The Orestes is the next to latest play that Euripides wrote that we have. It was written only a few years before he died, toward the end of the Peloponnesian war.  It can be argued that this play is concerned with the sort of murderous passion that surrounds around political events. Athens twenty years earlier had begun a war with Sparta and her allies confident of success, led by the brilliant Pericles. But two years after the beginning of the war a plague hit Athens that may have killed up to a fourth of the population, including Pericles. After him less able and less honest demagogues came into power. The first phase of the war ended in a stalemate that merely allowed both sides to rearm. The second phase of the war was marked by Athens' attempt to gain control of Sicily's most powerful city, Syracuse, an expedition that ended in utter disaster. Part of the reason for this is that one of the commanders of the expedition, Alcibiades, fled to the Spartans to avoid a perhaps groundless prosecution by political enemies.  In 411 B.C. there was an aristocratic coup in Athens, and a government in exile was formed in Samos. All-out civil war was narrowly avoided, and the democratic government soon reinstalled. But political chaos did not end, as one political faction fought against another. By this time the Spartans were being supported by Persian silver, and Athens had lost many of its subjects states and was short of money.

Thucydides, who was a up and coming leader during the war, but was exiled due to a military failure, wrote a history of all but the end of that war. One of the themes of his history is how human goodness, decency and rule of law decays under the pressures of war and political strife. His most vivid description of this bloody breakdown and slide into savagery in found in his description of the civil war between conservative and 'popular' factions at Corcyra early in the war. Here are the passages from Book III, chapter 83.

[1] So bloody was the march of the revolution, and the impression which it made was the greater as it was one of the first to occur. Later on, one may say, the whole Hellenic world was convulsed; struggles being everywhere made by the popular chiefs to bring in the Athenians, and by the oligarchs to introduce the Lacedaemonians. In peace there would have been neither the pretext nor the wish to make such an invitation; but in war, with an alliance always at the command of either faction for the hurt of their adversaries and their own corresponding advantage, opportunities for bringing in the foreigner were never wanting to the revolutionary parties. [2] The sufferings which revolution entailed upon the cities were many and terrible, such as have occurred and always will occur, as long as the nature of mankind remains the same; though in a severer or milder form, and varying in their symptoms, according to the variety of the particular cases. In peace and prosperity states and individuals have better sentiments, because they do not find themselves suddenly confronted with imperious necessities; but war takes away the easy supply of daily wants, and so proves a rough master, that brings most men's characters to a level with their fortunes. [3] Revolution thus ran its course from city to city, and the places which it arrived at last, from having heard what had been done before carried to a still greater excess the refinement of their inventions, as manifested in the cunning of their enterprises and the atrocity of their reprisals.

 [4] Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question inaptness to act on any. Frantic violence, became the attribute of manliness; cautious plotting, a justifiable means of self-defense. [5] The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected. To succeed in a plot was to have a shrewd head, to divine a plot a still shrewder; but to try to provide against having to do either was to break up your party and to be afraid of your adversaries. In fine, to forestall an intending criminal, or to suggest the idea of a crime where it was wanting, was equally commended, [6] until even blood became a weaker tie than party, from the superior readiness of those united by the latter to dare everything without reserve; for such associations had not in view the blessings derivable from established institutions but were formed by ambition for their overthrow; and the confidence of their members in each other rested less on any religious sanction than upon complicity in crime.
 
[7] The fair proposals of an adversary were met with jealous precautions by the stronger of the two, and not with a generous confidence. Revenge also was held of more account than self-preservation. Oaths of reconciliation, being only proffered on either side to meet an immediate difficulty, only held good so long as no other weapon was at hand; but when opportunity offered, he who first ventured to seize it and to take his enemy off his guard, thought this perfidious vengeance sweeter than an open one, since, considerations of safety apart, success by treachery won him the palm of superior intelligence. Indeed it is generally the case that men are readier to call rogues clever than simpletons honest, and are as ashamed of being the second as they are proud of being the first. [8] The cause of all these evils was the lust for power arising from greed and ambition; and from these passions proceeded the violence of parties once engaged in contention. The leaders in the cities, each provided with the fairest professions, on the one side with the cry of political equality of the people, on the other of a moderate aristocracy, sought prizes for themselves in those public interests which they pretended to cherish, and, recoiling from no means in their struggles for ascendancy, engaged in the direct excesses; in their acts of vengeance they went to even greater lengths, not stopping at what justice or the good of the state demanded, but making the party caprice of the moment their only standard, and invoking with equal readiness the condemnation of an unjust verdict or the authority of the strong arm to glut the animosities of the hour. Thus religion was in honor with neither party; but the use of fair phrases to arrive at guilty ends was in high reputation. Meanwhile the moderate part of the citizens perished between the two, either for not joining in the quarrel, or because envy would not suffer them to escape.

