February 2009 Archives

In reading Antigone, I realized that she goes against everything that we as a class have read before. She is forceful and strong. It is interesting to me that Antigone refuses to conform to the stereotypes that Greek society places on her. This clearly doesn't run in the family because Antigone's sister Ismene personifies Greek woman stereotypes: 

      The reversal of roles is a preeminent and ongoing theme in the Theban Plays, especially in Oedipus at Colonus. From the original husband-to-son/father-to-sibling reversal that occurred with Oedipus' self-identification in king Oedipus to the king-to-peasant reversal that occurred with his subsequent exile, the reversal of roles has played a crucial part in almost all of the major characters' development and so it will with our understanding of the work.
     The reversal of roles is more evident with Oedipus than any other character. He undergoes drastic change in multiple instances. Each of these extreme changes signifies an equally significant change in both the character and the plot. From the opening lines of Oedipus at Colonus the reversals are clear. Oedipus has gone from a Father and King of great vision and insight to a blind and powerless individual who is more of a child to his daughters than a father (Antigone in particular). His powers and vision have been stripped and replaced by helplessness and blindness. Not only has he gone from king to beggar and father to child, but the daughters that care for him also exhibit a key reversal of the male-female role which further emphasizes his condition. It would be expected that Oedipus would be cared for by his sons who, in the eyes of the classic Greek male/female stereotype, are deemed to be the "greater" of the two sex's of offspring, and those responsible for their father. Rather the sons are at home and the daughters are bearing the weight of the family's burden. Not only are Polyneices and Eteokles at home while their father is suffering, but they are waging emotional, illogical battles, a characteristic typically attributed to women, while their female counterparts are systematically showing, reason, cunning, and an overall strength of character, attributes usually associated with men.
     The significance of these reversals is great, but I feel that their main purpose, outside of plot and character development, is to attempt to dispel some of the stereotypes surrounding the classic Greek roles (father, daughter, son, male, female, king, peasant, powerful, powerless). By showing that characters can function successfully outside of their roles, Sophocles adds an element of equality coupled with humanism that is rarely seen in classic Greek literature such as the Theban Plays. It is a more liberal view of how we function as humans than is normally presented. Rather than prescribing certain actions and methods to certain types of characters, Sophocles allows his characters, through the reversal of roles, to perform in ways that seem equitable and unmarked by sex, status, or family role. For me this was a welcomed change, as the constant presence of the classic male/female stereotypes was becoming very stale and irritating. I also think it provokes thought concerning the validity of the roles that society places on us. This leads me to my last point, which is actually a question. To what extent do the roles placed on the characters such as Oedipus and Antigone exist and influence them and why? I argue that they have little effect. The characters, as they have exhibited, have free will, and can choose to step into or out of those roles as they see fit. Some would argue otherwise. Do the same societal and cultural roles that supposedly apply to the classic characters apply to us also, or are modern people "past that"?

Line 1751(Oedipus at Colonus): " Cease from your weeping, children; for when the dark night under the earth is a favor we must not mourn, or the gods will resent it"

I just noticed how grieving usually spawns more violence in this play. Theseus warns that grieving has dire consequences. Think about what grieving has done to the characters in this play: 1.Jocasta kills herself because she can't stand being the wife and mother of Oedipus 2.Oedipus blinds himself for not realizing his true identity. 3.Oedipus' self exile.

I'm sure those aren't the only examples in this play. I think the topic of "grieving" is something we should pay attention to. What do you all think about this?

Weekly Wrap-up 5.m4a

Clarence Darrow is probably one of my favorite orators of all time. He gained his fame during the early twentieth century as a brilliant lawyer who would take on any case. Perhaps on of his most famous courtroom appearances, outside of the Scopes Trial, was the punishment hearing of Leopold and Loeb.

    Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb were by all accounts brilliant. No one denied this. Everyday of their lives, this fact was reinforced by the countless people who doted on them because of their staggering intellectual capacities. So much was this the case, that by the time they reached their senior year in college, both men were convinced that they were physical embodiments of the Nietzschean Superman. It was with this in mind that together, they planned and executed the perfect murder. Everything went like clockwork until they were forced to speak against each other during interrogation.

    Where am I going with this?

    During closing arguments of their punishment hearing, Darrow gave one of the most widely analyzed closing remarks in American juridical history. He argued that although Leopold and Loeb clearly committed the murderous act, they could not be held responsible for their actions. Darrow argued that Man is like a machine... he is assembled with a certain parts that dictate how the machine works. In this sense, because of their brilliance, the environment they were brought up in, and the expectations that were placed on them by society, Leopold and Loeb were destined to commit the crime that they did. Ultimately, Darrow's argument convinced the judge to spare their lives and instead commit them to a lifetime in prison.

