the two lovers, the traitors of the realm, the traitors of Agamemnon, the ones who betrayed Orestes' family and clan, he kills the evil Aegisthus and his concubine, the queen, the mother, Clytemnestra...
What is left for Orestes to do now? He can hardly stay, he can hardly listen because all he sees and hears is his fault -his fault of being the murderer of his own mother, the one that gave him birth, however bad the circumstances came to be in the end. So he has to go -he has to run from the Furies, the ones that give revenge, the ones that came after him after his mother's curses... Or this is what Orestes feels and believes.
They play is itself is a real big success and I admit I was quite lost in it, having liked it enormously. Even so, there is a reason why i gave it 4 out of 5 stars, and I shall now explain it. I have not liked the first attitude Orestes had towards the acts he was supposed to carry out. He was afraid, somehow like a coward he was ready to give up and run from his duties -he needed an impulse, he needed to be told that he was just supposed to revenge his father and nothing more. I think this thing should have been more than clear in his mind, nothing to be doubted. This, I may suppose, seems a rather silly reason for which I should retreat one star from my rating. But i cannot but do as I already did -this fact deeply affected me. You see, I am quite conscious of the fact that these works of art are in themselves works of 5 stars, i am quite aware of the fact, but as I have already and repeatedly stressed in my reviews, i cannot but be subjective in my comments. Therefore, I respect my subjectiveness, my desires and my feelings at a respective moment when I rate the books I read. So this is how it is.
What is more, the difference between Sophocles' "Electra" and this work of Aeschylus is quite big and intriguing: in the first we find the force that is missing in the second, and that is of course the force I needed in the play, I needed to read and feel that force in Orestes, the force he lacked in Aeschylus' piece, I am afraid. In Sophocles he is so much decided, not a coward at all, he is powerful and adamant, he has no doubts! He acts coldly, as it should be and he feels he cannot but revenge the death of his beloved father (with or without the prophecy). Here, the prophecy's role is one of the main things, the main reason why Orestes could take up his duty... And I did not appreciate that, i did not appreciate it at all. The sparkling Orestes, the powerful son who comes in his right to make Justice and takes upon his shoulders the pain of killing a mother, is gone -that Orestes becomes one conducted by Gods, by prophecy, merely a coward who, without the impulses of his sister and the chorus, would have given up his duty. I feel that this Orestes isn't as strong as Sophocles' Orestes. So here I am, that is why i cannot rate this book 5 out of 5, even though I enjoyed it to the most.
I also recommend reading Sophocles' Electra, much more beautiful and powerful than this one. This one is indeed beautiful and the verses are wonderful -I enjoyed them greatly, Aeschylus did a hell of a job with it, i cannot but agree to that (especially the scene that takes place at Agamemnon's grave and even the discussion between Orestes and his mother)... But something is missing from Orestes' attitude. At least, this is how I feel. :)
December 23, 2021
Still don't feel bad for Agamemnon (he sacrificed his daughter and in The Iliad he was also quite awful). I am glad to be getting through this Greek tragedy trilogy before the end of the year. I have been meaning to read Aeschylus for a while (read Sophocles and Euripides in college).
January 31, 2022
IM INSANE IM CRAZY
March 5, 2022
Ready by the chariot–
yoke he stands, the orphan colt,
son of him you highly prized—
set good rhythm to his stride.
yoke he stands, the orphan colt,
son of him you highly prized—
set good rhythm to his stride.
June 29, 2022
Aggammnon, Orestes, Electra.....
Aggammnon who killed by his wife and her lover.
In disguise, Orestes entered the city with his friend seeking to avenge his father.
By a trick, he succeeded in killing his mother and her husband.
"Justice doth mark, with scales that swiftly sway,
Some that are yet in light; Others in interspace of day and night,
Till Fate arouse them,
stay; And some are lapped in night, where all things are undone."
Aeschylus in this play was a poet, the speech was marvelous, the chorus were so great in this play.
Aggammnon who killed by his wife and her lover.
In disguise, Orestes entered the city with his friend seeking to avenge his father.
By a trick, he succeeded in killing his mother and her husband.
"Justice doth mark, with scales that swiftly sway,
Some that are yet in light; Others in interspace of day and night,
Till Fate arouse them,
stay; And some are lapped in night, where all things are undone."
Aeschylus in this play was a poet, the speech was marvelous, the chorus were so great in this play.
October 11, 2022
gee, electra and orestes, how come you BOTH get to be hamlet? (review of the full oresteia here)
Read
October 10, 2024gick mkt snabbare än agamemnon, inte på ett bra sätt. orestes och elektra dock :( ”bör jag kalla det räddning eller fördärv” osv osv. skum liten tragedi.