 [1] Thus every form of iniquity took root in the Hellenic countries by reason of the troubles. The ancient simplicity into which honor so largely entered was laughed down and disappeared; and society became divided into camps in which no man trusted his fellow. [2] To put an end to this, there was neither promise to be depended upon, nor oath that could command respect; but all parties dwelling rather in their calculation upon the hopelessness of a permanent state of things, were more intent upon self-defense than capable of confidence. [3] In this contest the blunter wits were most successful. Apprehensive of their own deficiencies and of the cleverness of their antagonists, they feared to be worsted in debate and to be surprised by the combinations of their more versatile opponents, and so at once boldly had recourse to action:[4] while their adversaries, arrogantly thinking that they should know in time, and that it was unnecessary to secure by action what policy afforded, often fell victims to their want of precaution.

Thucydides spends so much time on this account because he sees it as a model for what would later happen during civil strife at Athens and elsewhere. I believe that Euripides too is interested in this question. Thus the story of this Orestes is set in a world very much like that of Athens in the final, chaotic years of the Peloponnesian war, and Orestes, Pylades and Electra are pictured as individuals who act out of the motives so often seen in that period. Like Thucydides does, Euripides also is exploring how people, under the pressure of civil strife and political conflict, lose what little humanity their have and commit acts of terror that normally they would abhor. Think about the rhetoric and actions of extremist groups today and how even 'normal' citizens, once they have lost faith in the government, and inspired by intense hatred, can suddenly come together in extremist groups and, supported by each other, plan the most appalling acts. Electra, Orestes and Pylades show some of the sort of behavior of such small extremist groups. The passion that often rules such groups is that of hatred and revenge, a constant problem in Athenian politics of this time; indeed, the passion for revenge led Athenian politicians to do things very harmful to Athens and war effort, solely to destroy their enemies.

As in his play the Electra there is a pronounced tension between the mythological background from which this story is taken and Euripides' realistic treatment. Euripides wants us to see how the standard mythological or dramatic treatments of this myth simply are inadequate, because they do not deal with humans and human passions as they really are; heroic passion is not human passion, which is often far from heroic or even sane. The events of the entire play, save for the epiphany of Glaucus which Menelaus mentions and the 'god from the machine' ending all seem quite realistically pictured. The 'god from the machine ending' I think, not only underlines this tension, but has a darker meaning -- that the case of Athens, due to these passions and the nature of the people involved, could only be saved by an act of divine power -- which will not happen, and did not. Athens lost the war.

This play concerns events of the Orestes legend that are untreated in other extant dramas  - that is, what happens in the days immediately following the matricide. This play is a bit like a sequel to the Electra, although not exactly. Like that play, Orestes realizes the murder has been a terrible mistake, and Electra was part of the plot. However in this play there is much more focus on the characters of Orestes and Pylades. We get the impression that Orestes might have been a mentally unstable person even before the matricide. Pylades is a Cassius, a radical who, not Electra, it seems planned the matricide and goaded Orestes into it. What then are we to make of the oracle of Apollo? The oracle of Apollo and Orestes' use of it can represent how people use religion (or any other dogma) as an excuse for horrible deeds. Critics have also suggested that Euripides is especially critical of such oracles, since they are one of the most enduring (and misused) features of traditional religion, and Euripides want us to see this. And, as I suggest later, the oracle of Apollo may so simply be the 'voices' that Orestes has heard prompting him to murder.

The chief passions of this play are hatred and revenge. There is the personal hatred of Menelaus and his family because they have prospered relatively while Agamemnon's family has been nearly destroyed -- and Menelaus, whom Agamemnon fought for, will profit from this. There is a sense that Electra particularly envies and hates Hermione, who is her own age, and who has everything that she has not. The personal becomes the political as Orestes' hatred is increased by the danger posed by the public death sentence and the lack of support from Menelaus. As we shall see, at the beginning of this play the sick and passive Orestes at least has come to an understanding of the evils he has done, and realizes that even Agamemnon would have not wanted Clytemnestra killed. But goaded by hate, Orestes becomes a man of action whose passions lead him to forget this earlier wisdom as he not only threatens Menelaus (who deserves it) but holds the totally innocent Hermione hostage. Natural human feelings are swept away by the suicidal lust for revenge and bitter hatred.