    Several parallels can be drawn from Darrow's argument to our reading and discussions in class. Of particular interest, is the concept of responsibility...  

    If Oedipus was "destined" to take the actions he did due to a divine plan, to what extent can he be held responsible for them at all?  As a result of his being born the son of Laius, Oedipus inherited the burden of killing his father and being intimate with his mother. As Darrow argued on behalf of Leopold and Loeb, even before Oedipus he had any opportunity to act otherwise, he was destined to commit these unthinkable acts. How then, can Oedipus be subject to blame if his actions committed were predetermined by a god?  If anyone is familiar with how this sort of concept is interpreted in contemporary religious texts, I would be most grateful for their input. In particular, could one argue that Judas was responsible for his betrayal of Christ?

    Also, I one can argue that in the absence of a divine plan, Oedipus cannot be held responsible for his crimes because he acted in accordance with the information he had at the time. Darrow argued that because of Man's nature as a machine-like entity, his decisions and actions are based on the parts he is made of (DNA) and the input fed into him (information and environmental factors). Therefore, Man can only be held accountable for actions interpreted through that lens. Darrow argued that Leopold and Loeb were acting as a direct result of how they viewed the world based on their experiences with it. They same can be argued for Oedipus. According to Darrow, were either factors (environmental or biological) different, it can be expected that the result would be different. Oedipus killed his father in the absence of any knowledge about their relationship and it was under similar conditions that he married his mother. How can he be held responsible for his these things if he was acting in accordance with the information he had at that time?

    Finally, in the pursuit of furthering our discussion about the definition of justice, I leave you with a quote from Darrow's summation:
 

" No one with wisdom and with understanding, no one who is honest with himself and with his own life whoever he may be, no one who has seen himself the prey and the sport and the plaything of the infinite forces that move man, no one who has tried and who has failed,--and we have all tried, and we have all failed,--no one can tell what justice is for someone else or for himself--and the more he tries and the more responsibility he takes the more he clings to mercy as being the one thing which he is sure should control his judgment of men."

Clarence Darrow- 1924

In looking over some of the online resources regarding Oedipus, I found a two fun links that I thought I would just post if your interested:

In class Wednesday we began to discuss the themes in King Oedipus. One of the most important themes in the play is limitations, in particular, the limitations of free will. Jocasta and King Laius try to escape the prophecy that doomed them by abandoning their child in the mountains, bound at the ankles. By strange coincidence that child, Oedipus ends up back in Thebes after hearing the terrible prophecy that he will kill his father and impregnate his mother. Oedipus flees Corinth to escape his fate. However, he cannot escape fate as it follows him and he murders his father and sleeps with his mother unknowingly. Fate seems to always be catching up to him no matter how hard he tries to escape it.

I also think that the crossroads where Oedipus kills his father is rather symbolic in this matter. To me, the crossroads  represent the choices that one can make and their possible outcomes. Even though their were many roads to chose from, Oedipus chose the one that the prophecy foretold of. This alludes to the idea that even though you are given choices, it does not matter because fate has already decided your destiny.  The play also has a religious aspect as all of the prophecies in the play come true. I think that Sophocles is sending a warning that one should obey prophecies and the gods alike. This theme is still relevant in modern religions like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Many people put their faith in the hands of their god and believe that he/she has a plan for everyone.  