December 18, 2017
Recomendo lerem apenas depois de Agamêmnon. Muito bom. Não tem a profundidade das discussões de Electra, de Eurípedes, mas o impacto emocional (e consequente catarse) é muito maior, assim. Em Ésquilo não falam pessoas, mas famílias, as gerações e as forças ocultas da natureza.
October 7, 2021
They are afraid. Success,
they bow to success, more god than god himself.
But Justice waits and turns the scales:
Funnier to me than Agamemnon , though I've lost friends for my sense of humor:
When man decides he wields justice, all the eyes for eyes taken makes the whole world blind.
they bow to success, more god than god himself.
But Justice waits and turns the scales:
Funnier to me than Agamemnon , though I've lost friends for my sense of humor:
You love your man? Then lie in the same grave. (l. 881)
When man decides he wields justice, all the eyes for eyes taken makes the whole world blind.
February 27, 2021
Segunda parte da Oresteia
https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com...
https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com...
August 17, 2013
A beautiful tragedy written by a master playwright! I loved the language and characterization of the play. It is a play about vengeance, which is considered just by the gods. According to them, bloodstain cannot be washed up but with more bloodshed. Thus, Orestes was asked by Apollo to avenge his father, and thus fulfilling the divine plan. However, this plan will bring him the fury and harmful consequences in the future, but he accepts what the god Apollo asked him to do. And Aeschylus gave hints that this will be the last blood, and Orestes will not be punished for it, as Apollo guaranteed. What I find a bit surprising in the play is that there is no value for family ties, the relationships among the family members were free from affections, respect, and love; no love is there between the married couples, nor love between children and their mother, even the relationship between Electra and her brother is cold. Moreover, the news about the death of Orestes did not move his mother neither the killing of his mother - and her supplications to spare her life - moved Orestes’ heart, who favored commitment to gods’ dictation, as well as his duties toward his father rather than his mother. At the same time, I find the play, as an ancient tragedy, a great one that sheds light on the human condition, namely, his relationship to Gods and the role of fate in humans life.
October 8, 2022
An interesting tragedy, beautifully constructed (even in translation) and reflecting the ultimate emptiness of revenge. The bonding of Electra and Orestes as they mourn their father and plot vengeance on their mother and Aegisthus is at once soothing and terrifying. It is good that some love can exist in that family (especially considering Thyestes and Agamemnon), but their point of bonding is quite dark. Clytemestra's plea to Orestes before her death is difficult to read partially because it's so raw, but mostly because one feels that even though she is his mother, she has given up her right to demand his love because of the destruction she wreaked in the family. And yet...it still has power. Lastly, the madness that plagues Orestes at the end of the play foreshadows characters such as Lady Macbeth, and the murderer in The Telltale Heart. It is an interesting argument, especially since it precedes the Roman love of revenge, that vengeance is not satisfying, and that the crimes committed for revenge are still haunting and torturous to live with.
July 21, 2019
المسرحيه استمرار لمسرحيه ارمجنون فبعد قتله و هروب ابنه يبدأ الانقام
انتقام الابن لمقتل ابيه ومن ممن ينتقم من امه ؟؟
انتقام الابن لمقتل ابيه ومن ممن ينتقم من امه ؟؟
August 11, 2024
This one is really intense, even compared to the first one, Agamemnon.
[2500-Year Old] Spoiler Alert:
Orestes kills his mother Clytemnestra after she begs him not to. His motives are a bit dubious. Does he not care his father killed his sister Iphigenia? Is he actually just mad his mother sent him to live outside of the castle? Is he just a super religious opportunist who has to follow the Oracle or risk life-failure? Maybe all of these things.
(This one doesn't highlight Orestes's sister Electra.)
[2500-Year Old] Spoiler Alert:
Orestes kills his mother Clytemnestra after she begs him not to. His motives are a bit dubious. Does he not care his father killed his sister Iphigenia? Is he actually just mad his mother sent him to live outside of the castle? Is he just a super religious opportunist who has to follow the Oracle or risk life-failure? Maybe all of these things.
(This one doesn't highlight Orestes's sister Electra.)
January 20, 2014
From BBC Radio 3 - Drama on 3:
A new version by Ed Hime
The second play in Aeschylus's classic trilogy about murder, revenge and justice. Agamemnon's son Orestes returns home from exile to kill his mother in revenge for his father's murder. But where can he find the strength to carry out such a terrible deed?
BBC Concert Orchestra Percussionists Alasdair Malloy, Stephen Webberley and Stephen Whibley
Sound design by Cal Knightley & Colin Guthrie.
A new version by Ed Hime
The second play in Aeschylus's classic trilogy about murder, revenge and justice. Agamemnon's son Orestes returns home from exile to kill his mother in revenge for his father's murder. But where can he find the strength to carry out such a terrible deed?
BBC Concert Orchestra Percussionists Alasdair Malloy, Stephen Webberley and Stephen Whibley
Sound design by Cal Knightley & Colin Guthrie.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 254 reviews