As in the Electra, Euripides constantly gives us scenes and lines that echo Aeschylus' Oresteia. I think he does so to make very clear how different he sees the world. Euripides is saying "Look here. This is how people really act, this is how people really are, this is how people are  truly motivated  -- nothing at all like the noble legends of Aeschylus."

The play begins with Electra's monologue which details the long series of evils that their family, beginning with Tantalus, has suffered. Not only does this play set up the mythological frame which the realism of the plot works against, but it also creates a dark atmosphere of evil for the whole play. By this time Euripides' Athens, like the family of Electra and Orestes, had suffered an long series of evils that seem only to be able to breed more evil. There seems no escape. The most recent evil, of course, is the matricide. Electra, perhaps putting the best face on the action possible, stresses Apollo's responsibility for the murder, as well as her own full part in the act (top, col. 2, pg 28).

Orestes has suffered a complete mental breakdown, complete with delusions of the pursing Furies. One does not have to believe that Euripides wants us to imagine these are real Furies as opposed to mere hallucinations of his guilty and unstable mind.

Then Electra describes what is happening in Argos. Note that, in Aeschylus, the whole system trial by jury was created, according to Zeus' will, in order to deal with such cases and to avoid the cycle of murder and revenge. But this play presupposes that a trial system and other civic institutions already exist to handle such matters. Thus the assembly of Argos will meet to debate Orestes' guilt and his possible punishment. Remember, at Athens all male citizens could (and did) attend such assemblies, and this assembly, which is described later, will show many of the characteristics of the assemblies during this period in Athens.

They have one hope, for Menelaus is coming, and may be able to use his influence to help them. It should be understood that both brother and sister harbor hatred against him and his family. Look how bitterly Electra mentions the fact that Helen, the cause of Trojan war (and thus of Agamemnon's ruin) has escaped punishment, although deeply hated by all. Note also the mention of Hermione as one of Helen's  consolations. As I mentioned above, Electra probably has a secret resentment of Hermione. This hatred of Hermione and Helen, of course, will help explain the later plot to kill Helen and take Hermione hostage.

Now Helen comes on-stage, a vain and selfish woman, and her attitudes and actions further deepen Electra's hatred. She is no doubt well-dressed.  Notice  how insulting her speech is. She begins by mentioning the fact Electra is still unmarried, and then refers to the fact that Electra and her brother are thought to be so polluted that none will speak with them. She of course, is quick to blame Apollo  (top 1/4, col. 1, pg 29)-- after all, this allows her to blame the gods for the fact she went to Troy. Yet she tactlessly mourns for Clytemnestra.

Notice in Electra's response  'you've come , you in all your happiness and your husband in his as if to gloat on our misery. (top 1/2, col. 1, pg 29). Here we see the bitter resentment of Electra against Menelaus' family. Helen claims to pity Orestes, yet she cannot avoid mentioning her sorrow over Clytemnestra again. Then Helen makes an outrageous request - asking Electra to bring offerings to the mother she murdered so Helen will not have to. Electra suggests Hermione take them, which sets up the trip during which Hermione will be kidnapped.  Note that Helen fears it would be bad if a unmarried women went alone in the streets, and we remember that Helen had just asked the unmarried Electra to do the same! But the selfish Helen  is quickly convinced (since it is the easy way out) and she leaves. Electra bitterly notes how Helen cut the least bit of hair possible, (top 1/4, col. 1, pg 30) so as not to disturb her hairdo.

Now finally the Chorus of Argive women, supporters of Electra and Orestes, comes on. This passage somewhat recalls a similar scene in Sophocles' Women of Trachis, when the Chorus is urged not to disturb the sleeping Heracles. Orestes is so still that they wonder if he is dead. This makes Electra bitterly remark about how both Apollo and Clytemnestra have destroyed them.

Orestes finally wakes up, wondering where he is and what has happened. There follows a tender scene between Electra and Orestes -- she is like the mother he never had, and we see some real goodness in Electra as she lovingly tends Orestes. (pg 31). After getting him up and moving about, Electra tells how Menelaus is coming, and Orestes indicates that he feels Menelaus owes help to them -- which he shall beg for in the following scene. Electra mentions that Menelaus has brought Helen with him, and the mention of Helen seems to set Orestes off. Notice what Orestes says to Electra 'You now! See that you don' take after them! You say you won't, but in your mind...." (top col. 1, pg 32)