      All of us are royalty in mind and at heart, kings and queens of a realm at least as far reaching as the limits of our emotion, and intellect; the "human realm". How we rule that realm, whether it be through a strict dictatorship of calculation and discipline, a libertarian leadership of free-thought and acceptance, or somewhere in between, and how we solve the situations within it often determines who we are and how we operate as human beings. King Oidipous identifies and isolates many of the problems of the "human realm" and maps them onto an easily understandable format which is why I found it so appealing. To be able to read about and interpret such complex ideas and concepts through something so entertaining was a greatly accepted change of pace. Oidipous allows us to investigate our inner workings without definitions and scientific theory or lectures and textbooks. The two situations that I found most interesting that Oidipous faced, which everyone faces, were his conflict between faith and intellect and also the situation concerning his parents    
     Throughout King Oidipous there are multiple juxtapositions of faith and intellect. The majority are embodied through the physical opposition of Oidipous (the intellectual) and the heralds of the prophecy of the Oracle at Delphi (the faithful). Both of the stories main conflicts arise from this opposition. If King Laius and Queen Jocasta had ignored the Oracle and not attempted to dispose of the new born Oidipous all three would have avoided their unfortunate fates. Likewise if King Oidipous had heeded Teiresias' prophecy earlier in the situation he may have found a less dramatic and destructive solution to his problems. This conflict of intellect and faith is something we face everyday as both individuals and a society. Which should we listen too? Can both coexist?
      The second situation Oidipous faces is how to deal with the knowledge that he killed his father and married/impregnated his mother. Although most of us don't face situations as severe as these some claim we do face something similar which has been scientifically labeled the Oedipous Complex. This psychoanalytic theory broadly states that every child wishes to eliminate or replace the parent of the same sex in order to possess the parent of the opposite sex. These wishes are said to be fueled by subconscious sexual desires and instincts. It also claims that in order to develop into a healthy adult we must confront and resolve this subconscious complex. If Oidipous had accepted his past and attempted to resolve his issues would he have met a better fate? Are the concepts of the Oedipous Complex actually as prevalent as psychoanalytic theory claims they are?
      The above two situations and the questions they spawn are very interesting and also very crucial to our understanding of King Oidipoous. I have only posed questions concerning the two topics because my thoughts on them are not concrete enough to put down on paper. I would love to hear some input and discussion that will hopefully help me better solidify my conceptions.

This week saw the trial of Kaing Guek Eav commence. He is directly implicated in the tortures and death of over 14,000 people as a member of a regime responsible for 1.7 million deaths in just four years.

And he has a lawyer.

In spite of his record of human rights abuses, Mr. François Roux has chosen to represent the man in a fair trial, not necessarily to preserve his freedom but out of commitment to a concept of justice.

One passage of particular interest:

The argument of Duch's lawyer, François Roux, amounted to a passionate rationale for defending people accused of the most terrible crimes, and of the primacy of legal principles in even the most emotionally charged cases. It was in effect an indictment of the methods and actions of the man he was defending.

In a judicial proceeding, Mr. Roux said, rules are sacrosanct, the final line of defense of impartial justice.

"We are defending a man, and although this man has acknowledged responsibility, he is entitled to a fair trial," he said. "The work we are doing is hard work but essential, and we can only do our work if we respect the rule of law, respect the rights of the accused and respect the principle of an adversarial proceeding."

Such language is analogous to what occurs in The Eumenides. Athena does not have to respect the Furies in order to recognize their status as equal (or as a potential threat), and concessions to the Furies are not indicative of admiration but reveal a belief in a system that supersedes the desires of the individual. This article emphasizes what I consider Athena's important contribution - establishing that "final line of defense of impartial justice."

In today's discussion we talked a lot about Athena's relationship with the Furies. Unlike anyone else that comes into contact with the furies, Athena respects the Furies. In the Eumenides, the Furies represent a tie to a by-gone era of retributive justice. What does Athena have to gain by continuing to associate herself with them. 

Here for your viewing and listening pleasure is Ryan and Nick's video weekly roundup podcast.

Sorry it's a bit late, but here's Rob and I's podcast for this week. Enjoy!

stefanrobweek4.mp3

The short answer is no.

It is worth noting that, once again, the force of Persuasion is only effective when backed up with the threat of violence. In addition to the oft-cited "keys to Zeus' thunderbolts," Athena arrives fully clad in armor after a busy day of surveying her land (land won by force, no less, in lines 397-402). The Furies "respect" Athena's authority, but a later passage calls into question the nature of this respect:

"There are times when fear is good. It must keep its watchful place at the heart's controls. There is advantage in the wisdom won from pain. Should the city, should the man rear a heart that nowhere goes in fear, how shall such a one any more respect the right?" (517-525)

These lines and the surrounding speech provide insight into the Furies' concepts of Justice and Right. As they rue the collapse of the "House of Justice", they posit that the foundation of their respect is one of fear-inspired awe, yielding to their opponent's power (and by extension, Zeus). This may sound like the reflections of archaic traditions, except Athena echoes these same sentiments in her instructions to the jury in lines 697-699:

"Thus I advise my citizens to govern and to grace, and not to cast fear utterly from your city. What man who fears nothing at all is ever righteous?"

Fortunately, it works both ways, forging a mutual respect. While Athena has the keys to the thunderbolts, it is the threat of pestilence that draws her to the bargaining table: "We cannot brush them aside...the venom of their resolution will return to infect the soil, and sicken all my land to death." (476-479) Had it been a less worthy opponent, can we assume the dispute would have been settled in such a civil manner? Even if we reject the notion that Athena's authority is rooted in coercion, it seems that the Furies' own position is legitimized through their threat of retaliation.

To avert what may have been divine Mutually Assured Destruction (which, of course, introduces the debate of deterrence as an effective strategy for peace), we have the genesis of a new form of Justice - quintessential dues ex machina. The infallible judgment of Athena resolves the conflict and everyone lives happily ever after. But what of her deciding vote, cast in favor of Orestes? In siding with the matricide, Athena denounces the female role in both deed and word:

"It is my task to render final judgment here. This is a ballot for Orestes I shall cast. There is no mother anywhere who gave me birth, and, but for marriage, I am always for the male with all my heart, and strongly on my father's side." (734-738)

Given our previous discussions of political theories associated with the gender stereotypes of Greek society, this seems like a direct refutation of the female role and an affirmation of Justice composed of those male qualities: strength in independence, reason, and physical domination (tempered by compromise, in this case, but without sacrificing her own position of strength).

The questions posed by Oresteia are no less relevant but serve only as a theoretical vignette - a moral exercise to challenge existing concepts of Virtue and Justice. The presented denouement does little to provide a sustainable alternative to current notions of political power. As suggested by Kaitlyn's previous post, power and force may very well be inseparable; the real challenge is implementing a viable balance of the two that establishes legitimate authority in the eyes of its constituents.

In class today, we talked about shifting and evolving conceptions of justice and how we can act ethically when we don't have a static understanding of what justice/right/good is. It was suggested that perhaps questioning is enough (I'm simplifying slightly). I kind of like that idea, because what it would mean is that people would have to really think about things and be open to the ideas of other people and it would allow cultural conceptions of right to evolve or progress.

As I was thinking about this "model," I reflected back on my life thus far. I'd like to think that when decisions come up in my life, I give a pretty good amount of thought to what the right thing to do is, considering as many aspects of the situation as possible. But I can't say that I always end up doing what's right. Looking back on my life, there are a number of things I would have done differently if I'd known xyz factors, or had been exposed to xyz ideology that has since altered the way I think about things, and I'm sure next year, five years from now, ten years from now, I'll be looking back on some of the decisions I'm making today and feel that I didn't give the situation enough or the propper type of thought. I think that has a lot to do with why this is such a frustrating model: if you follow a single rule or set of rules, then you can always justify actions done on the basis of that rule to yourself, whereas if you try and handle situations uniquely, which I'll admit is probably the best way--or at least a good way--to do things, you often end up looking back on your decisions and saying, "I wish I'd known x or considered y."

I don't know that this has any real implication for the value of this way of thinking, but I know it's something at least worth considering.

    Fear plays an integral role in the Eumenides, especially in the creation of a juridical/political system. This however is not a pitfall. In this class we have spent a significant amount of time discussing the difference between power and force and how the former is the more legitimate, longer lasting. This said, Zeus' authority, which is considered the most legitimate, depends heavily on his ability to inflict his will through the application of force. In Hesiod's Theogony, Zeus demonstrated his immense force to prove that his power was incomparable. "...he seized his weapons, thunder and lighting and lightning-bolt, leaped from Olympos, and struck;... and the vast earth burned widely from unspeakable heat (line 854-862)," is proof that he was capable of action and not just speak. Athena in amassing her legitimate power acted similarly. Her use of well formulated rhetoric and respect allowed her to establish her power and her invocation of potential force legitimized that power. I would even argue that any major political power, modern and past required an element of force. Instead of viewing power as the only appropriate means of running a society and force as a slippery slope towards demise, they should be viewed as mutually reliant. A legitimate political power cannot survive without the use of force, or at least the capability. And conversely, purely force will never result in a stable regime when it is the primary or singular actor. Therefore, political or judicial court systems are both in need of some degree of force behind them and more importantly cannot exist properly without it.

    To Hannah's point of what is justice and do the court systems of modern society effectively administer it, I ask does it matter? In the case of the U.S., people appeal to the court system to deal out justice on those they feel have wronged them. They believe in the system and are willing to seek justice through these prescribed avenues. Whether the courts actually administer just rulings is significantly more ambiguous. There are numerous cases in which unfair or unjust rulings were made and subsequently enforced. But the fact that the majority of people feel that for the majority of time the courts provide justice is enough to make the court a legitimate institution. In a way, the court systems of today provide a civil means of retributive justice. Governments have no interest in allowing for vicious cycles of vengeance to thrive in their societies, but recognize that humans will always seek to avenge themselves and therefore institute courts to allow citizens to legally exact justice. The court systems, of the United States in particular, are themselves a political institution that can be analyzed through the lens of the power, force dichotomy. Like Zeus, their power relies heavily on the use of 'metis' and rational thought processes. This is a major contributor to the legitimization of the court system. Again, force at their disposal is the all important lynch pin, however, which makes their power completely legitimate and interminable.