Why suddenly does Orestes make this accusation against Electra, which is followed by a psychotic breakdown? While it is problematical to base an interpretation of a character on one line, this line nevertheless may suggest that Orestes' murder of Clytemnestra ** may ** have had something to do with his obsessions about innate female evil, similar to those in Euripides 'play the Hippolytus.  Or these fears may be the result of his recent psychosis, which is now manifesting itself fully as he sees the Furies coming at him. In a scene that recalls a similar episode of Euripides' play, the  Heracles Furens (in which the mad Heracles thinks he is fighting monsters but in reality is slaughtering his own children) Orestes thinks he is taking up Apollo's bow and shooting at the Furies. The fact that Apollo plays a role in his delusions may us wonder what he really heard from Apollo's oracle. We remember how Apollo in Aeschylus is the supporter of the male side against the female, and perhaps, for deranged Orestes, Apollo's is the voice that tells him to act out his hatred of Clytemnestra. (However, I must warn you that this may be a bit too modern and extreme an interpretation. Still, I like it. )

Finally Orestes snaps out of his delusions and becomes sane again. He sees Electra weeping. Note again he mentions how Apollo 'cheered me on." (top 1/2, col. 2, pg 32) -- perhaps during the killing? Again, I wonder if Orestes who says that Apollo made him do it should be considered rather similar to those insane people who hear voices and say, with all sincerity, that God, or the Devil, etc. told them to kill.

But now notice how, as Orestes is temporarily sane, he can see the horror and injustice of what he did, as he believes that even Agamemnon would not have wanted him to kill his mother. (top 1/2, col. 2, pg 32) We shall soon see how Orestes, under the compulsion of hatred and passion and fear, shall change his mind again (as Euripidean characters often do) and boast how 'he will never tire of killing whores." Notice that in this episode, as he is tenderly treated by Electra, these compassionate and humane feelings assert themselves. But the problem is that Orestes soon will have do deal with the harsher and threatening outer world, which will be represented by Menelaus, the Argive Assembly, Tyndareos etc. Under these pressures, hatred will burn even brighter and destroy these sentiments.

The Chorus then sings an Ode that looks backward, echoing the horrors that Orestes saw in his madness and Apollo's part in this. Like an a Chorus of Aeschylus they stress the mythological, religious explanation of Furies as spirit revenging the spilled blood of parents. I think that Euripides means us to see an echo of Aeschylus here, for note how the Chorus ends with one of those generalities about how human happiness cannot last due to the gods, a proverb like make found in  Aeschylus.

Now Menelaus comes in  Notice how he says "Now I am a happy man" -- a statement which will only further provoke Orestes' envy and hatred, and which recalls the homecoming of Agamemnon's herald in the Agamemnon. Notice too that Menelaus, even after learning of the death of his brother, expected to 'put his arms around Orestes and his mother" (top 1/2, col. 1, pg 33) - suggesting that Menelaus had no intention of even punishing Clytemnestra! And why not? After all, with Agamemnon dead, he becomes number one in Greece.

Orestes rises from his bed and shows himself to Menelaus, who is shocked at his appearance. Menelaus asks for details about his madness, which Orestes gives. The theme of Apollo is again brought up, and notice that Orestes says "We're only slaves to the gods -- whatever the gods are..." (middle, col. 2, pg 34) This is another example of the religous skepticism that frequently appears in Euripides. Menelaus then asks about the political repercussions of the murder, and Orestes points out that he has not been able to cleanse himself ritually of pollution, because all refuse to help him. Again, we should remember that in Aeschylus' account, Orestes went off and was purified of the murder, but  Euripides' more realistic account shows that this solution would not have been so simple. Then the play moves further into political considerations, as Orestes points out that Oiax, brother of Palamedes (whom Agamemnon allowed to be destroyed by Odysseus) and Aegisthus' faction are out to get him. Such hatreds and desires for revenge were very much a part of political life in Athens.

Orestes is obviously in a bad way, and note how he points out the success of Menelaus.  Orestes' hated will only be increased as Orestes is forced to plead for help, help he feels strongly that Menelaus owes him. Then, before Menelaus can make any decision, old Tyndareos, father of Helen and Clytemnestra, comes in. Orestes despairs, for he respects him as a father-figure from his past. We should note, however, how Tyndareos' savagery towards him will drive out this humane feeling.

Tyndareos does not come in raving in anger, but at first seems friendly, at least to Menelaus. That tone soon changes when he sees Menelaus talking to Orestes. Notice Tyndareos' reference to 'the snake who killed his mother". (top 1/4, col. 1, pg 36) We should remember that, in Aeschylus, Clytemnestra had a dream about giving birth to a snake who bit her, and in that play Orestes identifies himself as a snake that shall kill his mother.