    In conclusion, power and force are two sides of the same coin. Longevity and legitimacy rely on a combination of the two. Secondly, a justice system is very similar to a political one; a court system must be viewed as legitimate by the people and there must be the promise of force to back it up.

    One question I have is: what role exactly does respect have in legitimizing social institutions? For Athena, it proved very effective and justices of the U.S. wear black robes - it seems a highly underestimated tool. If so, to what extent can it manipulate a situation?

Is a juridical/political system of justice possible without the threat of force standing behind it?  

In a recent interview on Fresh Air, Thomas Ricks talks about his new book The Gamble, in which he outlines the process the US military undertook to mute some of the violence in Iraq and to begin to turn the country toward a more stable future.

Motivated by Monday's class I recently reviewed and analyzed various symbols and metaphors occurring throughout the Oresteia in an attempt to comprehend them more thoroughly. Below are some brief summaries my observations.

The Net

The net represents entanglement, confusion, treachery, and deception. It seems to be the most widely used of the Oresteia's symbols and appears in multiple situations such as Zeus' metaphorical casting of it over Troy (355-60, Agamemnon), Cassandra's hysterical claims of the net like death trap awaiting Agamemnon (1125-29, Agamemnon), and Orestes' angry account of the entrapment and murder of his father (1114-16, The Libation Bearers). Along with these specific references to the net, there is also an ongoing theme in the Oresteia of characters weaving plots and lies in order to ensnare their intended victims.

 

The Serpent / Snake

            The snake is very similar to the net in that its main characteristics are entanglement, and deception. Both symbols usually remain out of sight until it is too late to avoid them. The snake though incorporates a human element. It is the combination of intellect and cunning as a means of entrapment rather than just an object of entrapment itself. The snake implies thought along with deception. An example of this would be Clytamestra (the snake) entangling Agamemnon in the robes (the net) in order to exact her revenge.

Light vs. Dark / Old vs. New / Juridical Justice vs. Retributive Justice

            All three of these are major motifs in the Oresteia and, in a way, are all interconnected. Throughout the plays there is a sense of change. Each play brings its characters closer to a new way of being. In the beginning the house of Atreus is covered in the darkness of bloodshed, vengeance, and war. The furies have free reign and torment all those they encounter. Then when Orestes returns, at the will of Apollo (who represents the Sun and illumination), we begin to see a change. It seems to be a transition period between dark and light, old and new. As time passes the need for vengeance fades, even though it is still clearly present, and thought and reason become more prevalent. Finally, the full transition is made to the new, illuminated way of life when Orestes is found innocent, the cycle of retributive justice is replaced by juridical justice, and the Furies are appeased.   

 

These are just a few of the major themes and symbols in the Oresteia and are far from complete in their analysis. If you have anything to add, or just completely disagree with what is being said please comment.

Today we had a long discussion on the authenticity of Clytaemestra's words to Orestes before her death and whether or not she respected him.  Some said that, yes, her words were sincere and that she truly respected Orestes while others argued that Clytaemestra was using her words in a way to guilt Orestes as a way of self preservation.  I would have to say that I agree with the group that sided against Clytaemestra.  However it wasn't clear until after reading the Eumenides.

I was thinking, if Clytaemestra truly respected her son, why would she return again to cause misfortune upon him?  Clytaemestra's ghost appears and is angered because she is no longer being honored, seen in lines 110-116:

Now I watch all these honors trampled into the ground, and he is out and gone away like any fawn so lightly, from the very middle of your nets, sprung clear, and laughing merrily at you. Hear me. It is my life depends upon this spoken plea.  Think then, o goddesses beneath the ground. For I, the dream of Clytaemestra, call upon your name.

This reinforced my position that Clytaemestra has never had respect for her son Orestes.  She awakes the Furies and sends them off like hound dogs to find Orestes and attempt to cause him unhappiness for the rest of his life.  This is all due to Clytaemestra's insatiable appetite to feed her immense ego.

Today in class we spoke about different themes in the Eumenides. One of the themes that we spoke about was the battle between the old and the new. In the Eumenides, the Furies represent the old way of justice and thought. The Furies embody violence and primal thought. On the other hand, Apollo represents the new way of thought that utilizes logic and reason. He cleverly argues that males are more improtant in marriages than females by pointing out that Athena herself was born only to Zeus. The Furies seek vengence on the side of Clytemnestra during the trial and Apollo acts as Orestes attorney. The end result of the trial shows the transition in the way of thought towards logic and reason as Orestes is ultimately let off the hook. The trial brings an end to the violent and chaotic cycle of retributive justice that encompassed the first two plays in the Oresteia. Before the trial, justice was sought out through revenge and murder. Maybe the lesson in the Oresteia is that justice cannot come from the blade of a sword, but only by logic and reason.

We also talked about how some of the themes in the Greek tragedies we are reading in class relate to modern pop culture in movies and music. I think that the song "We Will Fall Together" by the band Streetlight Manifesto is a good example of music that pertains to the themes found in the Eumenides, in particular the theme of old thought verse new thought. I feel that the last line in the song pretty well sums up the theme: "With the fury of a soldier who will answer to his God - So how will we fight? All we have is logic and love on our side" In the first two plays, the characters justified themselves by hiding behind gods like Apollo and Zeus and sought their approval. However, justice is finally found when instead of looking towards the gods, logic and reason is simply employed.
Here is the song in case anyone felt like giving it a listen.
01 We Will Fall Together.m4a

I tried to post this on Wednesday, however it did not work and I have since forgot a majority of what I wrote.  Last week we discussed Electra and her search for retributive justice.  The discussion of Electra reminded of the character of Elektra from the film "Daredevil" starring Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner.  Elektra's father has just been murder when she decides it is up to her to bring to justice her father's murderer.  The character is also has greek heritage with a last name like Natchios.  Elektra differs from Electra in that she is much more decisive about her decision to seek justice.  Unfortunately I had a lot more written, but have since forgotten it, but that was the basic overview.

Weekly Roundup - Week 2.m4a

This podcast, created by Dan and Maryam, discusses the relationship between the characters in the Oresteia and the role of justice. This podcast covers the week of 2/2 to 2/6.

Many (if not all) of the Greek Classics have been written and re-written by multiple individuals over the ages.  In each one of these re-writes, different values are emphasized and different characters (the authors favorites?) are altered, sometimes leading to dramatic changes in the base story.  One of the primary questions on my mind when we go over these stories in class is why do we read the versions we read?  Also, how much of the original story is still intact?  How much have the characters been changed to re-direct sympathy and emphasize values?

Hesiod puts forth little effort to hide his opinions.  In several areas, his wording seems to directly contradict the lines leading up to it.  In the story of Prometheus, Hesiod tells of the trick Prometheus plays on Zeus (where it is decided which parts of the animal are to be sacrificed to the Gods):

"He spoke with the trick in mind; but Zeus, knowing deathless
plans, knew and did not miss the trick; in his heart
he foresaw evils which were going to happen to mortal men."
Hesiod, Theogeny 550-552

It seems fairly obvious that this was an attempt by Hesiod to save Zeus from appearing to be a fool.  Although Zeus "knew and did not miss the trick" he still falls for it, and as a result the bones of the animals are burnt in offering.  This wording, although confusing, is relatively harmless to the story itself, as the result is the same (Prometheus tricks Zeus and continues to wreak havoc on the king of the Gods until he is eventually chained to a rock and repeatedly eaten.).  Altering the actual outcome to make Zeus look good would be absurd, and would probably be frowned upon by the general society.

One value that we've paid close attention to in class is the ancient Greek stereotype of women. In class, we made a list of the traits women were supposed to exhibit.  That list included that women were viewed as irrational, unable to control their emotions, passive, untrustworthy, domestic and unstable (among other things).  Hesiod appears to be in support of this stereotype in the Theogeny when discussing the creation of Pandora:

"For from her is the race of female women,
[from her is the deadly race and tribes of women]
a great plague to mortals, dwelling with men,"
Hesiod, Theogeny 590-592

This attitude stands in bold contrast to the tone taken by Aeschylus in Agamemnon and The Libation Bearers.  Both Clytaemestra and Electra seem to poke holes in the stereotype of women (Clytaemestra a bit more than Electra).   Yet, the characters of Electra and her brother Orestes change greatly in various versions of their story.  I have read two other versions of the story of Electra.  In one (by Sophocles?), she appeared to be completely out of her mind.  In Euripides' version she was motivated not by a love for Agamemnon, but rather by the fact that she had gotten kicked out of the castle and no longer enjoyed the benefits of royalty.  Aeschylus makes the character of Electra a bit easier to sympathize with, where the other two versions portray Electra as either unstable or interested only in material goods/ her own comfort.  In conclusion, I would like to point out that although we may never know what the true intention of the authors was, (though we'll still be interpreting and trying to find the answer for many, many years) it is interesting to see how a little variation in a character can lead to a massive change of meaning in the story.  Also, take note of which variations are more prevalent (for example: making Electra fit more into the female stereotype than her mother did) and what that might suggest about the attitude of the majority of the ancient Greek society.