In the following exchange between Menelaus and Tyndareos there is also an echo of Euripides' own time. During the Peloponnesian war Sparta was the deadly enemy of Athens. Sparta was the epitome of the old-fashioned, conservative state, but, under the pressures of a long war that involved many foreign campaigns, there was a new breed of Spartan around. Indeed, Sparta at this point was being given money by Persia, that old enemy of Greece, to pay for fleets and mercenaries to fight against Athens. Tyndareos here is an 'old fashioned' Spartan, and Menelaus one of the new breed. Notice that Tyndareos  says "All these years among the barbarians have made you one yourself' -- a veiled reference to Persian influence upon the Spartans. Notice what Menelaus later says "Only slaves do nothing but obey -- that's the enlightened view." (top middle col. 1, pg 38). Spartans were famous for their total obedience to custom and orders, and thus Menelaus is one of these new and degenerate Spartans. Of course, Tyndareos  is also bad, for he represents the old-fashioned, unreasoning type of attitude long associated with the Spartans.

Tyndareos in the following passages shows how he acts as if he is concerned about the rule of law, but this is just a cover for his own hatred and desire for vengeance. As I pointed out before, the setting of this play presumes that institutions (such as trials) are already in place, making the private act of vengeance that Orestes commits illegal and unnecessary. Zeus in the Oresteia used Orestes' predicament to establish such institutions, but here they already exist. It is interesting to see how Tyndareos  expresses some of the important issues of the Oresteia, such as the problem of an unending cycle of revenge that occurs without a legal system to handle these problems. Note that Tyndareos (col. 2, pg 36) suggests that, to break the cycle, murderers should be banished, not killed -- yet he will work hard do bring about the execution of Orestes. Again, he acts as if he is working to defend the rule of law, but his harsh condemnation of Orestes (col. 1, pg 38) shows what really is motivating him and what he intends to happen to Orestes.

On page 37 Orestes speaks in his defense. We see how, driven by the hatred of Tyndareos, Orestes feels compelled to defend himself. This need to defend oneself, unfortunately, all too quickly leads Orestes to forget his former understanding of his own guilt. The point I am trying to make is that, when Orestes was alone with the comforting and supportive Electra, he could see his own guilt and admit it. But, faced with the hate and condemnation of Tyndareos, such humane feelings vanish. Think of how, when we are involved in an angry argument with somebody who despises us,  we say things we would never say if we were having a calm discussion about the same topic with somebody who cared for us. Thus Orestes' arguments are a bit sophistic and excessive. Notice how he repeats the excuse given by Apollo in the Eumenides that "his was the seed, and hers the empty field." (middle col. 1, pg 37) -- and thus presumably Clytemnestra was not is 'real' parent. His second argument is that he avenged his father, and by doing so he protects all husbands against the murderous wives. His third argument is rather desperate -- he blames Tyndareos  for fathering Clytemnestra and Helen. And next Orestes repeats another argument from Aeschylus, that had he not acted, he would have been attacked by the Furies of his own father. And then finally Orestes mentions Apollo's oracle as an excuse, again as the Orestes of Aeschylus did.

Here Euripides, presenting the arguments of Aeschylus in the context of a more modern, sophistic speech shows us how hollow these arguments sound in the context of a modern situation. This contrast is even stronger because Orestes contradicts what he said earlier -- we remember how he told Electra how he believed that his father would have not even wanted Clytemnestra killed. Thus there is a sense that all these arguments from Aeschylus are merely a set of clever excuses that cover his real and base reasons for killing Clytemnestra.

Of course, Tyndareos  is outraged, and becomes even more determined for Orestes to die -- and we remember he just said murderers should be exiled. Tyndareos then attacks Electra, blaming her for inciting Orestes to kill Clytemnestra -- as she did in the Electra. Then Tyndareos turns to Menelaus and threatens him. Tyndareos  was king of Sparta before he retired and gave the throne to his son-in-law Menelaus, and one presumes he has a lot of influence still in Sparta.

Tyndareos  leaves and we see the political Menelaus pacing back and forth, undoubtedly worried about Tyndareos' threat and how he should respond to Orestes, who now tries to persuade him. Note some of the cynical tones of this defense. Orestes asks him first to 'save what I value most, my life.' (bottom 1/3, col. 2, pg 38) This is a servile thought -- that is, only a slave would think that mere life is the most important thing. What about honor? Indeed, this will be the reason the slave gives that causes Orestes to let the Trojan slave go later. And it gives us an explanation for some of Orestes' later deeds; Orestes is motivated by the simple desire to save his own skin. Then he says "What my guilt requires is a corresponding transgression from you." (top (bottom 1/3, col. 2, pg 38) Orestes in Aeschylus was very concerned with justice, but here Orestes admits that 'one bad deed deserves another.' so to speak, because of the debt that Menelaus owes Agamemnon and thus owes his son. Orestes notes that Agamemnon sacrificed Iphigenia for him, but he does not want the sacrifice of Hermione (which probably hints at what Orestes will do with Hermione later) but only his support in the Assembly. Orestes begs his help, which much be a very humiliating thing for him, making his hatred for Menelaus even greater. Note that even Orestes is forced to beg in the name of Helen ! (top col. 1, pg 39)