There are a number of themes that have started to emerge this week, so I thought I would draw some links together here to orient discussion online and in-class.

This does not have much to do specifically with Agamemnon or the Libation Bearers but I went to see Madelaine Albright speak tonight and I thought that a lot of what she said has to do with what this class is about (force vs. power).

She talked a lot about what diplomacy is and how effective it is. She said at one point that diplomacy was created to talk to people or nations that we do not like as a way to air feelings and learn more about each side's stance on tough issues. However, she also talked about how we need to find a balance between just talking and action.  She used the example of Iran and their nuclear programs. She said that we need to be willing to sit down with Iran without any preconditions but that we should also be actively investigating their programs and taking action if it is necessary.

I guess I was just wondering if anyone else went and if you did what your thoughts are about how it relates to this class.

Our discussion in class today about retributive justice reminded me of an article I read on the BBC several months ago about blood feuds in Albania.

It examines the experience of several children in Albania who were marked for death due to ongoing feuds between rival clans. As a result, they were forced to live in hiding-- secluded to their homes in order to escape being killed in an act of revenge. According to the article, under traditional Albanian Kanun law, the family of a murder victim may seek retributive justice by killing any male member of the murderer's family. The murderer in turn would have the same claim should a relative be killed, even if it was in retribution for his earlier actions. Ultimately, the feud must continue until all males in both families have been killed or all living males agree to end the feud.

The irrational logic at play in Kanun law exemplifies a major problem in discussing the nature of justice: As justice is a manmade concept, it is subject to the faults of man.  Jealousy, pride, vengeance, and pain have all been at play in the scenes of retributive justice we have discussed in class.  In each case, a character has acted in a way that she/he perceived was just. But who was really acting justly? Was it Clytemnestra avenging the death of her daughter or Orestes seeking to avenge his father? Could it be both?

Perhaps it is because of man's tendency to understand action through the prism of emotion and relation to past experience (as opposed to logic and rationality) that he is able to skew justice in a manner that fits his needs. Our world is littered with nebulous concepts like "just cause" and "just war," but in many cases, we have no clear indication of what justice is.

To nail home the point:

On September 20, 2001, then President George W. Bush invoked the concept when addressing congress.  He said, "Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done." In July 2008, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz published the text of the note President Barack Obama placed in a crack in the western wall. The note concluded: Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will." These two vastly different men undoubtedly have very different views of justice.  In four years when we look back at the actions of our current president, how can we judge whether his actions were more or less just than those of his predecessor?

The murders of Aegisthus, Agamemnon, and Clytemnestra, the painful wishes of Guffran, and the continuing cycles of violence in Albania all demonstrate the degree to which context skews the meaning of justice. Before we pass judgment about the just nature of any character's actions (historic or modern) we must first reach a common agreement on what constitutes justice in the first place.

There was some discussion about Orestes in Monday's class related to his more sympathetic nature that made it hard for him to kill his mother. Clytaemestra was described as lacking such qualities when she killed her husband, Agamemnon. I argue, however, that Orestes was no better then his mother, and in fact was more selfish in his crime.
 
Firstly, in Agamemnon, Clytaemestra was more justified in her crime than Orestes was in his crime in The Libation Bearers. Upon killing Agamemnon, Clytaemestra succinctly stated, "That man is Agamemnon, my husband; he is dead; the work of this right hand that struck in strength or righteousness. And that is that (Agamemnon, line 1404-06)." This murder was a direct result of a nefarious and amoral act by Agamemnon. He killed his own daughter after deceiving Clytaemestra, the girl's mother, to let him take his daughter (Iphigeneia) with him on the trip. The pain and suffering incurred by Clytaemestra of having her daughter stolen from her and murdered is unimaginable. More importantly though, Orestes pain of losing a father he barely knew pales in comparison. In this way, Clytaemestra was more justified in her crime which is why she struck Agamemnon down with the "strength of righteousness."        

    Secondly, Orestes second guessing his choice to kill his mother was not a result of maternal love but rather selfish concern. Orestes' apprehension stems from his worry that by killing his mother and committing a crime against his own blood he will suffer severe consequences at the hands of the Gods. He didn't hesitate because he began to remember lovely moments he shared with his mother. As he said in line 913 of The Libation Bearers, "You bore me and threw me away, to a hard life." Additionally, before the time he was sent away, it was the nurse Cilissa who was responsible for his upbringing. As she put it, "I wore out my life for him. I took him from his mother, brought him up (Libation Bearers line 749-50)." Clytaemestra's pleas to Orestes caused him pause only because it reminded him of the consequences for killing one's mother. This is affirmed by Pylades oral support to Orestes. Instead of assuaging his concerns about how she was a bad mother or how she deserved to die because she killed Agamemnon, he instead reassures Orestes that the Gods won't punish him. "What then becomes thereafter of the oracles declared by Loxias at Pytho? Count all men hateful to you rather than the gods (Libation Bearers, line 900-03)," said Pylades. In other words, Orestes had no quarrel with killing his mother as long as he was assured that no repercussions would befall him. This is why after Pylades reassurance he easily murdered his mother.