Menelaus gives a smooth, empty answer, of how he is without sufficient resources to compel the Argives, and how one must respect the anger of the people. This mention of public anger refers  (bottom col. 1, pg 39) again to the situation of Euripides' time, when demagogues would make use of public panic and anger to promote their own agenda. Menelaus instead promises to work behind the scenes with persuasion - and then admits that its all up to chance (top 1/3 col. 2, pg 39).

Menelaus leaves, and Orestes bitterly realizes that Menelaus will do nothing. But now Pylades comes in, whose utter loyalty contrasts with Menelaus' betrayal. In the relationship of Orestes and Pylades we should see more than noble friendship. In the political chaos of this period of Athenian history, there were numerous factions, bound together not so much by ideology as by mutual hatreds, loves and friendship. They would often be as fanatically loyal to each other as their hates were extreme. This is an outgrowth of the destroy-or-be-destroyed atmosphere of politics at that time, as seen in the passage of Thucydides. Young men were often a part of these factions, and indeed, aristocratic young men with daggers were formed the 'shock troops' of the anti-democratic revolution of 411 B.C. in Athens.

Orestes informs Pylades of how Helen has arrived, how Menelaus has betrayed them, Tyndareos' hatred, and that the Assembly must soon vote on their fate. Pylades encourages Orestes to defend himself before the Assembly, even if only to die like a man.  Pylades promises to go with him, and thus, supporting him, they go off to the Assembly. Notice that Pylades says "I don't care about the mob. (middle col. 1, pg 42)" This recalls the fact that many of Athenian factions were very antidemocratic and often referred to democratic government and the people as 'the mob.'

The following Ode, full of the mythological sufferings of the house of Atreus, makes the point that the horrible murder of Clytemnestra was the 'perverted piety in those who do evil and madness in those that conceive it.' (top col. 2, pg 42) This not only reminds us of the nature of Orestes' deed; I think that Euripides is also referring to the fact that many murders and other crimes of members of such political factions were carried out in the name of some higher cause -- we think of how terrorist organizations today carry out the murder of innocent people in the name of religion, ethnic purity, nationalism etc. But the madness and horror of their deeds remain unjustified.

A messenger comes in and describes what happened in the Assembly (bottom col. 1, pg 43 and following ). This description also realistically describes the behavior of Athenian assemblies. After Orestes limps in with Pylades, the herald announces the question to be debated -- what should be done about Orestes. First Talthybios speaks, the old herald of Agamemnon, who represents the crafty politician who tries to have it both ways, keeping good will with the supporters of Agamemnon by extolling the dead king, but speaking against Orestes since Aegisthus' party and the Argives were against him. Diomedes (another one of the famous fighters at Troy) offers a moderate solution, that Orestes be banished. Then there came to speak 'the kind of man who will say anything at all to get his way...." This is the demagogue, representing people like Cleon and  other political leaders of the time after Pericles who used tricky arguments to incite the people for his own political advantage, a hired gun for anybody, in this case Tyndareos (bottom col. 2, pg 43). Then a common man from the countryside spoke. In the Athenian assembly any male citizen could technically speak, and this farmer represents the conservative voice of the rural folk. He seems to have made quite an impression -- at least with the 'right kind'

Then Orestes got his chance. There is a sense that Orestes spoiled his own chances, perhaps by his empty, false claim that he slew his mother for the benefit of the citizens of Argos. A point that Aeschylus is probably making is that the kind of argument that Orestes makes in the Oresteia of Aeschylus would never work in the real world. The Assembly votes that Orestes and Electra must die, but gives them permission to kill themselves to avoid public stoning. Suicide was a frequent penalty (such as given to Socrates), although it was usually done though poison.

Electra, in her alternating song with the Chorus, again laments the ancient and present evils of her family, deepening the atmosphere of terror, gloom and doom. Orestes and Pylades return and announce the sentence of death. There follows another touching scene between Orestes and Electra, who acts almost like a wife and lover to him.(bottom 1/2 col 1, pg 45) This is not perverse, just Euripides' way of stressing what sort of people they might have been like had they not been born to such a family, and how their only loyalty is now to teach other and Pylades. At this point, as Orestes makes clear (page 45), they intend to commit suicide. Pylades, out of utter devotion to them, declares he will not go on living without them. But this does not mean he simply intends to commit suicide with them. As I noted above, Euripides senses that, as is present in every faction, there is an instigator, a Cassius, and in this case it is Pylades. Note that Pylades says "I was the one who planned everything..."(bottom 1/4 col. 1, pg 46). Now he instigates another plot -- "Let's see to it that Menelaos suffers with us." Again, the passion for revenge at all costs was a constant of Athenian politics. And Orestes quickly agrees. His hatred of Menelaus makes this a small step for him. Indeed, in Greek ethics, paying one's enemies back was a good and noble thing, but what happened was that, with the breakdown of social order, all standards of decency were lost.  Thus Pylades says -- "lets kill Helen." Orestes agrees, the same Orestes who once saw his murder of Clytemnestra as a crime, and who has even less justified reason for killing Helen. But this shows the power of hatred to destroy even our best intentions.

They then ponder the details of the plot. Notice then Pylades (bottom col. 1, pg 47) imagines how the Argives with make a 'cry of thanksgiving" for their murder of Helen. Notice too that they think that, even if they don't manage to kill Helen, they can at least set fire to the palace and die nobly. This passage reveals the sort of bizarre notions of self-glorification and self-destruction that extremist groups often manifest -- think of David Koresh's followers committing suicide at Waco, or assassins who commit murders thinking they will make an important political statement. There is a slightly crazy tone to these statements, the sort of tone you often see among people of a tight knit group that is so intent on their own hatreds and plans that they seem to lose their grip on reality. Think of those Freemen holding off the FBI in Montana -- what **do** did they think they would accomplish? But, just as the Freeman despise the popularly elected government of the United States, so Orestes despises 'the mob' (middle  col.2, pg 47).

Now previously both Orestes and Pylades had imagined their revenge including their own death. But note  now Orestes imagines the possibility of saving his own skin. Euripides wants us to see how acts of terror are not only caused by hatred and desire for revenge, but are also prompted by the simple desire to survive -- something that a heroic figure in Sophocles never worries about. As Thucydides notes, in the kill-or-be-killed environment of revolution, murder was a way not only of getting revenge, but of survival. But such a desire for survival debases the notion of heroic revenge that Orestes formerly spoke of.

Now notice it is Electra who figures out how they might escape, and suggests that they kidnap Hermione and hold her hostage ( col. 1, pg 48). As I mentioned above, Electra deeply resents Hermione, and thus is the one to think of this plan. So even Electra is corrupted by this atmosphere of revenge and hatred and desire to survive at any cost. In fact, she is pictured as another Clytemnestra; note what Orestes says of her: "A man's intelligence, matched with womanly grace. " (top 1/4 col. 2, pg 48). We remember how Aeschylus described Clytemnestra as "A woman with a man's heart." Like mother, like daughter. And like father, like son, for as Agamemnon killed the innocent Iphigenia, so Orestes is prepared to kill the innocent Hermione.

These echoes of Aeschylus are continued as Orestes and Electra make a formal  supplication to the spirit of Agamemnon (Col 2, page 48, col. 1 page 49)., which, although brief, recalls the great prayer of the Libation Bearers. But there the prayer was for help in an act of just punishment ordered by Apollo and approved by Zeus, while here the prayer is for an act of revenge murder and hostage taking inspired only by desperation and hatred.

Orestes and Pylades go inside the Palace, and the alternating dialogue between Chorus and Electra as they keep watch denotes the passing of time as the two men try to carry out their plot to kill Helen.

Then, just as in previous plays we heard Agamemnon cry out as he was killed, now we hear Helen screaming. (bottom 1/3 col. 1, pg 50).The Chorus urge them on to the killing,  (perhaps a bit like the Electra in Sophocles urged on Orestes).

Now, as if to keep us in suspense, at this point Euripides has Hermione show up, coming back from her offering at Clytemnestra's tomb. Notice how Electra counts on Hermione's good will to get to enter the palace -- where Orestes and Pylades are waiting, who seize the poor girl.

Now at this point, as the Chorus (pg. 51, col. 2) shows, we expect the usual scene that follows an act of revenge in a tragedy -- a formal messenger speech describing the events that have happened inside, perhaps with the stage rolled out holding the bodies. But here Euripides plays boldly with such time worn conventions, for suddenly a terrified Phrygian slave comes out, babbling barely comprehensible Greek, a fact that your translation does not make clear.  This scene is actually comic, for slaves that could barely speak Greek were a stock joke of Comedy. The slave then describes how Pylades and Orestes tried to murder Helen, who apparently disappeared. Notice the echoes of Aeschylus again, as the slave (middle col. 1, pg 52). speaks of Orestes as "that serpent who murdered his mother..leading the child of Tyndareos into the fatal nets of a trap. "  Nets, of course, are a famous image of Aeschylus.