    Clytaemestra was, in fact, more justified and less selfish in her crime than Orestes was. Orestes acted upon a vague sense of duty to avenge his father's death, which possibly comes from a sexist stereotype - that his honor is diminished unless he (the man) gets the last word against an out of line women (his mother) - and committed the crime only because he thought he was safe from the Gods' rage. Therefore, Clytaemestra is the more personable and more respectable character.

Whatever their differences, Electra and Clytemnestra share a common vision of the nature of justice.  When the chorus of maidens in the Libation Bearers instruct Electra about what she should say in prayer over the grave of her father, they tell her to ask for someone to kill her Clytemnestra and Aegisthus.  When she is hesitant, they say: "May you not hurt your enemy, when he struck first?" (122).  Convinced by this, Electra prays to her father: "I pray that your avenger come, that they who killed you shall be killed in turn, as they deserve" (143-4). 

In the Agamemnon, Clytemnestra justifies her actions this way: "No shame, I think, in the death given this man.  And did he not first of all in this house wreak death by treachery?  The flower of this man's love and mine, Iphigeneia of the tears he dealt with even as he has suffered.  Let his speech in death's house be not loud.  With the sword he paid for his own act" (Ag., 1521-1529).

What is the nature of this conception of justice?  What are its social, political, personal ramifications?

In thinking about these questions, listen to the story of Guffran, the nine year old girl in Baghdad whose father was killed in a carjacking:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6043673

How does Guffran's reaction to the death of her father compare with Electra's response to the death of hers? 

The Libation Bearers concludes with these words from the Chorus: "Where is the end?  Where shall the fury of fate be stilled to sleep, be done with?" (1074-76)  Retributive justice perpetuates a vicious cycle of violence...where is the end?  This question finds some response in the Eumenides.

Phil 298H podcast 2.m4a

I thought the use of Orestes' nurse was very important in The Libation Bearers. When Cilissa is ordered to give a message to Aegusthus that Orestes has died she is struck with grief.

"Poor unhappy me, all my long-standing mixture of misfortunes, hard burden enough, here in the house of Atreus, when it befell me made the heart ache in my breast. But never yet did I have to bear hurt like this. I took the other troubles bravely as they came: but now, darling Orestes! I wrote my life out for him. I took him from his mother, brought him up" (ln 743-750).

This testament of grief from Cilissa details Orestes' upbringing and presents Cilissa as the real mother figure in the life of Orestes and discredits any nurturing by Clytemnestra. This also reveals why Orestes is more committed to avenging his father  than trying to forgive his mother. Orestes has little to no meaningful bond with his mother because she did not raise him. He identifies more with the role of being his father's only son.

-R

Perhaps this didn't occur to me before class because I wasn't entirely sure, or perhaps not entirely aware of the actual position of the chorus--namely as servants of Electra's house, but I don't know that they should be examined through the same gendered lens we've been using to look at the other women in the play. Specifically what I mean is that there's a classed dimension to the chorus that I think needs to be considered. The chorus is not just a female voice, it's also an enslaved voice, and once I started to think about it in those terms, it sort of complicated the way that I saw their relationship with Electra, and even more so their relationship with Clytaemestra and Aegisthus. The relationship between Electra and the chorus seems to be less about friendship and more about social order. For instance, I find it slightly difficult to believe that the chorus can really relate to Electra or really sympathize with her without some degree of envy--like she thinks that she's in a rough spot, but doesn't realize the extent to which she's more fortunate than her servants, who are not only disempowered because of their gender and the gender structure of society, but also by the social structure itself, which is to an extent enabled by their subjection or commodification. I don't know if there's anything conclusive to draw from this insight--I'm not exactly sure yet what I make of it, since it seems to me that the chorus is primarially concerned with its own self-interest and bettering their situation rather than Electra's, but others might not necessarially see it that way. I just thought it might be thought-provoking to take into consideration whether or not this complicates the way we look at the actions and lines of the chorus. I welcome feedback--does this seem like a non-issue to you guys, or do you have any insight into how it might function to alter the character, if it does at all? Help me through this, please!