There is another interesting aspect to the slave's speech. Note that  the slave mentioned how he once fought Ajax. Yet it is clear  Phrygian (= Trojans), as he himself admits, are cowardly fighters. And notice that Pylades is compared to Ajax. See also that the murderous Pylades is compared to both Ajax and Hector. Perhaps Euripides is also saying that the great and noble Trojan war was nothing better than this sordid palace fight, again debunking the glorious, heroic world of war. We should remember at this point Athens has been in more or less constant war for twenty years, long enough for any notion of war as glorious thing to be lost.

Then follows another rather grotesque scene as Orestes comes out seeking the slave, who grovels in order to save his life. (middle col. 1 pg 53).This scene is both cruel and comic. Orestes, after threatening him with death, playing with his fears, spares his life after the slave declares his love of life at any cost, and, since Orestes agrees with this, we must conclude that Orestes shares similar feelings. Orestes then sends the Phrygian to get Menelaus. Notice how the Chorus, as they notice  Pylades, Electra and Orestes kindling torches in order to burn the palace they refer to the palace as the 'House of Tantalus.' Tantalus  was the great-grandfather of Agamemnon, and the first great sinner of the family, with his son Pelops (who killed Myrtilos) the second. The point is that Orestes is now continuing the pattern of evil.

Menelaus comes on stage with men and tries to enter the palace, and Orestes, Electra and Pylades appear on the roof, with Orestes holding a sword to Hermione's throat while Electra and Pylades hold torches. We remember how the final scene of the Eumenides consisted of the torch light procession the Furies, now changed to Eumenides, to their new cult center in Athens, where they were to protect Athens against criminals and civil faction. Here those torches are posed by terrorists to destroy a palace.

Orestes dictates his terms to Menelaus and threatens to kill Hermione right before his eyes. Notice how he almost boasts how about killing Clytemnestra ( col. 2, pg 54 ff.), saying "I'll never tire of killing whores...." Remember, earlier in the play Orestes had said that even Agamemnon would not have wanted Clytemnestra killed.  Notice too how at one point Orestes expects Menelaus to convince the people of Argos to let him rule! We think of similar hostage situations where completely unreal demands are made. Also I think we should wonder about the sanity of Orestes. Then after Menelaus gives in (You've pinned me, middle of col. 1, pg 56.) Orestes  orders Electra and Pylades to torch the palace. Why? Perhaps at some level Orestes realizes that there is no hope of survival, even with Menelaus' promise, and, like those poor devils in Waco, he decides to destroy himself, his followers and Hermione in an act of ultimate hatred and despair.

Then, above the stage, Apollo appears, hoisted by the mechane for another 'god from the machine' ending.  Apollo ties up the loose ends of the plot, as he proclaims that he rescued Helen, who is to become a goddess along with her brothers, and Orestes is to marry the girl whose throat he is prepared to slit, after he has been acquitted by the trial at Athens. Pylades is to marry Electra, and Orestes will then rule in Argos. Apollo will reconcile them, since he is responsible for the death of Clytemnestra. Note also how Helen is to be a god, since she was part of  god's purpose to cause the Trojan war in order to diminish human population.

The epiphany of Apollo is deeply ironic. The story has gone very, very far from the usual legend, and Apollo must intervene to make sure the legend turns out as it is supposed to, with Orestes aquitted and  married to Hermione. But this ending is absurd. I think that by this ending Euripides shows us two things; first, that in real life the legend as recounted by Aeschylus could never have had so satisfying a conclusion. And second, if we consider this play as a commentary about Athenian political life, Euripides may be telling us that things have gotten so bad at Athens that only an impossible act of God could save them.

Note how Orestes is even surprised, and says "Great Loxias! ( = a cult name for Apollo) those oracles hold the truth after all. And yet I kept on shivering with fear, thinking what  heard as your voice was some fiend's" ( bottom col. 2, pg 56) This may make a point I considered earlier, that, on a naturalistic level, Orestes may be insane, and have heard 'voices' that drove him to  murder.

All characters submit to Apollo's orders, and Apollo goes away, again announcing how Helen will be a goddess, and the Chorus sing a hymn of victory, as if all was resolved. This bright ending only emphasizes the deep despair of the play, for such endings are impossible, and we know the real play should have ended in the burning palace, and in death and more death.
 

  Back to the Great Books and Ideas I Extra Notes Page 

Back to the home page of Jean Alvares